TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Paul Atkinson on February 09, 2013, 02:38:06 PM

Title: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Paul Atkinson on February 09, 2013, 02:38:06 PM
From a 2009 MysteryQuest episode on the Bermuda Triangle.  They were exploring the wreck of an airplane.  Looks eerily similar to the proposed landing gear photo by Bevington.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on February 12, 2013, 08:21:51 AM
Paul

Thats interesting
What was the story with this aircraft? Was this arrangement of debris the result of an impact/crash or of storm/wave action on one that was once fairly intact?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Paul Atkinson on February 12, 2013, 12:10:17 PM
Matt,

It was pretty interesting.  If you YouTube the keyword "MysteryQuest Devil's Triangle" you can find the episode and watch it.  Might give you a better answer than I would.  Also, it wasn't the only plane they looked at.  This one, however, was a twin engine and some of the underwater footage was striking in comparison to much of what is discovered here.  If anything, it would be a great visual reference for how things look under water.

Paul
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: George Pachulski on February 15, 2013, 11:43:12 AM


 I like this photo from another part of this web site , concerning electra wheels struts , ( not a pic of Nickop site) and the testamony about what was in the water near nicko , notice how rusty and steel like it looks .....

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2346;image

 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2346;image)
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on February 15, 2013, 12:49:32 PM
George

I believe the wheel struts along with engines were made of steel so the rust is not surprising. 

A post from another thread last year where this picture also showed up
Malcolm

I'm not suggesting that Emily saw any aluminum, she specifically says she didn't see aluminum, only the rusty stuff.

RG:   You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES:   No, all gone. Nothing.

I'm thinking the landing gear only - rusting away, with the rest of the aircraft floated off the reef into the deep where we will hopefully find it in reasonably large pieces this coming July.

By the way, I believe the main wing spar which ran throughout the cabin was made of steel, not aluminum.  That would be about the largest structural member found within the entire aircraft, but it wasn't tubular as described by Emily, but the landing gear structure was.

{UPDATE - OK, the main beam through the cabin was not steel.  Not sure where I got that notion, seemed odd, but I thought it came up in some previous discussion.  I guess I'm suffering from information overload!}

............


Andrew
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 14, 2013, 09:38:01 AM
Can someone please help me to find the Scale by which it has been determined that this "Bevington Object" is an Electra landing gear? Is there something else in the water of known length?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 14, 2013, 10:14:32 AM
Tim, in the un-cropped original Bevington photograph the Norwich City is in the background. Now, we know the length of the Norwich City but, that was when it was seaworthy. If you look at it in the Bevington photograph it has begun to fall apart so, the length is questionable and therefore not much use for scaling. If we could get some accurate info for funnel and masts sizes it would be better, they look to be in good nick in the photo, then the number crunching could begin. Apart from that there isn't much else to go on regarding scale in the Bevington photograph. IMHO of course.


Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Gary L Kerr on September 14, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Tim, you can look at http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf) about half way down. It gave me a rough
idea of what is involved (math). For more specific info check with your experts on how they do it.
It would be nice if we all shared...
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 14, 2013, 01:58:49 PM
The math was to triangulate the location, not he possible size of the Bevington object?

"Jeff calculated the object’s position by triangulating features that are identifiable in both the 1937 photo and in a modern satellite image of the island. With the ship of known dimensions providing a convenient scale, Jeff was able to place Nessie 416 meters – about a quarter of a mile – north of the shipwreck and at the very edge of the reef flat."

Would the dimensions of a ship wreck be the same as when it was constructed Gary?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 14, 2013, 03:06:24 PM
Exactly, Jeff. I can see how the NC could provide scale to something just adjacent to the ship, but not something 416 meters away.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Gary L Kerr on September 14, 2013, 04:39:38 PM
In the picture the NC was not the reference point - they know the scale with some precision:

"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."

In Tims posted cropped pic there are no beaches or ships - way to go Tim...
your experts methods and expert findings are not available to us your peers, but you seek
the specifics of our methods and findings. We just want to find the Electra why wont you help
us now like you did?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 14, 2013, 06:55:44 PM
For you math wizards out there:

If you triangulate from the shoreline to the Bevington Object and come up with a distance from the shore can’t you reverse the calculations and estimate the height of the Bevington Object + - the height of the shore objects?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 14, 2013, 07:31:34 PM
Exactly, Jeff. I can see how the NC could provide scale to something just adjacent to the ship, but not something 416 meters away.

That's because you're not trained in forensic imaging.  Neither am I.  Jeff Glickman is.  It's a complicated process that begins with establishing exactly where the object is with relation to known objects and distances.  Here is the schematic Jeff used to find where the Bevington had to be when he took the photo (yellow cross) and where, therefore, the Object was (red dot).  As you see, he correlated terrain features and objects on the reef identifiable in the Bevington Photo with the same features in a modern-day geo-referenced satellite image.  Once you have the object placed in a matrix where you have multiple checks on sizes of objects (such as the NC) and distances you can reliably solve for the size of the object in question.  This is precisely what we do not have in the underwater video imagery.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 14, 2013, 08:55:49 PM
So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 14, 2013, 09:02:49 PM
So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?

You'll have to ask Jeff.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Alfred Cramer on September 15, 2013, 02:19:37 AM
Jeff has deduced the locations of the camera and the Bevington Object by drawing lines between reference points.  Knowing these locations, it's not that hard to scale the B.O.  I don't know the exact height of the Norwich City, but let's suppose its bow was 50 feet. I put a ruler on the photo and found that the height of the image of the B.O. is about .5 times the image of bow of the Norwich City. (That's very approximate--I could do better if I had the high-res version of the whole photo.) Multiply 50 by .5 -- but we still have to compensate for the two objects' different distances to the camera.  My ruler on Jeff's schematic (see reply #7 or #12 in this thread) says that the N.C. is 7.5 times as far from the camera as the B.O.  So divide the ratio of the two images' heights by 7.5 to compensate. That is,

(height of BO) = (.5 / 7.5) x (height of bow of NC) = .067 x (height of bow of NC) = .067 x 50 ft = 3.33 ft

It's not an exact measurement, but the result is very much in the right ballpark.  And the fact that the BO and NC are hundreds of feet apart doesn't matter.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 05:38:54 AM
Yes, Mr. Cramer, but my question goes to the reliability and precision of the postulated position of the camera, due to the extemely acute angle between the site lines.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 06:08:27 AM

"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."


Ah, Gary, but then you are defining the size of the object using one of its components for scale. I understood this to be a no no because we dont know that the black blob is a tire in the first place.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 06:20:29 AM
So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?


You'll have to ask Jeff.


The problem can be restated, Ric, as the difficulty in solving for two unknowns (the position of the camera and the position of the Bevington Object) rather than just one.


Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 15, 2013, 08:55:39 AM
The math is correct Alfred but I think the assumed 50ft may be a bit off for the bow section according to the central yard log 792.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 09:09:11 AM

"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."



Now, Gary, your reference to the main landing gear tire being of diameter 35 inches now presents an entirely new problem:

My measurement of the ratio between the bottom (horizontal) edge of the worm gear to the full diameter of the tire appears to be 7:12. If the tire were 35 inches in diameter, that would imply a worm gear measurement of 20.6 inches.

However, using a real scale (in inches) you can see that the comparable length of that radius, taken from a bonafide L10E spare worm gear, is a mere 14.5 inches, or at least 41% less than the dimension one would expect.

I conclude, therefore, that the declaration by those at TIGHAR that the Bevington object is actually an Electra landing gear, is now highly questionable. YMMV.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 09:30:28 AM
Jeff, as you know, I believe that the best indication that the BO might be a landing gear, is the presence several hundred meters down the fall line of a debris field that I believe contains many Electra parts, including a contorted main landing gear with an evident worm gear in the shape of that displayed in my previous post.

My points were (1) to question the validity of the TIGHAR analysis based upon the lack of scale, a sin for which I have been criticized incessantly, and (2) to point out again the never-ending modification of the expert's opinion based upon the whim of the week.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Alfred Cramer on September 15, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
The math is correct Alfred but I think the assumed 50ft may be a bit off for the bow section according to the central yard log 792.

Perfectly happy to be corrected, Jeff.  What would be your estimate?

As to Mr. Mellon's question about acute angles:  To the extent that the lines and their intersections may be uncertain, I don't see it raising the ratio of distances (7.5 in my calculation earlier) above about 9 or below about 6.  That's just my estimate.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 10:12:01 AM
Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?

(Come to think of it, what is that blobby white U-shape object directly underneath the tire? It has no corresponding landing gear equivalent? Jeff Glickman, can you help here?)
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2013, 10:45:21 AM
What happened to the Forensic Report of the underwater footage Tim posted earlier, I think it was in this thread but now I don't see it?


Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 10:52:31 AM
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2013, 11:11:36 AM
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.
I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 12:44:48 PM
"Sectored ring gear" works for me, Jeff. Is that what you use on the Gulfstreams?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2013, 01:02:49 PM
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.
I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?

That's interesting, Greg - where did you see that?  I don't recall anything like that being posted here and can't find such a critter on the TIGHAR site.  Is it published somewhere like Nauticos or similar?  Sounds like a serious study, I would love to see that.

It was posted by Tim, I'm pretty sure it was an attachment in his first post of this thread. It was up for a while. Several people were on-line while it was up.
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".
Is that the name of the report done for you Tim?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Alfred Cramer on September 15, 2013, 01:09:59 PM
Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?

No, sir.  You're misreading both my meaning and my arithmetic. I did not say "add 9 inches"--I meant that the 7.5 in the formula from my reply #15 should perhaps be as high as 9:
hBO = .5 / 9 * 50 ft = 2.8 ft

or as low as 6:
hBO = .5 / 6 * 50 ft = 4.2 ft


In order to have both the Norwich City and the BO in the same image, I was working from the low-res photo available in several places on the Tighar website.  (Maybe if I joined Tighar I would have access to a higher-res version of the entire photo :D)  The low-res image is vague enough that I can't tell exactly how the high-res with reconstruction fits to it, so I can't answer your other question; I can't tell whether the top of the "tire" is or isn't part of the dark area visible in the low-res image. That's why .5 in my formula is also vague. The object, then, is between 2 and 6 feet high, most likely in the middle of that range. 

If you want a hard-and-fast exact scale, I can't offer it.  I merely meant to argue that even a schmo in an armchair like me has enough information to easily infer a scale and that that scale is consistent with the size of what Tighar hypothesizes it to be (it's not 10 feet tall, and it's not 6 inches).  Maybe it's not a landing gear, but I haven't yet seen evidence that it can't be.
 
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 01:19:48 PM
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.
I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?

That's interesting, Greg - where did you see that?  I don't recall anything like that being posted here and can't find such a critter on the TIGHAR site.  Is it published somewhere like Nauticos or similar?  Sounds like a serious study, I would love to see that.

It was posted by Tim, I'm pretty sure it was an attachment in his first post of this thread. It was up for a while. Several people were on-line while it was up.
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".
Is that the name of the report done for you Tim?

Nice try, Greg. My first post on this thread was about the lack of scale in the most recent variation of the Bevington Object, which is the only attachment to that post.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 15, 2013, 01:21:08 PM
We've been down this path before: Amateurs attempting to naysay the work of experts in the field of photogrammetry; amateurs trying to show that a picture shows that something could never be what the professional has determined through years of experience and availability of first-rate tools; amateurs trying to make inferences about sizes without any existing reference to scale.

For instance, look at any of the illusions that can be seen on YouTube. My favorite, a link that I've posted before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCV2Ba5wrcs), is a classic for fooling the unsuspecting amateur who would swear that something is one way, and most certainly cannot be any other way, when in fact some easily-grasped extra knowledge about scale reveals things to be surprisingly otherwise.

Let's not go down that trail of amateur photogrammetry again (e.g., "were AE's maingear tires 35" or 27" in diameter?") concerning the picture of the Bevington Object. There is sophisticated mathematical computation that went on to measure the size of the components in that picture -- things that an expert like Jeff Glickman can fully understand and use, and can document in a detailed report that mere mortals like us can then read and begin to understand. But in the absence of any shred of documented expertise, amateur musings here are just so much blithering nonsense and noise.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2013, 01:21:28 PM
Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.
Could you have attached it by mistake? Maybe a path glitch?  I recall it did not match the text of your post well.
Is "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition" the name of a report done by your experts?
Where did you get the picture of the worm gear with the scale on top? 
Was that picture taken for use in your report?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 01:28:27 PM
Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?

No, sir.  You're misreading both my meaning and my arithmetic. I did not say "add 9 inches"--I meant that the 7.5 in the formula from my reply #15 should perhaps be as high as 9:
hBO = .5 / 9 * 50 ft = 2.8 ft

or as low as 6:
hBO = .5 / 6 * 50 ft = 4.2 ft


In order to have both the Norwich City and the BO in the same image, I was working from the low-res photo available in several places on the Tighar website.  (Maybe if I joined Tighar I would have access to a higher-res version of the entire photo :D)  The low-res image is vague enough that I can't tell exactly how the high-res with reconstruction fits to it, so I can't answer your other question; I can't tell whether the top of the "tire" is or isn't part of the dark area visible in the low-res image. That's why .5 in my formula is also vague. The object, then, is between 2 and 6 feet high, most likely in the middle of that range. 

If you want a hard-and-fast exact scale, I can't offer it.  I merely meant to argue that even a schmo in an armchair like me has enough information to easily infer a scale and that that scale is consistent with the size of what Tighar hypothesizes it to be (it's not 10 feet tall, and it's not 6 inches).  Maybe it's not a landing gear, but I haven't yet seen evidence that can't be.

Sorry to not understand your calculations, Mr. Cramer. Thank you for the clarification.

I am likewise a schmo that infers scale from the things I see. I catch hell for it every day.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.
Could you have attached it by mistake? Maybe a path glitch?  I recall it did not match the text of your post well.
Is "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition" the name of a report done by your experts?
Where did you get the picture of the worm gear with the scale on top? 
Was that picture taken for use in your report?

I took that picture myself in Grace McGuire's hangar. That is my ruler. Those are my boots. I have permission from Grace to use the picture in any way I see fit.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: JNev on September 15, 2013, 01:38:01 PM
"Sectored ring gear" works for me, Jeff. Is that what you use on the Gulfstreams?

It's kind of a generic term, but we did use 'sector' linkage in the primary control linkage throughout the GI through G550 (G650 is 'fly by wire' but still uses some conventional mechanical linkage for actuation at the surface of course).  Same principle.

Sorry to be so picky!  Just a pet peeve on terms - as grey as the rest of me usually is on stuff, the old A&P is hard-headed black and white!  ;)
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 15, 2013, 01:44:28 PM
Amazing thing, this screen capture program ...

LTM, who knows what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 04:05:23 PM
There is sophisticated mathematical computation that went on to measure the size of the components in that picture -- things that an expert like Jeff Glickman can fully understand and use, and can document in a detailed report that mere mortals like us can then read and begin to understand. But in the absence of any shred of documented expertise, amateur musings here are just so much blithering nonsense and noise.

Bruce, could you kindly provide a specific reference to Jeff Glickman's detailed report about these measurements?

Thanks,
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2013, 06:32:21 PM
See attached sketch with letters assigned to various parts.
If the Lockheed assigned name is not known, what would be the generic name for the parts shown?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2013, 06:53:21 PM
I think what is seen in the Bevington Object may include part of the oleo cylinder in the light area that is curved.
Also, the orientation of the gear, how much is covered by water, how much may have penetrated the tire, the angle at which it is viewed and the distance the worm gear is in front of the tire changes the proportions.
The dimensions in the attached sketch are ballpark estimates but are provided to show how adding parts and changing orientation may affect the proportions.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 07:21:00 PM
See attached sketch with letters assigned to various parts.
If the Lockheed assigned name is not known, what would be the generic name for the parts shown?

Greg, Uncle Jeff Neville is correct in insisting that we use the name "Sector Ring Gear" to describe the part attached to the oleo strut. The "worm gear" is merely the screw attached to the motor that causes the ring gear to change position (up or down) in response to a command from the landing gear lever in the cockpit.

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 07:25:09 PM

Also, the orientation of the gear, how much is covered by water, how much may have penetrated the tire, the angle at which it is viewed and the distance the worm gear is in front of the tire changes the proportions.

Oh, more variables to account for! I love it.

The Bevington Object is just a Moveable Fiest!


Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 07:41:44 PM
Where was that declared by TIGHAR, Tim?  I've seen you 'declare' some things as 'definite', but not TIGHAR.  Maybe I missed it - respectfully, can you link us to a statement made by TIGHAR 'declaring' that the Bevington object 'is actually' an Electra gear?


Here, Jeff. "There is only one possible source..." (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf) (end of first full paragraph of the article).
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 15, 2013, 07:44:39 PM
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week.  That should clear up any questions about names of components.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 15, 2013, 07:47:00 PM
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week.  That should clear up any questions about names of components.

I consider John Balderston the authority here. What do we call these things, John?

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 15, 2013, 07:57:04 PM
Where was that declared by TIGHAR, Tim?  I've seen you 'declare' some things as 'definite', but not TIGHAR.  Maybe I missed it - respectfully, can you link us to a statement made by TIGHAR 'declaring' that the Bevington object 'is actually' an Electra gear?


Here, Jeff. "There is only one possible source..." (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf) (end of first full paragraph of the article).

No. You're quoting out of context.  The paragraph says (emphasis added),
"TIGHAR and U.S. Government analysts agree that the image SEEMS to show the wreckage of a main landing gear assembly from a Lockheed Electra. There is only one possible source for such debris in that place at that time - Earhart's Model 10E speciual NR16020."

Those sentences say that IF the image shows what it SEEMS to show THEN there is only one possible explanation.
 
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 15, 2013, 08:02:48 PM
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week.  That should clear up any questions about names of components.

I consider John Balderston the authority here. What do we call these things, John?

John is a current Lockheed Martin employee but (correct me if I'm wrong John) he was not involved in the engineering for the Model 10.  You're saying that he is a better source for what we call these things than the original Lockheed engineering drawings.  'Nuff said.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: John Balderston on September 15, 2013, 09:51:16 PM
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week.  That should clear up any questions about names of components.

I consider John Balderston the authority here. What do we call these things, John?

John is a current Lockheed Martin employee but (correct me if I'm wrong John) he was not involved in the engineering for the Model 10.  You're saying that he is a better source for what we call these things than the original Lockheed engineering drawings.  'Nuff said.

Tim and Ric,

Please consult L-10 engineering drawings or perhaps maintenance pubs for this info if available.  I don't have a set so unfortunately am no help here.  I wish i did - that and additional digital imaging expertise and I might be able to do more with that reef slope.  Sorry.

Sincerely, John

Ps - I seem to recall this part rightly or wrongly referred to as a  "bull gear" if I'm not mistaken. . .

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Collins on September 16, 2013, 08:30:06 AM
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".

Sounds interesting how about posting it for all to read?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 16, 2013, 08:53:15 AM
I recall 'bull gear' being used somewhere.

We always called it the "bull gear" before we got a copy of the "Lockheed Model 10 Maintenance Parts Catalog"  and discovered that there's nothing on the Model 10 that Lockheed called a "bull gear."  Unfortunately, the catalog is not illustrated so all we have is a list of part numbers and names.  I think the "bull gears" are "Part Numbers 41065L and 41056R - Worm Gear" but the engineering drawings should tell us for sure.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 16, 2013, 06:47:31 PM
Did I ever mention that some of these site logging programs are pretty amazing little critters? Amazing what they can scoop up, 24/7/365, after being told what to look for.

DOD "field testing" has its benefits.

LTM, who remembers who was not in the courtroom in Casper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Dan Swift on September 16, 2013, 08:52:18 PM
Ric stated...."Here is the schematic Jeff used to find where the Bevington had to be when he took the photo (yellow cross) and where, therefore, the Object was (red dot)." 

Ric, any movement on getting this trianglation-location on the "Dot-Dash" photo?  You were 'working' on it a few months ago....but there have been a few other developments since.   
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2013, 06:52:09 AM
Ric, any movement on getting this trianglation-location on the "Dot-Dash" photo?  You were 'working' on it a few months ago....but there have been a few other developments since.   

We got a new hi-res copy of the "Dot-Dash" photo from New Zealand and Jeff Glickman took a close look at it.  Nothing of interest there.  No need to work out precise location.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Dan Swift on September 17, 2013, 09:16:06 AM
Wow!  That is surprising to hear....considering their general location.
Any 'speculation' on what they are then?    Flaws in the picture? 
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
Wow!  That is surprising to hear....considering their general location.
Any 'speculation' on what they are then?    Flaws in the picture?

Probably coral blocks.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: richie conroy on September 17, 2013, 04:18:09 PM
Hi All

Doubt will be of any help but attached are a couple parts diagrams for Lockheed 12 & 10a

Hope they are of some help

Thanks
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2013, 05:39:57 PM
Attached is the engineering drawing for Installation 40650 but I'm afraid it raises more questions than it answers.  The "bull gear"/"worm gear" is shown but not labeled.  The two-piece guard is shown as a single part "42817 fender."  The Maintenance Parts Catalog lists 42817L and 42817R (obviously left and right) and yet the photo of the airplane at the Pima Air Museum (c/n 1011 - the earliest surviving Electra) clearly shows that the fender is in two pieces, front and back.  The Revisions section of the drawing may provide the answer. First flight of the Model 10 was 2-23-34.  The Revisions show that a "guard" was added 11-20-34.  The guard was removed 1-7-35 and a "fender" was added.  Maybe the two-piece unit was a "guard" which was replaced with a single piece "fender" in January 1935.  C/n 1011 was delivered 12-21-34 so it would have had the two-piece guard - if I'm interpreting the revisions correctly.  If that is the case, then c/n 1055 should have had a single piece "fender."

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Russ Matthews on September 17, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
I was at the Reno Air Races last weekend (September 14, 2013) and shot the attached photo of the right main gear on a Lockheed Electra ultimately destined for display at the Seattle Museum of Flight.  The plane is c/n 1015, built originally as a 10A and later converted to a 10E for Linda Finch's 1997 retracing of Earhart's route.  Interestingly, the gear is reported to have been "borrowed" from another aircraft (c/n 1026) that was formerly on exhibit with the Western Aerospace Museum in Oakland, CA.  Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece. 
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2013, 06:29:46 PM
Interestingly, the gear is reported to have been "borrowed" from another aircraft (c/n #1026) that was formerly on exhibit with the Western Aerospace Museum in Oakland, CA.  Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.

C/n 1026 was delivered June of 1935.  Finch "borrowed" many parts that somehow never found their way back.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on September 17, 2013, 07:54:50 PM
Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.

Kinda looks like one piece, but I'm not entirely convinced.  How and why would it carry through the structure of the gear fork?

Would be great to have a closer series of photos.

Andrew
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 17, 2013, 08:26:27 PM
Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.
Nice picture.
Zoom in at where the fork intersects the front and back fender. 
Also note the reinforcing plate at attachment edge.
Looks like 2 pieces to me.
The close up pictures I have seen of the fender on AE's Electra look like 2 piece fenders to me.
The Bevington object looks like the fender failed at one attachment point and rotated, IMHO
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2013, 08:55:18 PM
I should have a complete set of digitized Model 10 engineering drawings (all 2000+) in a month or two, but we won't be able to publish them due to copyright issues.  We can, however, use them for research purposes.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 17, 2013, 09:57:12 PM
Well spotted Greg. The fasteners I have circled in red seem to be different to all the others, larger and, they appear to be the ones fixing the parts to something else.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 17, 2013, 10:32:57 PM
Well spotted Greg. The fasteners I have circled in red seem to be different to all the others, larger and, they appear to be the ones fixing the parts to something else.
Agreed. The larger fasteners seem to line up with the tabs seen on the fork from the Field school photos. There are two on each side of the fork. Each fender part has only two points of connection to the fork (not counting the braces on the larger piece). That stiffener plate seen in the photo Russ posted makes the edge stronger and less likely to tear at the two point loads. The smaller rivets are for the stiffener, the larger fasteners you noted are to the attach the fender to the fork. IMHO
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 18, 2013, 07:34:07 AM
In the meantime, here are a couple of close shots - front and rear - of the fender on c/n 1011.  Note the lack of the reinforcing plate that is present on the fender from c/n 1026 that is now on the rebuilt c/n 1015.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: JNev on September 18, 2013, 08:09:48 AM
Here's some useful information provided by Woody to me this morning - straight from the FAA TCDS for the L10 -

Equipment list shows -

Class I - item 14: "Retracting landing gear, electric worm drive 12.5:1 gear and EDC No. 45040 electric motor (100
amp. fuse required)"

Class II - item 47: "Landing gear (Knuckle type) retracting mech. With 12.5:1 gear ratio and EDC No. 45040 electric
motor (140 amp. Fuxe required) (replaces standard worm and sector type)"

There is the terminology for the 'bull gear' arrangement - 'standard worm and sector type'.

TCDS pdf attached for perusal.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 18, 2013, 08:37:51 AM

There is the terminology for the 'bull gear' arrangement - 'standard worm and sector type'.


So the "bull gear" part would be called - what? - the "sector"?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: JNev on September 18, 2013, 08:57:36 AM

There is the terminology for the 'bull gear' arrangement - 'standard worm and sector type'.


So the "bull gear" part would be called - what? - the "sector"?

Yes.

A true 'bull gear' in industry speak belongs more to trucks and tractors and such - it is a 'granny gear' - large and stout for tremendous torque and load capability.  Somehow 'bull gear' emerged in this case, I think, as natural slang for the 'sector' gear - for an aircraft, it is 'large and stout' and handles a fair torque load considering it must not only raise the gear, but extend it against the airstream - and in this unusual design, absorb ground loads (there is no 'knuckle', over-center / articulating link - all you have is that gear to handle the fore and aft bending moments).
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 18, 2013, 08:58:36 AM
Here's a short video of a worm gear in action from a vehicle steering box. It gives a rough idea of the principle of the worm gear working and, the effect it has on the sector gear. I had to replace one of these steering boxes in my VW beetle 1302S when I was younger  :'(  very expensive!

http://youtu.be/n5PGsotdA7Y (http://youtu.be/n5PGsotdA7Y)

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 18, 2013, 09:09:46 AM
Sector gear name derived from the name of a part of a circle as Jeff poined out...

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 18, 2013, 11:12:06 AM
Three photos from Woody (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=548):
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 18, 2013, 11:36:50 AM
Yeah, that last one is Gracie McGuire fitting a piece of metal debris from the Luke Field crash to the gear of her 10E for History Detectives (except she was totally wrong - don't get me started).
Great detail shot of the front fender though.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Scott Doudrick on September 18, 2013, 02:31:44 PM
I have done a fair bit of interpreting engineering drawings from the '30s.  From that standpoint, and a general engineering view, I have a few observations.  They are of course only speculation in the end, unfortunately.

Part and drawing number assignment is somewhat specific to an individual company.  However, some generalizations can be made:
1) When something has a part number, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a single piece-part.  Numbers can be assigned to an assembly which in turn then has its own sub-parts, sub-sub-parts, etc.  A drawing will also have a name.  Each of those have subs which also all have part numbers.  When you get all the way down to piece-parts, drawings will typically have instructions on how to make that part.  That piece-part drawing is what would be sent to a shop for manufacture.
2) When something has a part number, not only can it be made up of multiple parts, it doesn't necessarily have to be delivered as one piece.  The number could refer to a 'kit.'
3) The bigger the company the more anal it is (and really, has to be).  The more people there are, and the more complicated the things they build are, the more that communication has to be very formalized.  This can mean something as mundane as the name of a part could have to go through a management change approval.

So, the more speculative parts.

One piece vs two
-The fender could well have always been multiple pieces but we just can't see the split.  Something like a landing gear fender would be more likely than average to be damaged and need replacement.  So it would/could have been a 'kit' where the pieces needed to replace the fender come together (per #2 above)
-Also, imagine removal and replacement of a fender which has been mangled.  Removal and replacement of a part like the fender could be difficult to do if it were one piece.  You might have to cut away parts to get enough clearance to bring it through the yolk.  Two pieces come apart and back together easily.  I very much suspect that what we are seeing is two implementations of two-piece fenders.

Possible reasons for the change between fender and guard:
-Since the fender clearly did change, they very easily could have been designed by two different engineers.  One called it a guard and the other called it a fender!
-Per #3 above, someone could have messed up and wrote down the wrong word.  It then took from November '34 to January '35 to get the change from one word to another approved!

Cheers,
Scott
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Russ Matthews on September 18, 2013, 03:16:00 PM
Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.
Looks like 2 pieces to me.

Ha!  Clearly I needed to pay closer attention to my own photo  8)
Title: Inverted landing gear on crashed electra
Post by: John Wallace on September 18, 2013, 04:05:45 PM
Inverted, intact landing gear from electra c/n 1005, CF-HTV, which crashed July 1972 (without injuries) near Birch Lake, NWT, Canada. Not as detailed as some other pics in topic but interesting perspective.

(Cropped screen capture @ 33 min, 26 sec from Ice Pilots NWT, season 4 episode 12 wherein wreckage located and tail fin recovered.)
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: John Ousterhout on September 18, 2013, 05:23:12 PM
John Wallace's posted picture would bear a stronger resemblance to the Bevington Object if the tire were intact.  It occurs to me that a landing gear with worm and sector drive would need to be in the "down" or "landing" configuration to be visible this way.  If it were in the "raised" or "flight" configuration, the fork and tire would remain within the nacelle unless some force overwhelmed the drive system.
What this implies to me is that if the B.O. were a landing gear, then the aircraft it belonged to had its gear down, implying a landing on solid ground was attempted.  If the gear were up, then a water ditching would be implied.  If the B.O. were a cement mixer, then I don't know if it was in landing or flight configuration.
Title: Re: Inverted landing gear on crashed electra
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 18, 2013, 05:36:25 PM
Inverted, intact landing gear from electra c/n 1005, CF-HTV, which crashed July 1972 (without injuries) near Birch Lake, NWT, Canada. Not as detailed as some other pics in topic but interesting perspective.

C/n 1005 burned.  The center section was consumed by the fire but, although the tire burned, the fire in that location was not hot enough to melt the aluminum.
I find it interesting that the fork in the photos of the 1972 crash is still shiny whereas the fork in 1936 Idaho crash is rusty - suggesting that it takes quite a while for the fork to lose it's shine.  What appears to be the fork in the Bevington Object is shiny - as it should be after only three months.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: C.W. Herndon on September 19, 2013, 04:17:49 AM
Three photos from Woody:

Thanks for posting them Marty.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 19, 2013, 05:05:13 AM
Thanks for posting them (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1079.msg28075.html#msg28075), Marty.

You're welcome.

It was probably the high-resolution on the color photo that did you in, although I changed the filenames on the black-and-white photos, too.  The hash tag (#) is a linux wild-card, I believe.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Chris Johnson on September 19, 2013, 07:58:08 AM
Jeff,

an argument against the BO being the tyre/wheel pointing skywards has been how would it get hooked up in the reef.  Why not as part of the submerged wing as the wreck in mangled and hanging off the reef edge, ready to plummet down as Richies anomoly or Tims 'Coral Garden'.
Title: Re: Inverted landing gear on crashed electra
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
we could have a case where crashing surf rendered the airframe into scrap with a fairly good sized chunk somehow anchored in a groove on the reef, maybe near the drop off.

As you've noted, what we think we know about that location suggests that there wasn't enough water there to hide a good sized chunk of the airframe beneath the Bevington Object - but we must always recognize the possibility that we could be wrong.

In Idaho I was impressed by how HEAVY those landing gear components are.  From Lockheed documents we've now calculated the weight of the stuff we think we see in Bevington Object and it tips the scales at something over 250 lbs.   I'm re-thinking the need for this piece of wreckage to be hung up in a groove.  In the absence of a major weather event (unlikely at Niku between July and October) I can easily see a 250 lb. object remaining in place on the reef for three months.  The simpler the sequence of events required, the stronger the hypothesis.
1. Airplane lands on reef and sends distress calls for the next three, possibly as many as six, nights.
2. Rising tides and surf move the plane enough to cause the gear to fail much as it did in the Luke Field accident.
3. As the plane is pushed along the reef surface on its belly by wave action, one of the main gear assemblies separates from the airframe just as it did at Luke Field.
4. The plane goes over the reef edge, is beaten apart in the surf, and sinks out of sight.
5. The wreckage of the separated landing gear remains on the reef at least until October when it is inadvertently photographed by Bevington.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 19, 2013, 12:14:21 PM
In regards to the Aerial photos  in was noted “ the problem with jpeg images is that the process of converting them from the original format to jpeg greatly reduces the amount of information in the image and introduces distortions and "artifacts" that aren't really there.  In other words, to present the images in a format everyone can read we have to significantly degrade their quality. No way around it"

Can Jeff’s best image of the Bevington photo, in the best file type, be made available to study, perhaps included on a disk with the digitized Engineering drawings when they are ready? 

Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2013, 09:23:21 PM
Can Jeff’s best image of the Bevington photo, in the best file type, be made available to study, perhaps included on a disk with the digitized Engineering drawings when they are ready?

I can do that but it's the same situation as the with 1938 photos.  Jeff's best image is in raw (NEF) format which can be converted to 16 bit TIFF but you have to have the right hardware and software.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 19, 2013, 10:01:28 PM
Ric,
Go ahead and release the TIF image.  Some of us can get it others can't.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2013, 02:17:36 PM
Okay, the 16bit TIF is 4.7MB.  That's too big to post on the Forum but I can attach it to an email if your system will accept an attachment that big. Just send me an email (Ric@tighar.org) to reply to.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Tim Collins on September 20, 2013, 02:23:47 PM
Post it on TIGHAR's  Flikr stream?
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2013, 05:30:39 PM
Post it on TIGHAR's  Flikr stream?

I'm not sure that would work.  The system I suggested seems to be working.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 20, 2013, 05:48:59 PM
Got it fine thru E-mail.
Thank you Ric,
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 21, 2013, 10:37:20 AM
Interesting that the engineering drawing of a main landing gear shows two struts holding the worm tight to the sextor gear.
I suspect if the plane is found, some people will say the plane ditched, wheels up, and floated there (and someone already has). But if found intact with the worm is it's landing position that could prove a wheels down landing.
Title: Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 21, 2013, 03:22:07 PM
I suspect if the plane is found, some people will say the plane ditched, wheels up, and floated there (and someone already has). But if found intact with the worm is it's landing position that could prove a wheels down landing.

Unless the Japanese brought it down from Jaluit and dumped it there.  Somebody will say that.  You can bet on it.