TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: JNev on June 06, 2014, 04:42:46 PM

Title: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 06, 2014, 04:42:46 PM
This thread is started to focus on the idea that artifact 2-2-V-1 may be associated with the 'patch' covering of the large lavatory-area navigation window on NR16020. 

The old string "Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.0.html) (now closed) is linked here for reference and contains a number of photos and comments that may be of interest.

Similarly, a number of exchanges from the string "The Question of 2-2-V-1" (see reply #986 and subsequent therein (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg31841.html#msg31841)) are also linked as relevant to this discussion.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 06, 2014, 04:47:30 PM
On Friday, May 30, four members of the Artifact 2-2-V-1 Commission examined Lockheed 10A c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT.  Present were Lee Paynter, Bill Mangus, Karen Hoy and Your Obedient Servant.
We were not able to find anywhere on the New England Air Museum Lockheed 10 that met the criteria for a match to 2-2-V-1, even if the area was repaired in a way that did not require new engineering drawings.  There were two places where there were parallel rows of rivets and enough length without a crossing row of rivets.  One was on the belly in the area we had previously considered the best fit, but the rivet pitch there is 1.5 inches and we learned in Dayton that in a repair the rivet pitch cannot change.  The rivet pitch on the artifact is 1 inch so 2-2-V-1 cannot have come from there.
The section of the belly just forward of that location has rivets with a 1 inch pitch but the skin in that area is .040, not .032.  So we're left with a case of "close but no cigar." 

All the other interesting things we've observed about the artifact are still true and we still have no good alternate Aircraft of Origin.  The mystery deepens.  We're still waiting for the results of tests to determine whether there is aluminum paint on the interior surface of the artifact. The same test will also tell us whether there are traces of zinc chromate present that are not visible to the naked eye.

BTW, we were easily able to match the piece of wreckage from the Idaho wreck to the trailing edge of the starboard-side outer wing panel on the New England Air Museum airplane. This was a good illustration of how easy it is to match even a bent and twisted piece of wreckage to an intact example of the same type of aircraft - provided you have the right aircraft to match it to.

Where does that leave us with 2-2-V-1?  It doesn't fit anywhere on a standard Electra and for it to fit anywhere on Earhart's repaired Electra the basic structure would have to have been altered so much that it would require the approval new engineering drawings - and there are no such drawings indicated in the repair orders. Does that mean that 2-2-V-1 can now be eliminated as possibly being wreckage from NR16020?  Not quite.

There is one part of the Earhart Electra that was a special "field modification" that was not done as part of the post-Luke Field wreck repairs.  Jeff Nevile has this observation:
"I am wondering again about the late-installed cover for the large nav window which was created and installed in Miami. It was a 'one off' mod / de-mod effort with potential for deviation from mothership details, IMO. Trouble is, no other example exists in true-to-NR16020 form that I know of - unless Finch's L10 at Seattle museum of flight has a faithful duplication of the cover. I've seen that one and it does not match 2-2-V-1- but I'm not sure there's a good record of the details of that job on Earhart's own bird to go by. What I'd give for a clear photo..."

We have very few photos of the patch and none of them is of sufficient resolution to see the rivet pattern. The window was originally installed to give the navigator an optically correct  way to take celestial observations from the starboard side of the airplane (the flat window in the cabin door served that function on the port side). No one knows for sure why it was removed and skinned over in Miami, but I have a theory.

Flying around the world from East to West as originally envisioned put the big window on the North-facing side of the airplane. Flying West to East on the second world flight attempt put the big window on the South-facing side.  I suspect that during the flight across the U.S. from Oakland to Miami they discovered that the South-facing window made the cabin unbearably hot.  Noonan reportedly felt that the elaborate navigator's station speced out by Mantz and Manning for the first attempt was excessive.  I suspect that, with AE's permission, he asked the Pan Am mechanics in Miami to replace the window with a patch.

Regardless of why it was done, it was clearly done.  Might the patch have ended up looking like 2-2-V-1?  We'll never prove that it did, unless we find better photos than we have now, but we might be able to show that it could or prove that it couldn't.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 06, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
OK I know nuffink about plane construction but if you were covering over a window would you cut it to shape as an insert or would you just lay it over the aperture?

It can be done either way, depending upon need of function and / or expediency.

Earhart's window covering appears to be 'expedient', as best I can tell from the pictures we have - a mere covering that neatly enough simply overlaps the original skin on the Electra at the edges of the aperture.  It also has distinctly 'square corners', not the nicely-rounded radii of a 'plug' for that window.  Admittedly those photos are a bit grainy, so take with a grain of salt.

So it does not seem to be a 'neat' plug or insert, such as is the case with the Finch Electra on display in Seattle at the Museum of Flight (I have pictures but not at-hand for moment - will follow).  Finch's window 'covering' is fairly clearly a removable 'hatch' by appearance, with a distinct separation line; the outer air passage (skin) is flush to the surrounding skin.  It is also clearly vertically braced in the web area (major 'mid' or 'open field' between the boundaries).  As a 'plug', it also happens to have rather elegantly radiused 'corners' as opposed to the rather sharp corners on the Earhart airplane covering (which CAN be discerned clearly from the vintage photos).  2-2-V-1 clearly does not match the Finch airplane; it appears to be a possible candidate for the Earhart window covering, IMO.

What we cannot tell from the existing pictures found so far of the Earhart Electra window covering is how any mid-field rivet patterns are oriented - vital to the case for 2-2-V-1, obviously.  But it looks to be braced rather 'normal' to the surrounding skins (which arguably suggests a stiffener pattern more closely oriented to the existing longitudenal stiffeners on the bird rather than vertical to my eye - but can't be sure).  It also lacks the tell-tale gap around the edges that are noticeable on the Finch bird (no pun intended...) in the 'plug type' installation.  The bracing does not mean it would match existing 'stiffeners' in the Electra because, IMO, these could have easily been improvised as mere mid-field light-weight stiffeners to avoid the timpanic oil canning effects of airflow over a large, thin sheet.  That is of course speculation since so far we don't have details - but it is quite possible and a realistic position to explore, IMO.

I wouldn't know how to lay odds on this, but as Monty notes, I have a very strong 'hunch' about the possibility.  I realize there are still other mysterious questions about this artifact - some that may yet disqualify it.  But it has not been qualified as from another type as-yet despite a rather exhaustive effort (I was certainly exhausted after crawling around a number of museum pieces with TIGHAR in Dayton...), and this possibility seems vital in my view.

There is another string that was devoted to this prospect (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.0.html).  Go there to review previous discussions.  I closed that string after the focus shifted to the belly as it was believed that the rivet pattern was not right for this - but I'm not sure we really connected the dots on that at the time, and the belly was a good focal point for study (there are surviving examples of belly skins, whereas Earhart's window covering was a 'one-off' effort which wasn't duplicated among sister ships that we are aware of).

As to Nathan's suggestion (welcome aboard, Nathan) regarding possible stowaway on the N.C., I doubt it (and those who adhere to the font mystery as disqualifying would howl in agreement, I'm sure) - 1929 (year of ship wreck) was too early for this kind of material to show up as relating to aircraft construction.  The Boeings of the time ('29) were rag, steel and wood - the B247D didn't emerge for a few years yet (and would be the one Boeing product of the '30s that might contribute such an artifact).  I would put 'other airplane types' in the area before that (and the question remains: WHICH other types?  A Cinderella hasn't been found for this aluminum slipper yet...).

I'd like to encourage our followers to scour for a good picture of the covered window on Earhart's airplane - Niku enthusiast or critic matters not (some of our critics appearing here have contributed some outstanding finds and all of us at least share an interest in this quest, either way).  I wish I were as good at ferreting those things out as so many others have been, but just don't seem as able as some, so contributions of such pictures are asked...

Here is one from TIGHAR's files -
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 06, 2014, 05:49:29 PM
The first photo here was taken on May 20, 1937 at Burbank, the day after the airplane came out of the rear shop. This is one of the Dusty Carter photos owned by TIGHAR.  They're the only known photos of the "secret" departure of the second world flight attempt.  You can clearly see that the lab window is still present.

The second and third photos were taken in Miami as AE taxied out for departure on the morning of June 1, 1937 - the public beginning of her second attempt.  The shiny patch is apparent.

The fourth photo is how Bill Harney portrayed the patch. The positioning is correct but the rivet pattern on the patch itself is pure guesswork,
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 06, 2014, 06:00:59 PM
The patch extended from Fuselage Station 293 5/8 to Fuselage Station 320 - a distance of 27 5/8 inches.  More than enough for 2-2-V-1.

The fuselage skin in that area was normally .025 inch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on June 06, 2014, 06:07:09 PM
Another photo, from the Purdue collection (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=4.71846&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=2&DMROTATE=0&x=60&y=45) that shows the top and forward portion of the sheet metal.  It's hard to tell if rivets are faintly visible on the cover, but they can be made out on the surrounding pieces.  Perhaps someone with image-enhancing software could bring out some better detail.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: richie conroy on June 06, 2014, 08:13:55 PM
To me

The square patch above right wing in Ric's second photo appears to be more consistent with our artifact than the toilet one ?

Do we know why that patch was replaced ?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 07, 2014, 09:35:03 AM
What is known of patches being painted outside of the factory?
Is the research being done on possible paint on the artifact include testing if the possible painted area extended under the stringer locations?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2014, 09:46:03 AM
To me

The square patch above right wing in Ric's second photo appears to be more consistent with our artifact than the toilet one ?

Do we know why that patch was replaced ?

I don't think that's a patch.  There were no repairs specified for that area. Some of the skins on the airplane are darker than others.  Dunno why.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chuck Lynch on June 07, 2014, 10:30:51 AM
"Some of the skins on the airplane are darker than others.  Dunno why."

Could the "grain" of the aluminum be turned so that the reflections are different?

Thanks.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2014, 10:56:15 AM
What is known of patches being painted outside of the factory?

Nothing, but my expectation would be that a small patch like this, cobbled together by PanAm in Miami, would not be painted.  In that respect, if Jen Mass finds no trace of paint on 2-2-V-1 (whether aluminum paint or zinc chromate) it reinforces the hypothesis that the artifact is the patch.

Is the research being done on possible paint on the artifact include testing if the possible painted area extended under the stringer locations?

No.  The first question is whether there is paint there at all.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2014, 11:53:06 AM
"Some of the skins on the airplane are darker than others.  Dunno why."

Could the "grain" of the aluminum be turned so that the reflections are different?

Good question.  I don't know.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 08, 2014, 09:58:30 AM
That rear window always looked like a possible weakness in to me. A big squareish hole in the stressed skin. Maybe this hole in the skin was closed as an effort to strengthen a possible weakness like the Comet had with its square windows (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129764-tech-wrecks-lessons-from-some-of-the-biggest-hardware-screw-ups/3). "Why" this patch was done could be important. Structural reasons versus just covering may require stiffeners added  and may change the spacing of the double row of rivets. The problem with that theory is if they discovered a crack or had a concern after making the first trip after being repaired then why did they not report it and there be repair orders?
Look at the picture in the hyper link. Specifically the fracture between two frames at the bottom of the window. Is it similar to one of the fractures in 2-2-V-1, if 2-2-V-1 was a cover over the window?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James Champion on June 08, 2014, 04:07:07 PM
Quote
That rear window always looked like a possible weakness in to me. A big squareish hole in the stressed skin. Maybe this hole in the skin was closed as an effort to strengthen a possible weakness like the Comet had with its square windows.

I've wondered about that also, but realized it there really was any structural issues with the window (because of the heavy fuselage loading from the fuel tanks) it would be a Lockheed issue and would not have been corrected by a small shop in Miami.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on June 08, 2014, 05:43:02 PM
A hard landing on the reef could have initiated the failure of the patch if it had been a structurally weak area.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 08, 2014, 05:59:00 PM
A hard landing on the reef could have initiated the failure of the patch if it had been a structurally weak area.

Yes, and/or the weak area could have cracked the window on hard landing in Miami.

It's likely an overall weak point, with the door location on the other side. Surf action could split the fuselage at a point between the two openings(aft edge of door and forward edge of window). The fracture that failed to bending might fit in that kind of break up.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 08, 2014, 06:15:37 PM
A hard landing on the reef could have initiated the failure of the patch if it had been a structurally weak area.

Yes, and/or the weak area could have cracked the window on hard landing in Miami.

It's likely an overall weak point, with the door location on the other side. Surf action could split the fuselage at a point between the two openings(aft edge of door and forward edge of window). The fracture that failed to bending might fit in that kind of break up.

The first failure seems to have been the lateral tearing along the row of #5 rivets. I wonder if that fits with the fuselage breaking at this weak point.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 08, 2014, 06:23:16 PM
A hard landing on the reef could have initiated the failure of the patch if it had been a structurally weak area.

Yes, and/or the weak area could have cracked the window on hard landing in Miami.

It's likely an overall weak point, with the door location on the other side. Surf action could split the fuselage at a point between the two openings(aft edge of door and forward edge of window). The fracture that failed to bending might fit in that kind of break up.

The first failure seems to have been the lateral tearing along the row of #5 rivets. I wonder if that fits with the fuselage breaking at this weak point.
first tear example (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129764-tech-wrecks-lessons-from-some-of-the-biggest-hardware-screw-ups/3)
Possibly between window frame and stringer?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 08, 2014, 06:31:57 PM
Does the plexiglass artifact's (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-3-V-2) curve fit that window or some other window?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 08, 2014, 06:37:21 PM
Does the plexiglass artifact's curve fit that window or some other window?

It fits the standard cabin window (Earhart's Electra had two).  We do not have an engineering drawing for the special window in the door or the lav window.  Drawings must have existed but they have apparently been lost.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 08, 2014, 06:51:38 PM
Does the plexiglass artifact's curve fit that window or some other window?

It fits the standard cabin window (Earhart's Electra had two).  We do not have an engineering drawing for the special window in the door or the lav window.  Drawings must have existed but they have apparently been lost.
If it is from that location, based on the shank of the revit found in it, 2-2-V-1 likely was fastened into a stringer, so the plexi was likely removed. I wonder if they also removed the window framing as well and replaced it with another stringer. So many questions. It would be great if that part of the plane could be found in the next expedition.

Is there a detail for the cabin window in the available drawings?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 08, 2014, 08:00:57 PM
Is there a detail for the cabin window in the available drawings?

Yes, but the standard cabin windows are nothing like the special lav window.  There aren't even any photos that show the lav window exterior. Forget interior.
As far as I know, AE never mentioned it in her book or in interviews before the first world flight attempt. Earhart researchers assumed it was a removable hatch because it's there in some photos but not in others. That's why Finch's airplane has a removable hatch.
I was the one ( thumbs proudly under suspenders) who noticed that it is clearly a window, not an opening, and that it was always present in photos taken immediately prior to and during the first attempt and never present after the plane left Miami. The patch is shiny in Miami and gets progressively duller as the second attempt progresses. Once you have the photos accurately dated and sequenced it's a no-brainer.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 09, 2014, 04:36:07 PM
There is not a lot of skin above the window in the vertical surface to resist bending of the fuselage.
The size of the window is a rough estimate from looking at pictures, and I am eagerly awaiting more information of the next inspection, but what is interesting is how close 2-2-V-1 may fit into the opening of where the window was. Assuming they put double row of rivets around the entire patch and the framing of the window protected the edges from a wave then I could imagine that a wave could punch out the skin thru the old opening of the window and leave some of the more heavily fastened edges.

Attached is a speculation for the first tear. The sketch may be a bit of exaggeration of the bending of the fuselage. Or not.
The plane may have to break there so a wave could get at the inside.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 09, 2014, 05:02:18 PM
The concept of the weakened fuselage due to the door and the window is an interesting one.  Landings at that time were almost always three-point, full stall landings. There is movie film of AE landing the Electra that way.  The hard landing at Miami probably involved stalling the airplane several feet in the air and dropping it onto to runway in three-point attitude. I've done that in a Stearman and it sounds like somebody pushed a metal trash can off a roof - and it feels like you're in the can.
Seems like landing like that would but tremendous strain on the empennage.  The aluminum would flex a bit.  The glass or plexi in that big window wouldn't.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 09, 2014, 07:26:33 PM
OK, maybe this is out of line, but ... I dug out my copy of the Harney renderings, blew a ton of dust off the top and started flipping through them. The plate that has the view of the starboard side (top of page) and underside (bottom of page) jumped out at me.

In the middle of the fuselage, just forward of the small starboard side window, is a dotted line labeled "Emergency Escape Hatch Cover Skinned Over."

True, this says skinned over, as opposed to a patch, but ... it's just a little larger than the patch over the starboard window that was added at Miami.

LTM, who will go back to counting all the teensy rivets,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on June 09, 2014, 07:38:26 PM
Marty,

You may have just stumbled on something important.  FN had only one way out and that would have been the main cabin door.  Going forward to the cockpit would not have been a great plan in the event of an accident.

AE on the other hand had the top hatch and side windows if necessary.

However, if that "patch"was securely riveted in place a quick exit would be doubtful.

Ted
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 09, 2014, 07:40:24 PM
True, c/n1055 did not have the passenger emergency exit that was standard on the airline version, but I think Harney was wrong about it being "skinned over" unless he meant that it was never there.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 10, 2014, 06:23:55 AM
So, if the "passenger emergency exit" was standard on the Electra, we need to remember that Amelia's Electra was not standard. The two possibilities for dealing with the passenger emergency exit, as I see it, are:

1) It was not included at the outset of the construction of her Electra. If so, wouldn't there have to be some kind of drawing or notation or something on how to skin over that rather large opening hwile the aircraft was on the factory floor?

2) The passenger emergency exit was skinned over or otherwise covered during the construction process. That might account for both a) The orderly and evenly spaced lines of No. 3 rivets on the 1-inch pitch, because they could be drilled on some kind of jig on the factory floor, and b) The irregular line of heavier rivets along one edge, since it was a non-standard, one-off modification specifically for Amelia that was probably installed on the fly while the aircraft was still in the construction jig.

If the Windsor Locks Electra had the passenger emergency exit installed when it was built, we might be able to quickly qualify, or disqualify, 2-V-1-1, by going to that same area on the starboard fuselage of the Windsor Locks Electra.

LTM, who still finds paint more fascinating than rivets,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 10, 2014, 08:04:34 AM
I saw a picture of the plane under construction and the passenger exit was not there (Can't find where the picture is right now). The special window was not there at that time either.

Here are some links to pictures of that area though. You should be able to see the rivet pattern enough.
Purdue 1 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=503&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=300&DMY=1158&DMTEXT=%2520lockheed%2520electra&DMTHUMB=1&REC=19&DMROTATE=0&x=209&y=353)

Purdue 2 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=525&DMSCALE=25&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=374&DMY=255&DMTEXT=%2520lockheed%2520electra&DMTHUMB=1&REC=19&DMROTATE=0&x=288&y=151)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on June 10, 2014, 09:22:50 AM
Note in your Purdue 2 picture the rivet pattern - the extra horizontal rows of rivets to the right of the window.  Any reason not to think that a similar arrangement would be done to a larger area being covered, like covering over an unwanted window? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 10, 2014, 09:23:18 AM
I saw a picture of the plane under construction and the passenger exit was not there (Can't find where the picture is right now).

That's my recollection also. The omission of the passenger emergency exit was just like the omission of most of the cabin windows and the installation of the fuel filler ports on the port side of the fuselage - all part of the mods that made the airplane a "10E Special."
I don't think the structure of the passenger emergency exit or the rivet pattern in the place where it normally would be is relevant to the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is the Miami patch.

The special window was not there at that time either.

The big lav window was part of the modifications done in early 1937 in preparation for the first world flight attempt.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 10, 2014, 09:41:33 AM
So, if the "passenger emergency exit" was standard on the Electra, we need to remember that Amelia's Electra was not standard. The two possibilities for dealing with the passenger emergency exit, as I see it, are:

1) It was not included at the outset of the construction of her Electra. If so, wouldn't there have to be some kind of drawing or notation or something on how to skin over that rather large opening hwile the aircraft was on the factory floor?

2) The passenger emergency exit was skinned over or otherwise covered during the construction process. That might account for both a) The orderly and evenly spaced lines of No. 3 rivets on the 1-inch pitch, because they could be drilled on some kind of jig on the factory floor, and b) The irregular line of heavier rivets along one edge, since it was a non-standard, one-off modification specifically for Amelia that was probably installed on the fly while the aircraft was still in the construction jig.

If the Windsor Locks Electra had the passenger emergency exit installed when it was built, we might be able to quickly qualify, or disqualify, 2-V-1-1, by going to that same area on the starboard fuselage of the Windsor Locks Electra.

LTM, who still finds paint more fascinating than rivets,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

To be clear, it's not the emergency exit that we're looking at - it is the one-off unique large navigation window Earhart had cut into the Electra in the lavatory area.
---
Quote from Ric -

Quote
The big lav window was part of the modifications done in early 1937 in preparation for the first world flight attempt.

Do we know where the window mod was done?  Was it by Lockheed, or Mantz' shop?  For some reason I have believed it was done by Mantz and not Lockheed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 10, 2014, 10:04:01 AM
Do we know where the window mod was done?  Was it by Lockheed, or Mantz' shop?  For some reason I have believed it was done by Mantz and not Lockheed.

Hard to say. Manta Air Service was on the same field with the Lockheed plant.  My guess would be that Mantz's shop did the work in consultation with Lockheed engineers.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 10, 2014, 10:46:26 AM
I don't think the structure of the passenger emergency exit or the rivet pattern in the place where it normally would be is relevant to the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is the Miami patch.

I'll accept that. After all, If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!    ... wait, that was a glove. Sorry, wrong dramatic argument.

LTM, who still finds dry paint interesting,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
   
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on June 10, 2014, 06:19:27 PM
Ric....does anyone know why the patch on the plane looks cut and jagged down at the bottom. Having a hard time figuring out why anyone wouldn't cut a straight line in this scenario?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on June 11, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
Randy,

That window, and the patch, are in an area of the fueslage where the curvature is changing in more than one plane at any given point.  If the patch was pallied at some sort of out-station the tooling and expertise to form a patch that would exactly replicate the window would probably not have been possible.  Unless the patch was stretched over a form that matched that section of the fuselage (or roll-formed with something like and "english wheel") there is basically no way to get a flat sheet of aluminum to wrap that kind of surface without creasing or bulging some place or the other.  The fact that the reflection you high-light is ragged and irregular supports this.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 11, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
Let's remember one thing about 2-V-1-1 - the experts at the National Museum of the USAF were unanimous that it was not field applied. The precision of the 1-inch rivet pitch meant, to them, that it had to have been applied in some sort of industrial-type setting, as opposed to a jungle airstrip or something similar.

Is there any way to get a feel for the level of industrial expertise at Mantz's shop? That might, or might not, indicate whether 2-V-1-1 was done at the Lockheed plant, and might help pin down a date range.

LTM, who finds dry paint and emergency exits really interesting,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 11, 2014, 11:38:51 AM
Let's remember one thing about 2-V-1-1 - the experts at the National Museum of the USAF were unanimous that it was not field applied. The precision of the 1-inch rivet pitch meant, to them, that it had to have been applied in some sort of industrial-type setting, as opposed to a jungle airstrip or something similar.

Is there any way to get a feel for the level of industrial expertise at Mantz's shop? That might, or might not, indicate whether 2-V-1-1 was done at the Lockheed plant, and might help pin down a date range.

LTM, who finds dry paint and emergency exits really interesting,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
The window was possibly done in Mantz's shop or the Lockheed plant, but the patch was done in Miami by Pan Am (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31874.html#msg31874).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 11, 2014, 11:46:29 AM
Randy,

That window, and the patch, are in an area of the fueslage where the curvature is changing in more than one plane at any given point. 

It looks more curved in the vertical plane, and much less so in the horizontal plane. So wouldn't it make sense to put possible reinforcement, that you would not have to bend and could use cut pieces of stock straight stuff, in a horizontal configuration?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on June 11, 2014, 06:06:13 PM
That would make sense to me as well! Even if there is curvature or not...Also if you were to put any kind of a patch on any kind of a structure, you would most likely wanna have a good support behind it to hold it in place. As I was looking at several of the Lockheed Electra pics with the so-called patch over the window, and the window by itself opened at the landing accident in Hawaii, I kinda got the feeling that the purpose of this patch was not to cover the window in its entirety, but maybe to make it look smaller and more useable than a normal huge window. As I closely looked again at the patch pictures, I sensed that the bottom portion of these pictures is some type of device to open the patch like a window. Kinda of like a sliding window of the sorts. It would make sense when it would come time to take air and temperature readings from the back of the plane. I know someone made the comment that the metal may have been rolled per say, but the bottom of this patch doesn't quite go hand in hand with the device at the bottom of the picture. Plus, does anyone know why this "teardrop" hole is beneath the patch? What is it? Up for answers?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 11, 2014, 07:08:24 PM
This is another view
rear view (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=220&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=1&DMX=3028&DMY=2502&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=14&DMROTATE=0&x=328&y=252)

Pre window?
Edit: In some of these pictures the lower vertical part of the newer metal appears to be reflecting the earth and the upper more curved part is reflecting the sky.
What may appear to be deformed areas seen in the lower part might be vehicles, mountains, buildings or trees being reflected.
There are two vertical lines in this picture that I thought might be seams but could be something like utility poles being reflected.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on June 12, 2014, 10:58:36 AM
I have noted that even though this aircraft is mostly "bare aluminum" it is not neccessarily "highly polished".  The "patch" could be "like new" and "highly polished".  If this is the case what we are seeing could very well be reflections.  I could easily be talked into that!

I was at an airshow a few years back and was trying to take a photo of a striking P-51D that was highly polished.  The autofocus in my camera could not lock onto the highly polished surfaces.  I guess it was due to all of the reflections of the surrounding area.

The light part on top of the "patch" couold be the sky and the dark part at the bottom could be a car or something similiar.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 12, 2014, 11:22:35 AM
The light part on top of the "patch" couold be the sky and the dark part at the bottom could be a car or something similiar.

I have it on impeccable authority that the "dark part" is Bigfoot. And don't ask me how I know that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Palshook on June 12, 2014, 03:21:43 PM
Greg,

The photo you posted with Earhart standing on the tail of the Electra ... I think the photo is of a very early version of Earhart's Electra, before the lavatory window was installed.  Clues for this are:  (1) the cockpit hatch in the photo certainly does not look like it is hinged along the centerline of the fuselage.  If it's hinged at all, it looks like the hinge would be on the outboard edge of the hatch, above the port side cockpit windows.  (2) There are no radio antenna components visibile on the top of the fuselage.  No dome for the Hooven radiocompass, no forward mast for the dorsal V-antenna, no wires of the dorsal V-antenna or its feed line from the fuselage interior, no RDF loop.

I think you are seeing a window in the starboard side of the fuselage, but it is the starboard side cabin/navigation window, not the lavatory window.  I think the low angle of the camera shot makes the (later) location of the lavatory window hidden by the horizontal tail in this photo.  The forward end of the cabin window was a little bit aft longitudinally of the most aft air vent fairing on the top of the fuselage.  This looks about right in the photo.


Jeff P.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 12, 2014, 05:05:14 PM
The light part on top of the "patch" couold be the sky and the dark part at the bottom could be a car or something similiar.

I have it on impeccable authority that the "dark part" is Bigfoot. And don't ask me how I know that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP

Monty. Haven't you heard? Bigfoot is out of bounds. Just your reference may be enough to have this thread locked.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: richie conroy on June 12, 2014, 06:48:55 PM
Hi All

Maybe some one can get a better detail image from the following angle

http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=787&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=8&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=%20Karachi&REC=9&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0

Thanks
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 13, 2014, 12:18:17 PM
It would be nice if a photo wouild emerge that gives some clear indication of rivet pattern.

The thought written of earlier by Greg Daspit about fore-aft bracing vs. vertical due to curvature (less in fore-aft plane) makes a lot of sense - not that we can tell for sure yet just what was done.  But given that this was a somewhat hastily effected field repair (not saying bad quality - just basic) it is a near-given that the more elaborate forming of stiffeners for use in the vertical plane would not be practical.  The amount of forming needed for a fore-aft arrangement would be minimal because of the inherent shape of the fuselage; that suggests fore-aft as a reasonable direction.  That does also of course fit the notion of 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 13, 2014, 01:10:03 PM
The light part on top of the "patch" couold be the sky and the dark part at the bottom could be a car or something similiar.

I have it on impeccable authority that the "dark part" is Bigfoot. And don't ask me how I know that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP

Monty. Haven't you heard? Bigfoot is out of bounds. Just your reference may be enough to have this thread locked.

I'd admit it's off-topic, except considering that the reflection is something, and maybe that something...

But who are we to say it doesn't exist?  :P
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: David Alan on June 13, 2014, 04:44:17 PM
I am not sure this is the best location to post this since it does not directly tie into the question of 2-2-v-1's provenance, but it is inspired by the postings within this topic and I don't think it deserves its own new topic.  I leave it to the moderators to edit and re-post it as they see fit with my apologies for any inconvenience.

The anecdotes Ric provides of three point landings -- http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31929.html#msg31929 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31929.html#msg31929) -- as well as his and others' speculation in this topic about the possibility of the fuselage failing is certainly interesting reading.  Since I only have limited exposure to flying in small aircraft, I am left trying to imagine the difficulties and hazards of landing on a reef on Niku and that, in turn, leaves me with a lot of questions perhaps some of you can answer.

At the time of Hawaii loop landing was that era's technology capable of detecting hairline fractures or damage in the airframe or skin that could be exacerbated by several more routine landings and at least one more hard landing?

If a landing were hard enough to crack a window (and the damage, acknowledged), would this not have set off an air-worthiness process that might lead to schedule delays?

What would have been the approach and landing/stall speed of the empty 10E?  I only ask this because, regardless, it must be a real crap shoot to land any aircraft on an unknown, water covered surface.
 
If the aft end of the fuselage snapped at the belly or crumpled upward how would this affect AE's ability to steer the aircraft?

And where would FN be during all this? Did he typically sit up front during  take-offs and landings or just ride it out in the back?

cheers,

david alan
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 13, 2014, 06:29:31 PM
At the time of Hawaii loop landing was that era's technology capable of detecting hairline fractures or damage in the airframe or skin that could be exacerbated by several more routine landings and at least one more hard landing?

I can chime in on that one. In the late 1930s-early 1940s, metallurgy was still in its infancy. Although metal fatigue and metal stress were understood to happen, that was about as far up the food chain as the knowledge went.

As WW II ramped up into high gear and aerial weapons got more complex (think ME-262, B-29), some basic tests on large components could be done, usually at the depot level. I have a picture somewhere of a B-17's wingtip being examined by a huge fluorscope (X-ray machine) underneath, and the technician perched on the wing, looking through what appears to be a welder's helmet, and wearing what was undoubtedly a lead apron. In Earhart's time ... no. The area would have gotten a thorough eyeballing and anything that looked the least bit suspicious would probably have been replaced.

That's one reason why aircraft of that era were grossly overbuilt, compared to today's featherweight creations. The engineers and mechanics of that era knew they were going to be twisting the dragon's tail with every new design. They tried to build to that level of stress the best they could, and by and large did magnificent work (if you want to read about stress-testing an aircraft, read the story about why it was decided that the first B-17 didn't need a stress test, after a close encounter with a thunderstorm).

LTM, who is patiently waiting on the paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on June 14, 2014, 09:03:04 AM
The Lockheed did get X-rayed, but to what degree I don't know.  I'll try to find the photo that shows the gentlemen holding the machine standing by the aircraft.  A quick search of the Purdue collection didn't turn it up, but it's out there somewhere.  I seem to recall reading that they took a large number of shots.  Too bad the films aren't available, assuming film was used and not a fluoroscope.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 14, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
The Lockheed did get X-rayed, but to what degree I don't know.  I'll try to find the photo that shows the gentlemen holding the machine standing by the aircraft. 
The picture you seek appeared in this thread about 3 months ago. Look here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30600.html#msg30600).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: David Alan on June 14, 2014, 07:17:33 PM
The photos of the x-ray equipment are interesting but based on information derived from the Pop. Mechanics article and a little number crunching, the caption information seems a little dubious to me. But, admittedly, I know nothing about metallurgy. 

First, 1/1000000 of an inch is equal to about 25 nm which is roughly the size of molecules.  An x-ray's wavelength is about 10 nm and perhaps that is where the translation from scientist to reporter went awry.  For the article to imply a crack of 1/1000000 of an inch could be visualized is pretty ludicrous, at least in 1937.  I might be mistaken but I don't think molecules and atoms were visualized until the current century.

Further complicating this supposed resolution is that even modern film with the best apochromatic lenses can only resolve around 150 lp/mm (line pairs per mm) )under ideal conditions.  (Just a few of the limiting conditions would include, shutter speed, stop, temperature, humidity, processing chemistry, and even the inherent quality of the imaging equipment.)  At 150 lp/mm, one lp is about 1012 nm wide, significantly larger than 25 nm.

I don't doubt that the x-ray equipment of 1937 could resolve small cracks but not anywhere near the size spoken of in the Pop. Mechanic article. 

cheers,
david alan
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on June 14, 2014, 08:10:42 PM
John.....

  In the video I just posted in topic..."Lockheed Aircraft Company..."In the Beginning!".....it talks about this very process and even gives a short clip of the process being used to detect cracks and flaws. Very interesting!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 15, 2014, 04:00:38 PM
Well ... you learn something new every day. Maybe Amelia's trip did advance the science of flight, so that in itself was a good thing.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on June 16, 2014, 11:23:08 AM
Richie,

Good catch with that photo.  Definitely no reflections, but, it looks like a there is a shadow under the lower edge of the "patch".  There is also a hint of a bright edge on the forward side of the "patch".  I would not be surprised to see a non-flush edge on the top and bottom of such a patch.  A non-flush forward edge does seem odd.  This would lend credance to any suppositon that this "scab", or "surface", patch was somewhat crude or hasitly done.  Looking at the shadows on the ground the sun would appear to be overhead, so, the time would be sometime in the middle of the day.  This would have the effect of an exaggerating the thickness of the patch especially if it was not exactly flush.  With a properly installed surface patch the only step difference would have been from the material thisckness of the material --- I doubt there would have been enough of a shadow to have shown up on this photograph.  On this photo a "proper" well done conformal patch would have exhibited no shadow on any edge.  Such a patch would have shown up as a rectangle of a lighter or darker shade of gray with no chane in intensity due to brighter edges or shadows.

Another thought that comes to mind would be about the drag from such a patch.  I remember reading about Voyager team sweating out increased fuel consumption after the wingtips were ground off during takeoff on their round-the-world flight.  This window/patch is well back on the fuesalge.  I would think that the boundary layer there would probably be realtively thick in that location, but, perhaps not.  It is common for aircraft losses to be due to multiple factors.  A small, seemingly insignificant, increase in drag would not have helped.

Again, good find.  Don't stop digging!       
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: David Alan on June 16, 2014, 12:30:33 PM
Jay, the Purdue info on that photo in Richie's post http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31968.html#msg31968 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31968.html#msg31968) says it is was taken in India in 1936 more than a year before the patch was installed in Florida. Is that the photo you are talking about or did I miss something (which happens all the time)?

cheers,
david alan
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on June 16, 2014, 12:39:34 PM
... says it is was taken in India in 1936 more than a year before the patch was installed in Florida.

No, the description of the picture definitely says that it was taken in Karachi on June 16, 1937.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: David Alan on June 16, 2014, 12:44:38 PM
Right you are Bruce, I transposed the 16 with July (the 7 th month and don't even ask how I got July out of June) with the year.  Like I say, it happens all the time.  My apologies Jay.

cheers,

david alan
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Friend Weller on June 17, 2014, 07:51:49 AM
As I'm a pro in stating the obvious, this possibility came to mind:

If we take this:  http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=7724;image
                        http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=7731

And add it to this: http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=7750;image
                           http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31929.html#msg31929

Toss in a few more hard 3-point landings on dirt/grass strips around the globe, could we get this? 

http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=787&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=1932&DMY=1743&DMTEXT=%20Karachi&REC=9&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0  (a gradually weakening patch...???) 

Too bad we don't have a few more photos taken along the way...to see if the seam progressed from semi-flush to semi-gapping.  After all, if those forces could break a window, as Ric said, those same forces could potentially do more to the empannage......

Followed by one more hard landing, not on an airstrip, and thousands of miles from home.....
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on June 17, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
With regard to the previous post -  How much flex could there possibly have been in the fuselage? Surely there was some - I am reminded of the videos of the flex seen in ocean going tankers and cargo ships.  I could imagine a patch added after the fact not necessarily acting as one with the rest of the body and being a weak link to the stresses of landings etc.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 17, 2014, 09:48:29 AM
This is an interesting theory, but any damage suffered in a 'hard landing' on the reef couldn't have been so bad as to prevent running an engine to power the radio afterwards.  It does provide another way for any injuries to FN and AE, as Betty's notebook seems to say.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Friend Weller on June 17, 2014, 10:18:37 AM
Landings at that time were almost always three-point, full stall landings. There is movie film of AE landing the Electra that way.  The hard landing at Miami probably involved stalling the airplane several feet in the air and dropping it onto to runway in three-point attitude.

Speaking of three-point, full stall landings, are the on-shore breezes on the reef near the Norwich City strong enough and from the right direction generally to cause an aircraft like an Electra to stall, especially if that aircraft was nearing stall speed itself?  I can envision an airplane stalling due to a strong gust just as the pilot was about to intentionally stall the aircraft to make such a landing and dropping it roughly onto the reef surface....

like somebody pushed a metal trash can off a roof - and it feels like you're in the can.

....perhaps hard enough to cause damage to the airframe (buckling of the fuselage in the area of 2-2-V-1?) and maybe resutling in bodily injury but not so much as to render at least the r.h. engine inoperable.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 21, 2014, 08:43:44 AM
I was at the New England Air Museum on Sunday, June 15 doing a couple of speaking presentations so I took the opportunity to take a close look at the starboard side of the Electra in the area where the window/patch was on NR16020.  I taped off the area outline of the patch as best I could and had a volunteer hold the artifact up to the airplane. (see photo) I later used the tape as the basis for an overlay (also attached).  These are rough approximations, not meticulous measurements, but it's clear that the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch, albeit fairly tightly which, in itself, may be significant.

I was struck by how low to the ground the window/patch is when you're standing beside the airplane and how small and cramped the "lavatory" room is.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 22, 2014, 05:09:49 PM
Looking through the photos taken during the second world flight attempt it's hard to find pictures of the right hand side of the airplane.  All the action was on the left hand side where the crew entered and exited.  Of the few shots the show the right hand side and the patch, by far the best is the one taken in Miami as the plane taxied out. The photo was probably taken early in the morning of June 1, 1937 as AE and FN departed for Puerto Rico. The patch is new and shiny so there's a lot of reflection.  No rivet pattern is apparent, although by zooming in I can see what I want to see (cue the banjo music). 
We obtained the photo many years ago from the Miami Herald.  A Miami Herald photographer took the photo and the paper owns the copyright.  There's a chance they still have the negative. If they do, maybe they'll let us borrow it for forensic analysis.  I'll see what I can find out.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 07:32:17 AM
This just in.
After trying several different methods, Dr. Jennifer Mass has been unable to find any trace of paint on 2-2-V-1.  Looking at a cross section of the aluminum sheet using a Scanning Electron Microscope she was able to see the paint layer on the interior surface on the piece of wreckage from the Idaho Electra.  Nothing shows up on the artifact.

We learned in Dayton that WWII bombers serving in Europe were not treated with corrosion inhibitor because they weren't expected to survive long enough for corrosion to be a problem.  The salty Pacific Theater was a different story.
What WWII airplane serving in the Pacific would not have been treated with some kind of corrosion inhibitor?
Would the Pan Am mechanics (or whoever installed the patch in Miami) have gone to the trouble of painting a small patch? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 23, 2014, 08:24:51 AM
Ric

Don't photos and movie of her last take off at Lae show the right side of the aircraft?

Would be interesting to compare them to this one in Miami.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 23, 2014, 08:37:17 AM
Looking through the photos taken during the second world flight attempt it's hard to find pictures of the right hand side of the airplane.  All the action was on the left hand side where the crew entered and exited.  Of the few shots the show the right hand side and the patch, by far the best is the one taken in Miami as the plane taxied out. The photo was probably taken early in the morning of June 1, 1937 as AE and FN departed for Puerto Rico. The patch is new and shiny so there's a lot of reflection.  No rivet pattern is apparent, although by zooming in I can see what I want to see (cue the banjo music). 
We obtained the photo many years ago from the Miami Herald.  A Miami Herald photographer took the photo and the paper owns the copyright.  There's a chance they still have the negative. If they do, maybe they'll let us borrow it for forensic analysis.  I'll see what I can find out.

Excellent - if the negatives can be had it may tell us much.  We really need a good, sharp look at that window covering.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 08:59:03 AM
Don't photos and movie of her last take off at Lae show the right side of the aircraft?

Yes, but the patch is not discernible.  As the flight progressed the patch naturally became less and less shiny until, by the time they got to New Guinea, it blended in with the rest of the skin.
There's a good air-to-air shot taken from a Netherlands East Indies Airlines (KNLM) DC-2 over Java that shows the patch nicely but there's not enough resolution to pick out the rivet pattern.  This was not a telephoto lens.  That Dutch captain was tucked in tight!
I don't think anyone else has this photo.  We got it many years ago from "Fuzz" Furman (now deceased), the Martin company rep in Bandoeng, Java who hung out with Fred while they were there.  "Fuzz" got it from the pilot who took it.  We took a copy photo of Fuzz's print. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 23, 2014, 09:11:02 AM
So the dry paint - ain't. Still, this is a win. We know more about 2-V-1-1 than we did, and it's still in the running as the *putative poop  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,225.0.html) hatch patch. (Sorry, could not resist, what with the ongoing putative poop analysis effort).

LTM, who will now find something besides dry paint to watch,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

*edited by J. Neville to include link...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 23, 2014, 09:29:22 AM
"A Miami Herald photographer took the photo and the paper owns the copyright.  There's a chance they still have the negative."

If they still have that negative, there's a good chance there are others.  I've known a few photographers and they never take just one picture when eight or twelve will do.  That's just the one the paper happened to print.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on June 23, 2014, 10:28:06 AM
"A Miami Herald photographer took the photo and the paper owns the copyright.  There's a chance they still have the negative."

If they still have that negative, there's a good chance there are others.  I've known a few photographers and they never take just one picture when eight or twelve will do.  That's just the one the paper happened to print.

True- at that time I am sure a photographer would have bracketed his shots varying the aperture or exposure to get a properly exposed shot, especially with the apparent lighting conditions and the reflectivity of the subject in the photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 11:09:38 AM
The Miami Herald has responded to my request.  They're looking to see what they have.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 23, 2014, 11:14:07 AM
Outstanding!  Here's hoping.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 01:48:45 PM
Nothing is ever easy.

"I have been asked to respond to your inquiry regarding a photo from the archives of the Miami Herald. I will search what remains of the Herald's archives for this photo. Unfortunately there are severe limits to what I am likely to find.

First, the archives were badly out of order and much was lost or misplaced over the decades. Older material like this photo was especially likely to have disappeared. It's a good thing you got your copy of the photo when you did.

The situation now is that the collection of prints has gone to the Rogers Archive, which sells them on eBay. In return, the Herald received digital scans (of mediocre quality) from Rogers. The scans we received are, if anything, in worse order than was the print collection when it went to Rogers. It is this heap of scans that I will be searching. Of course I will let you know if I find anything. It is quite possible that even if I do it will be of no better quality than what you already have.

This all suggests that it might be worth contacting Rogers directly to see if they have an original print."

I have sent a request to Rogers.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 23, 2014, 02:30:18 PM
Damn...

Somehow the Herald photo file sounds about as battered and cast to the sands as 2-2-V-1 itself was...

Sounds like little to no chance of retrieval unless 'Rogers Archive' has something.  At least if Miami finds a good example of a view that might pay off we'd know what to ask for, perhaps?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 23, 2014, 02:43:28 PM
John Ousterhout posted a link to this partial picture from the Purdue Archives (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=4.71846&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=2&DMROTATE=0&x=60&y=45) earlier. I can see rivets in the older skin. It may be the more reflective skin is washing out the rivets on the patch but this may be a good image to look more closely at.

"Why can't they just say, 'go to this place, here's the treasure, spend it wisely'?"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on June 23, 2014, 03:13:06 PM
It seems a quote from that great pooh-bear of letters is in order,

"Oh, bother!"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 23, 2014, 03:46:48 PM
The Rogers Archive has a website:

http://www.therogersarchive.com/

but no search function.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 23, 2014, 04:24:41 PM
Why is the edge opposite the tab so straight?  It's like something may have helped direct it like tearing paper on the edge of a table. 
Why is the next row of rivets closer to that edge than the distance between other rows?
How are the stringers attached to the former? What size and shape is the former?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Greg Daspit on Today at 04:24:41 PM
Why is the edge opposite the tab so straight?  It's like something may have helped direct it like tearing paper on the edge of a table.

To me, that's the most puzzling edge.  Here's a photo looking along the "top" edge. You can see the surviving rivet head in the lower left foreground.  Is this a "tear" or a something else.  I think we need a forensic metallurgist.

Quote from: Greg Daspit on Today at 04:24:41 PM

Why is the next row of rivets closer to that edge than the distance between other rows?
How are the stringers attached to the former? What size and shape is the former?

Good questions.  No answers.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 23, 2014, 05:34:19 PM
I think we need a forensic metallurgist.

Sign me up for a piece of that, when the time comes.

LTM, who finds the lack of dry paint rewarding,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 24, 2014, 08:02:49 AM
I've been re-reading the various accounts of AE's eight-day stay in Miami (she arrived May 23 and departed June 1) looking for some clue as to when, why, and by whom the patch was made. "Last Flight" isn't much help.  There's a chapter on "Miami" but AE didn't write it.  In the book, GP explains, "In the days that followed [AE's arrival in Miami], AE had no time to write. 'We'll catch up on that later," she said.  I want to do a careful account of this final job of getting ready for a long flight.  It's really colorful and I think could be made interesting even for non-flyers.'  The opportunity to 'catch up' never came."
Instead, GP uses excerpts of an article written at the time by Herald Tribune reporter C.B. Allen.  Allen's story is a puff-piece that talks mostly about what a wonderful person Amelia is and how she won over the mechanics who initially dismissed her as merely "a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight."
Maybe the biographies will be more useful if the sources are they're properly cited.  I know there were serious radio issues addressed by Pan Am that never got fully resolved.
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 26, 2014, 10:19:12 AM
No response yet from the Rogers Archive that bought the Miami Herald photos, but the newspaper's editorial staff has gotten excited about the prospect of a Miami Herald photo possibly being a key piece of evidence in TIGHAR's quest to solve the Earhart mystery.  I'm now working with a Miami Herald reporter who is writing a story about the photo, The Earhart Project, 2-2-V-1 and the patch that was installed in Miami.  A photographer is coming here later today to shoot photos of the artifact. The story will run some time next week.

The paper's librarian has searched through the digital scans of the photos and found the shot we're looking for.  It appears to be of slightly better resolution than the print we have, so that's good.  The reporter also sent me two other shots that were in the same collection.  One shows the airplane in flight, just after take off, gear just coming up.  The plane is going left to right so we're seeing the right-hand side of the fuselage.  The focus isn't perfect but you can clearly see the patch.  The other photo is a real find.  It's a "selfy" showing AE and an unidentified woman standing in front of the airplane just behind the right wing.  At the left hand side of the frame is the window that was later replaced with a patch. About half of the window is visible but the detail is fantastic. This is, by far, the best photos I've seen of exactly how the window was mounted.  AE is wearing the polkadot shirt she is wearing in other Miami photos so we know this picture was taken in Miami. 
I would post the photos here except I don't yet know what restrictions there are on publication.  The reporter is checking on that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 26, 2014, 04:04:17 PM
That is all very good news, Ric, thanks for sharing it.  Glad to hear Miami Herald doing all can and giving some great publicity to boot.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on June 27, 2014, 06:23:35 PM
In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 27, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?

Remember, the patch has nothing to do with Lockheed. It was fabricated in Miami, almost certainly by PanAm mechanics.
BTW, Lockheed Martin is the modern company, a merger of the old Martin company and Lockheed Aircraft Corp.


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on June 27, 2014, 08:51:45 PM
So do we know if the metal used in Miami was also supplied to make the Electra in Burbank, California. Just curious!!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 28, 2014, 05:52:31 AM
So do we know if the metal used in Miami was also supplied to make the Electra in Burbank, California. Just curious!!!!

At this time we have no information about where the aluminum used to make the patch came from except that it had to have been made by ALCOA.  My best guess is that it came from a stock of aluminum PanAm had on hand for making repairs to its flying boats.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 28, 2014, 05:56:56 AM
In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?

Not sure I follow where you're going with this, Randy, maybe missing your point.  2-2-V-1, whatever it was or where ever it came from, was simply cut from a larger piece of metal somewhere. 

If memory serves, those rolls or sheets of stock are about 4 feet wide - maybe wider in some cases, and can be rather long.  Small shops order smaller quantities cut from large stock, whereas a shop like Lockheed or PanAm might easily have full sheets or rolls in inventory to take something like 2-2-V-1 from.  Typically the larger stock would be sheared to the desired size.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on June 28, 2014, 10:03:16 AM
In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?

Not sure I follow where you're going with this, Randy, maybe missing your point.  2-2-V-1, whatever it was or where ever it came from, was simply cut from a larger piece of metal somewhere. 

If memory serves, those rolls or sheets of stock are about 4 feet wide - maybe wider in some cases, and can be rather long.  Small shops order smaller quantities cut from large stock, whereas a shop like Lockheed or PanAm might easily have full sheets or rolls in inventory to take something like 2-2-V-1 from.  Typically the larger stock would be sheared to the desired size.

Elgen and Marie Long, in their book "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved," p. 112, make reference to what may be the same lavatory window in debate here, but add to the confusion:

"In its normal passenger configuration, an Electra had an escape hatch over the wing on the right side of the cabin. This was the only exit on the right side of the plane, but because of the fuselage fuel tanks it was covered over on Earhart's plane. In January two new windows had been installed in her Electra, one in the cabin entrance door and one in the right sidewall of the lavatory compartment. During repairs it was decided to make an exit of the window in the lavatory compartment by replacing it with an aluminum hatch. Not only did this provide an escape route, the hatch could be opened on the ground for cabin ventilation."

Seems that the Longs are saying that the lavatory window was converted into a hatch, but of course, they could have been mistaken, or confusing it with window. Does all photographic evidence prior to the Pan Am Miami modifications point to this as definitely a window immediately after the Lockheed Burbank repairs (in January 1937), or was there ever any actual aluminum hatch installed in the lavatory compartment? Anyone know?
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 28, 2014, 10:53:25 AM
Elgen and Marie Long, in their book "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved," p. 112, make reference to what may be the same lavatory window in debate here, but add to the confusion:

"In its normal passenger configuration, an Electra had an escape hatch over the wing on the right side of the cabin. This was the only exit on the right side of the plane, but because of the fuselage fuel tanks it was covered over on Earhart's plane. In January two new windows had been installed in her Electra, one in the cabin entrance door and one in the right sidewall of the lavatory compartment. During repairs it was decided to make an exit of the window in the lavatory compartment by replacing it with an aluminum hatch. Not only did this provide an escape route, the hatch could be opened on the ground for cabin ventilation."

Seems that the Longs are saying that the lavatory window was converted into a hatch, but of course, they could have been mistaken, or confusing it with window. Does all photographic evidence prior to the Pan Am Miami modifications point to this as definitely a window immediately after the Lockheed Burbank repairs (in January 1937), or was there ever any actual aluminum hatch installed in the lavatory compartment? Anyone know?

Long provides no source for that information other than in "Notes" he says, "March, 1937 photos show a window. May, 1937 photos show an aluminum hatch both open and closed."
The photo provided to me by the Miami Herald (still waiting for permission to show it to you guys) confirms that the window was still there upon AE's arrival in Miami on May 23, 1937.  By June 1st the window had been replaced with aluminum sheet.  No subsequent photo of the airplane shows an opening in that location. Long's statement that it was a removable hatch seems to be pure speculation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 28, 2014, 11:09:14 AM
Sure would be nice to know what May, 1937 photographs he's talking about and where they are now.  Oh, well. . . .
"Oh bother!"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 28, 2014, 11:31:42 AM
Sure would be nice to know what May, 1937 photographs he's talking about and where they are now.  Oh, well. . . .
"Oh bother!"

I've seen Long's collection.  He doesn't have any photos we don't have.  Elgen has a habit of accepting his own speculation as established fact.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Michael Calvin Powell on June 29, 2014, 12:43:22 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/28/4208139/piece-of-metal-may-offer-clue.html

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 29, 2014, 06:18:08 PM
Overall a good article! said the former newspaper reporter.

And I was VERY glad that Betty got her due in it; she would no doubt be pleased.

LTM, who wishes Betty well,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 30, 2014, 08:57:48 AM
In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?

Not sure I follow where you're going with this, Randy, maybe missing your point.  2-2-V-1, whatever it was or where ever it came from, was simply cut from a larger piece of metal somewhere. 

If memory serves, those rolls or sheets of stock are about 4 feet wide - maybe wider in some cases, and can be rather long.  Small shops order smaller quantities cut from large stock, whereas a shop like Lockheed or PanAm might easily have full sheets or rolls in inventory to take something like 2-2-V-1 from.  Typically the larger stock would be sheared to the desired size.

Elgen and Marie Long, in their book "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved," p. 112, make reference to what may be the same lavatory window in debate here, but add to the confusion:

"In its normal passenger configuration, an Electra had an escape hatch over the wing on the right side of the cabin. This was the only exit on the right side of the plane, but because of the fuselage fuel tanks it was covered over on Earhart's plane. In January two new windows had been installed in her Electra, one in the cabin entrance door and one in the right sidewall of the lavatory compartment. During repairs it was decided to make an exit of the window in the lavatory compartment by replacing it with an aluminum hatch. Not only did this provide an escape route, the hatch could be opened on the ground for cabin ventilation."

Seems that the Longs are saying that the lavatory window was converted into a hatch, but of course, they could have been mistaken, or confusing it with window. Does all photographic evidence prior to the Pan Am Miami modifications point to this as definitely a window immediately after the Lockheed Burbank repairs (in January 1937), or was there ever any actual aluminum hatch installed in the lavatory compartment? Anyone know?

There was no window in the lavatory originally, Long is apparently mistaken on that point (and upstring somewhere here is a photo showing just that - original metal with no window, no patch, prior to the 'window mod').

What the full intent of the modification to create a window really was isn't clear to me so far.  The size of it could relate to an emergency exit, or a viewing window for say, an aerial navigator.  The latter has been suggested.

The 'patch' does not appear to be a removable panel - but I'm not sure that can be said for certain without more detailed information by photo or other record.

All the fascinating story per the Herald, etc. is just that - fascinating.  Until we have a truly good picture by photo, blueprint or work-order / record, it is IMO impossible to know for certain whether 2-2-V-1 relates or not; the 'why' of the window matters not a whit, IMO, either - res ipsa - the thing (the 'patch') just is for a fact, there.  It (the 'patch') wasn't when the bird got to Miami; it (the 'patch') was when it (the bird) left Miami.

Nice to have attention from the Herald then, but all it does is perhaps raise interest and maybe promote a deeper search for photos, etc. - but of itself it does nothing to prove that 2-2-V-1 relates.  It does stir the 'Elgen said / Ric said, et al' pot, I'll give 'em that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 30, 2014, 11:11:24 AM
A little history:

First photo below
As originally constructed, there was no window in the door or in the lavatory.  For some reason, the standard cabin windows (only two of which were installed) were in two sections with the stringer running through the middle.

Second photo below
Taken in early September 1936 at Floyd Bennet Field in NY before the start of the Bendix Race.  No lavatory window. Stringer through the cabin window.

Third photo below
Taken in Burbank some time in early 1937 (probably late Feb or early March). This is the earliest photo showing the window.  The Hooven DF is still there (faired dorsal loop), not yet replaced with the Bendix loop over the cockpit. The stringer through the window is gone.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 30, 2014, 11:42:08 AM
Good depiction of evolution regarding original absence / eventual presence of lavatory window, but as to the other window / stringer arrangement -

A little history:

First photo below
As originally constructed, there was no window in the door or in the lavatory.  For some reason, the standard cabin windows (only two of which were installed) were in two sections with the stringer running through the middle.

I see what could be a stringer, but unless you have stronger evidence of it I suspect we're seeing either a reflection off of bared plexiglass between where the paper covering separates, or a piece of tooling inserted into the perhaps unfinished window frame.

Second photo below
Taken in early September 1936 at Floyd Bennet Field in NY before the start of the Bendix Race.  No lavatory window. Stringer through the cabin window.

Again, I believe we are seeing a reflection that is suggestive of a longitudenal member through the window, but not really a stringer.

Third photo below
Taken in Burbank some time in early 1937 (probably late Feb or early March). This is the earliest photo showing the window.  The Hooven DF is still there (faired dorsal loop), not yet replaced with the Bendix loop over the cockpit. The stringer through the window is gone.

I don't think it was there to start with, Ric, but an illusion.  But again, this does show the evolution of the lavatory window, good on that. 

I cannot imagine why anyone would run a stringer through open-air across an open aperture like that.  Not being fastened to adjoining skin (where the opening is), it would have defied the intent of a stress skin design and would have had very poor compressive / buckling resistance (essentially zero benefit) and is likely to add nearly miniscule tension / fuselage bending resistance.  It would also be subject to damage and a hinderance to the intent of a window altogether.  It is not that difficult to adequately frame around such an aperture so as to assure full rigidity and strength to the overall structure.

---

As an aside, I have gotten some sense that the covered windows (amidships, not at lavatory) on NR16020 were not all about functionality, although they certainly were not needed with tanks being installed, etc.  I rather get an idea that Earhart may have stressed visual differentiation from other Lockheed 10's - she spoke of her 'flying laboratory', and it being visually different wouldn't have hurt that image.  The normal windows were certainly not needed, so no foul, and the coverings would have been easy to sheet over at Lockheed, so a no-brainer to meet that preference if it was the case.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 30, 2014, 12:46:04 PM
In this early interior picture (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=50&DMSCALE=50&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=376&DMY=300&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=17&DMROTATE=0&x=304&y=84) of the cabin window, it looks like the horizontal piece is part of the window and not a stringer.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 30, 2014, 01:13:27 PM
There is a stringer that lines up with the bar and, in this exterior photo, it sure looks to me as if the window is in two sections.  There's paper covering the plexi.  If the bar was just on the inside we would see paper over the entire window.  Whether the bar is the stringer or just a longitudinal bar, it seems clear that the window is comprised of two pieces of plexi.  Why would they do that?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 30, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Jeff Glickman has just agreed to try to bring out enough detail in the Miami photo to see the rivet pattern on the patch.  In putting together materials to send to him I realized something that had not occurred to me before.

As we all know, one of the unusual things about the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 is the absence of a crossing line of rivets.  Looking at the structure of a Lockheed 10 in the area where the patch was, Station 593 5/8 is a bulkhead that includes the door to the lavatory compartment.  Station 320 is the bulkhead at the rear of the lavatory compartment.  Station 307, however, is not a bulkhead.  It's a just a circumferential stiffener. 
If the patch had a vertical row of rivets at Station 307 the hypothesis fails, but we know there was no NEED for structure there. It was apparently okay to have a gap in the Station 307 circumferential stiffener when the window was installed so there would be no need to replace and rivet the missing section of the stiffener.



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 30, 2014, 02:36:14 PM
 "Whether the bar is the stringer or just a longitudinal bar, it seems clear that the window is comprised of two pieces of plexi.  Why would they do that?"

If it were hinged, could be for ventilation, probably opening inward.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 30, 2014, 02:46:47 PM
"Whether the bar is the stringer or just a longitudinal bar, it seems clear that the window is comprised of two pieces of plexi.  Why would they do that?"

If it were hinged, could be for ventilation, probably opening inward.

Good pix, gang - and agree, there is a 'bar' clearly enough (I like that term better than stringer, which it does not seem to be).  Purpose?  Something to do with Fred's celestial shots, maybe?  A way to open the upper portion perhaps, or to install a more optically correct panel in one-half (glass)?  Dunno.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on June 30, 2014, 02:49:24 PM
Jeff Glickman has just agreed to try to bring out enough detail in the Miami photo to see the rivet pattern on the patch.  In putting together materials to send to him I realized something that had not occurred to me before.

As we all know, one of the unusual things about the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 is the absence of a crossing line of rivets.  Looking at the structure of a Lockheed 10 in the area where the patch was, Station 593 5/8 is a bulkhead that includes the door to the lavatory compartment.  Station 320 is the bulkhead at the rear of the lavatory compartment.  Station 307, however, is not a bulkhead.  It's a just a circumferential stiffener. 
If the patch had a vertical row of rivets at Station 307 the hypothesis fails, but we know there was no NEED for structure there. It was apparently okay to have a gap in the Station 307 circumferential stiffener when the window was installed so there would be no need to replace and rivet the missing section of the stiffener.

Precisely so, one reason always thought this was a good candidate - and glad Glickman will look at this; my eyes are shot from trying to discern rivets among the pixtel clutter...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 30, 2014, 03:01:39 PM
"Good pix, gang - and agree, there is a 'bar' clearly enough (I like that term better than stringer, which it does not seem to be).  Purpose?  Something to do with Fred's celestial shots, maybe?  A way to open the upper portion perhaps, or to install a more optically correct panel in one-half (glass)?  Dunno."

Interior mount for sextant/octant?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on June 30, 2014, 03:15:34 PM
"Second photo below
Taken in early September 1936 at Floyd Bennet Field in NY before the start of the Bendix Race.  No lavatory window. Stringer through the cabin window."

I don't think it is totally the hypothetical mid-window stringer.  Look how the streak in the window lines up perfectly with the line of brightest reflections on either side of the window.  It "could" be all reflection, especially if there is no interior piece to break-up the reflection and it is characteristic of a reflection off a curved surface.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 30, 2014, 03:44:46 PM
It was apparently okay to have a gap in the Station 307 circumferential stiffener when the window was installed so there would be no need to replace and rivet the missing section of the stiffener.
I suspect if the circumferential stiffener cut ends were attached to horizontal stringers around the new window, then some loads collected by the circumferential stiffener could be transferred to the stringer. If the fuselage was stressed by severe bending, the cut 307 stiffener ends could pull or push on the horizontal stringer near the mid span of the opening and possibly make something like the first tear in 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 30, 2014, 04:47:19 PM
Purpose?  Something to do with Fred's celestial shots, maybe?  A way to open the upper portion perhaps, or to install a more optically correct panel in one-half (glass)?  Dunno.

Remember, the bar is there almost a year before Noonan comes on the scene and before Earhart was considering taking any navigator.  The plan, as late as November 1936 was AE to make the world flight solo.  The bar goes away in early 1937 when they start making mods for the first attempt.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 30, 2014, 04:49:01 PM
I don't think it is totally the hypothetical mid-window stringer.  Look how the streak in the window lines up perfectly with the line of brightest reflections on either side of the window.  It "could" be all reflection, especially if there is no interior piece to break-up the reflection and it is characteristic of a reflection off a curved surface.

The bar shows up in lots of photos taken in 1936.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 05:55:33 AM
It is possible that it is a structural member that was later deemed unnecessary (hence, gone later).  If so, it would not have likely been a 'stringer' per se, but some sort of compression-resistant (and tension bearing) 'strut' type device.  As such it could have well translated loads through any mid-window / mid-bay stringer arrangement that was otherwise interrupted by the windows.

But where does this go, how does it fit the lav window / patch scheme?  I guess it may be interesting as to why the window was skinned over and whether that had to do with some perception of fuselage weakness during heavy loading / rough field work that might have been encountered.  Interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant to identifying whether 2-2-V-1 is of NR16020?  Just a thought.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on July 01, 2014, 07:14:08 AM
What does Lockheed say about this "bar" across the window? If it is seen on the plane right up until modifications began being made for AE's extended flight purposes then, it may have been factory original to the plane? Of the fotos I've seen I get the impression that it wasn't structural to the plane but part of the window - ie, the window wasn't one piece of plexi.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 07:35:00 AM
Don't know what Lockheed can tell us today, or what prints of the window detail are around - but by the picture from Purdue that Greg Daspit linked to it appears that this is part of the removable window assembly / inner frame, IMO.  Take a close gander - and note what appears to be a single fastener visible at forward end of the 'bar' -

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2014, 08:12:03 AM
Interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant to identifying whether 2-2-V-1 is of NR16020?  Just a thought.

I see no relevance at all. The bar through the window is a curiosity and a bit of a mystery. Nothing more.

The be all and end all in the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is the patch is whether the rivet pattern matches. For an answer we must turn to Jeff Glickman.  There will be one of three possible outcomes.
1. Jeff will not be able to discern the rivet pattern.  In that case we'll undoubtedly continue to explore the possibility that our artifact is the patch but it's hard to see how we'd ever get to a smoking gun level of certainty unless the engineering drawing for the patch (there had to be one) somehow comes to light.
2. Jeff will be able to confirm that the rivet pattern is different from what we see on 2-2-V-1.  In that case the hypothesis fails and we're back to square one with 2-2-V-1.
3. Jeff will be able to confirm that the rivet pattern on the patch matches 2-2-V-1.  In that case, just as with the Bevington Object, we would get a second, independent opinion  Maybe even a third.  The importance of such a match cannot be overstated and replicability of results is the essence of science.  If the match is confirmed we'll need to put together an airtight, peer reviewed research paper making the case that we have a conclusively identified piece of NR16020.

Meanwhile, there's no harm in continuing to think about how the structure of the patch may or may not match 2-2-V-1.  For example, the artifact is .032" sheet.  The sheet bordering the patch on three sides (top,rear, and bottom) is .025". The forward edge abuts a .032" skin.  Does it make sense for the patch to be .032"?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2014, 08:13:58 AM
Don't know what Lockheed can tell us today,

Today Lockheed Martin would say, "What's a Model 10?"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 08:39:53 AM
Interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant to identifying whether 2-2-V-1 is of NR16020?  Just a thought.

I see no relevance at all. The bar through the window is a curiosity and a bit of a mystery. Nothing more.

The be all and end all in the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is the patch is whether the rivet pattern matches. For an answer we must turn to Jeff Glickman.  There will be one of three possible outcomes.
1. Jeff will not be able to discern the rivet pattern.  In that case we'll undoubtedly continue to explore the possibility that our artifact is the patch but it's hard to see how we'd ever get to a smoking gun level of certainty unless the engineering drawing for the patch (there had to be one) somehow comes to light.
2. Jeff will be able to confirm that the rivet pattern is different from what we see on 2-2-V-1.  In that case the hypothesis fails and we're back to square one with 2-2-V-1.
3. Jeff will be able to confirm that the rivet pattern on the patch matches 2-2-V-1.  In that case, just as with the Bevington Object, we would get a second, independent opinion  Maybe even a third.  The importance of such a match cannot be overstated and replicability of results is the essence of science.  If the match is confirmed we'll need to put together an airtight, peer reviewed research paper making the case that we have a conclusively identified piece of NR16020.

Meanwhile, there's no harm in continuing to think about how the structure of the patch may or may not match 2-2-V-1.  For example, the artifact is .032" sheet.  The sheet bordering the patch on three sides (top,rear, and bottom) is .025". The forward edge abuts a .032" skin.  Does it make sense for the patch to be .032"?

Good points, good plan.

By all I know of aircraft sheetmetal work of this type, yes, it makes good sense that the patch would be .032".  It is often desireable to go up a gage in thickness, and in this case there may well have been a desire to restore some strength and rigidity to the area lost by the window aperture (conjecture - I don't know that, but it appears to be a reasonable idea).  An .032" skin would also still fair reasonably behind the lap just forward of the patch leading edge - except considering that the patch was likely simply applied over the mod-window coaming. 

What can be discerned of rivet pattern is of course crucial.  What is nice is that we have ample pictures of this area on the non-modified NR16020, so there could be some chance of showing a match at an original line on the base airframe compared to a margin (edge) arrangement on 2-2-V-1.  The mid-field stuff is the real crapshoot - no clear pix so far, but good to see what Glickman can do, I think. 

How 2-2-V-1 was braced (the mid-field lines of rivets that once attached to some underlying stucture, likely stiffeners in my thinking) is the grab bag - that's a very telling pattern, if only we can discern how it was actually done on NR16020.  The margins could, however, be enough.

Interesting that the upper edge of the mod-window cut right through a double-staggered row of rivets which likely had a substantial stiffener mounted behind it - and makes me wonder how that was compensated for, stress-wise.  Makes me wonder further about what was done when the patch was installed - was that stringer-line somehow re-established, even in rudementary form?  COULD account for some of the mid-field patterning we see on 2-2-V-1 at what may be the first row 'down' from the 'top' (a guess).  Just an example of traceable rivet patterns that might be tied to the mother ship yet.

Fascinating - very glad Miami Herald could provide some help.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on July 01, 2014, 09:30:49 AM
Don't know what Lockheed can tell us today, or what prints of the window detail are around - but by the picture from Purdue that Greg Daspit linked to it appears that this is part of the removable window assembly / inner frame, IMO.  Take a close gander - and note what appears to be a single fastener visible at forward end of the 'bar' -



I'm not entirely sure whether this exercise (about the "bar" and window) is in fact irrelevant or not.  If indeed the bar can be attributed to a structural function then clearly additional strengthening was deemed necessary at that point in the body of the craft. It also stands to reason that if it were to be replaced/filled in, that additional bracing to the replacement structure would also be needed as it wasn't an integral part of the whole surrounding structure, hence the additional rows of rivets indicating additional underlying bracing. Unfortunately, the fact that the bar disappears from later fotos suggests it might not have been structural.  I'm beginning to suspect that the "bar" may have functioned more to protect the plexi than to strengthen the structure. Just a guess though.

So much for that theory. But is it? Look at the skin to the fore and aft of the smaller window farther forward, where there are multiple longitudinal rows of rivets on either side of the window. Stands to reason that skinning over a hole where a larger window had been would would have been reenforced similarly.  Now we just need to see the rivet lines  to confirm.  Does 2-2-V-1 fit the pattern suggested by rivet lines on either side of the smaller window? 

Sorry if I stated the obvious.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 09:43:15 AM
I think the bar may have had a more basic intent - perhaps to protect the window with peeps moving around in the bird during flight or something.  It does not appear to be a structural member by what I am observing here.

It is true that a stiffener runs fore and aft at about mid-waterline to the windows - but it is not a stringer (not a major component) and is no doubt readily accounted for where interrupted by the structure of the window frames themselves.  That is fairly common in semi-monocoque construction like this.

That big window being punched out of the forward tail cone section in the lav area may have been another matter - it is big, and was partly cut right through a double row of rivets, implying some degree of structural interruption.  One would think the window frame there was also designed to compensate for that, and likely was - but we can't see how so far.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2014, 12:05:44 PM
That big window being punched out of the forward tail cone section in the lav area may have been another matter - it is big, and wasp cut right through a double row of rivets, implying some degree of structural interruption. 

You have to wonder why they did that.  Was it so important that the window be that big?  Important to whom?  Certainly not FN.  He wasn't on the scene until at least a month later.  Had to be Harry Manning, the navigator who turned to not know how to do celestial nav from an airplane.  The whole thing seems typical of the half-assness that plagued the entire Earhart/Putnam operation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 01, 2014, 12:13:23 PM
That looks like a temporary plug for that opening that was used only during production.  If could be that a lot of manpower was used to move the fuselage along the assembly line.  They may have preferred the door frame to be the hand-hold of choice and not the window frame which would be much more fragile.  The plug would have been removed just before the window was installed.  We have already seen evidence that electric drills were being used.  It would have been tempting for the guys on the assembly line to pass the extension cord through the window opening instead of through the door.  However, the window opening at that stage may not have been extension cord friendly.  The solution would be to install a temporary plug.  You see this kind of thing all the time today.  Temporary caps, plates, plugs and covers can be seen everywhere on today’s assembly lines.  It would not be a stretch of the imagination that they were in use when the Electra was being built.

Stringers adjacent to the windows …

Note that the window belt will have more longitudinal stringers, or intercostals, around the original window openings.  If a fuselage was to be built without windows in a particular area the additional intercostals would be left out to simplify construction and save weight.  If an opening was added at a later date this additional structure would have to be added. 

I can't recall if Tighar has access to an SRM for the Model 10.  If you do it might have a typical stringer diagram that might prove useful.  It might also have a skin, or plating, diagram.  The gold standard would be the actual production drawings, but, those may be hard to find.

Back to the patch …

What keeps bugging me is there is “no window”, then a “big window” which gets replaced by a “big patch”.  In all probability the patch was a field repair that was performed by a local mechanic using the standard practices that were in use at the time.  I’m a somewhat convinced that the window installation itself may not have been done by Lockheed.  This window-become-patched-opening looks to be larger than a typical window.  At least one more stringer would have to be cut and would require more structure to restore the load path around the opening.  If we were doing that today you would probably see an external doubler applied.  I don't see any evidence of an internal doubler or structure.  This may be due to the low resolution of the photos we have available.  An internal doubler could have been installed, but, this would have been a far more extensive installation since mold line of the skin would be stepped inboard by the thickness of the doubler.  You would have to remove and replace at least the frames on either side of the window opening and a bunch of the fasteners in the stringers.  I just cannot imagine them doing all of that.  At the same time there is no evidence of an external doubler.  A convincing argument could be made that the fuselage at the location of that window could have been weak enough so the flex experienced in a hard landing could have cracked the window.   It might have happened more than once --- hence the patch.  That piece of acrylic would have to be specially formed to match the fuselage contour at that location.  A patch just attached with fasteners around the periphery would have to be stiffened to keep it from oil canning.  The mechanic may have just looked at the rivet patterns around the other windows and used that as a rough guide.  One stiffener would probably have been fine.  He may have had to use three stiffeners, along with some “hand forming”, or bending, in order to get the “patch” to lay as flush as possible to the skin around the opening.  The result would have been somewhat rough.

I can’t figure out why they needed such a large window at that location.  The better question woud be:  If they thought that he large window was necessary, and obviously they did at some point, why would they have attempted the round-the-world flight without it?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 01:03:05 PM
I think your points are good, Jay, and Ric's regarding the 'Manning Factor' and the general 'half-assedness' of the whole affair.  That big window, absent some clearly-told purpose (which it clearly lacks since history has us scratching our heads), is a gaping hole on the side of the airplane and carbunckle on the rump of the first round-the-world effort so far as I can tell.  That it was skinned over in Miami may be telling of same - enough of that nonsense, close 'er up and we're off... caution, speculation on my part of course - but that's about where I sit having heard and seen this much to-date.

I am inclined to believe the 'big window' (reminds me of Lucy and Desi's movie now 'the Big Yellow Trailer'...) was not a Lockheed effort, but a Mantz Aviation special: that it seems to lack the doublers you mention leave it suspect that way to me.  In lieu of a visible outer doubler, or telling rivets in the field around the opening, it could have had a fairly substantial frame to compensate - but we see no upper double row of rivets (so far - stand by for better pix when it might happen) to account for the double row that was chopped out for the window (original stringer ran through at about 2/3rds way up the window).  Somehow this all seems (can't say for certain, just seemingly) a bit contrary to Lockheed's elegant conservatism in framing their lovely ships.

Whatever challenges remain, it is interesting that 2-2-V-1 fits within the aperture well enough to qualify, is of an acceptable thickness for such an arrangement, and bears what may be a reasonable fastener count / spacing / row spacing for candidacy.  For one thing, we may be able to at least compare upper row rivet spacing to that of 2-2-V-1 - and an alternate spacing may further suggest non-Lockheed (and what if it matches the non-Lockheed spacing we see on 2-2-V-1?).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 01, 2014, 01:28:40 PM
The sheet bordering the patch on three sides (top,rear, and bottom) is .025". The forward edge abuts a .032" skin.  Does it make sense for the patch to be .032"?

 An .032" skin would also still fair reasonably behind the lap just forward of the patch leading edge - except considering that the patch was likely simply applied over the mod-window coaming
“Coaming”
Thanks Jeff.  I was wondering what to call the metal at the rim of the window seen in image 10 from the article (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/28/4208139/piece-of-metal-may-offer-clue.html).
 I was wondering if the coaming was removed, left in place or reinstalled somehow and whether it helped reinforce the edges of the patch.

Edit
To clarify I was wondering why the edge of the patch would separate from the rest of the patch in the context of 2-2-V-1.
Why, if there was enough force to blow rivet heads off, the force didn’t also blow the panel off all the way to the edge.
It seems like if the coaming was left then there may be 3 layers of skin(the original .025, the coaming and then the new.032 plus the structure.
Would that require the need for an upsizing in rivets at the edge as well?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Kent Beuchert on July 01, 2014, 02:25:00 PM
Quote
I think your points are good, Jay, and Ric's regarding the 'Manning Factor' and the general 'half-assedness' of the whole affair.  That big window, absent some clearly-told purpose (which it clearly lacks since history has us scratching our heads), is a gaping hole on the side of the airplane and carbunckle on the rump of the first round-the-world effort so far as I can tell.

What's wrong with this logic?  1) I have no clue as to why these window mods were made to the ship
                                              2) They are proof of the half-assed nature of Earhart's world flight.
Half assed it may have seemed, but the world flight was nearing complete success, and only failed during the final legs because of  a sequence of unlikely events and bad luck.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on July 01, 2014, 03:13:17 PM

What's wrong with this logic?  1) I have no clue as to why these window mods were made to the ship
                                              2) They are proof of the half-assed nature of Earhart's world flight.
Half assed it may have seemed, but the world flight was nearing complete success, and only failed during the final legs because of  a sequence of unlikely events and bad luck.
[/quote]

Kent,

Wasn't there some celestial navigation advantage having the windows on the starboard side for a west to east equatorial
route as opposed to having them on the port side for the east to west route she finally chose after the Luke Field accident? Seems I've seen or read something re this.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on July 01, 2014, 03:25:06 PM
All,

Let’s take a deep breath and think back to what was done in Miami during that visit.  I seem to recall that the trailing antenna was removed and the new DF system was installed, does any thing else come to mind?

Are there any “major” components associated with the Miami mods that would need to be placed into the aircraft that would require a large shelf/cabinet to be placed in the lavatory area and fixtured to the fuselage wall?

I just seem to believe that the stop in Miami would have had a fairly large work agenda that would have been developed before getting there.  Some thing that Lockheed couldn’t or wouldn’t attempt in Calif.

Just some ideas.

Ted Campbell 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 03:26:25 PM
Quote
I think your points are good, Jay, and Ric's regarding the 'Manning Factor' and the general 'half-assedness' of the whole affair.  That big window, absent some clearly-told purpose (which it clearly lacks since history has us scratching our heads), is a gaping hole on the side of the airplane and carbunckle on the rump of the first round-the-world effort so far as I can tell.

What's wrong with this logic?  1) I have no clue as to why these window mods were made to the ship
                                              2) They are proof of the half-assed nature of Earhart's world flight.
[/b]

Nothing, in my view -
 
1) The purpose for the window mod (big one at least) remains obscure and no one has produced a truly good reason for it; they got on famously without it - until they couldn't find Howland... AH-HAH!!!  That's IT!  THAT was the window in which Howland was to have appeared, dammit - no WONDER they never saw Howland...  :P  Anyway, that is a segueue into...
2) Arriving with a plane load of 'help' in Hawaii with dry prop hubs, Earhart at the wheel and losing the bird on take-off (differential throttle handling to augment directional control in lieu of manly rudder handling was implied by Mantz but nobody convicting of Earhart), thence a change in direction with Putnam assuming some vocal roles to convey key information, i.e. non-sense about radio coordination, etc., off-route on first African stop, radio mishandling from get-go - less than steller preparation is evident = Keystone Cops exercise.

Quote
Half assed it may have seemed, but the world flight was nearing complete success, and only failed during the final legs because of  a sequence of unlikely events and bad luck.

Yeah, they almost made it... and almost really sucks when it comes to finding Howland.

Is it really so unlikely or bad luck to have mismatched radio capabilities so badly, or to have (NOT) prepared for radio usage so poorly?  Or are those failures waiting to happen when one prepares 'halfassedly'?

Or one could say that Howland just didn't seem to want Amelia - her Luke Field event staved it off first, now this unlikely bad luck... or maybe it really is safe to say that the Pacific doesn't tolerate 'half-assedness' with charity.

No slight is meant toward poor dead Amelia and Fred - I'm a fan; but the thing does speak clearly for itself to a reasonable hind-sighter - 'half-assed' in more ways than I care to think about.  That's a good way to get lost...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on July 01, 2014, 03:55:52 PM
From Fox News among others... hopefully going viral...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/07/01/photo-may-offer-crucial-clue-in-amelia-earhart-mystery-report/

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 01, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
As I see things now, it doesn't really matter 'why' the window installed or why it was removed and patched.  Answering that won't tell us if 2-2-V-1 is, in fact, the patch.  What needs answering, if possible, is 'who did the work and where are the records -- drawing, pictures, descriptions, approvals and so forth for this and all the other work that may have needed to be done?

Only finding the records will conclusively prove or disprove the question.  Let's think about where they might be and where's a good place to start.

Jeff Glickman might find a suggestion of rivet lines in some of the old photography, but that's not in my opinion the 'any idiot smoking gun'.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on July 01, 2014, 04:34:30 PM
Jeff Glickman might find a suggestion of rivet lines in some of the old photography, but that's not in my opinion the 'any idiot smoking gun'.

Perhaps not as definitive as we like, but consider this: The good folks at the USAF Museum confirmed 2-2-V-1 was a "professionally installed" part. If Pan Am personnel installed the patch, that would likely qualify as "professional." If Jeff can, with some reasonable assurance, correlate the rivet lines and other detail between 2-2-V-1 and the patch depicted in the picture, you'd still have objects of not just matching detail, but also confirmation that both were installed in a precise, workman-like manner. Quelle coincidence!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2014, 05:43:03 PM
That looks like a temporary plug for that opening that was used only during production.

The bar through the cabin windows was there after the airplane was delivered.  They appear in numerous photos until early 1937 when they disappear at the same time the cabin door window, the lave window and other modifications for the world flight appear.

I can’t figure out why they needed such a large window at that location.  The better question woud be:  If they thought that he large window was necessary, and obviously they did at some point, why would they have attempted the round-the-world flight without it?

As I explained above, the big window was probably Manning's idea. Noonan didn't need it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2014, 08:08:16 PM
This should help.  It's a photo of the interior of c/n 1130 in 2004 when it was being rebuilt by the Navy at Pensacola as a replica of NR16020.  The bulkhead with the door to the Lavatory hasn't been installed yet so we can see right back to the bulkhead that is the rear wall of the lavatory (Sta. 243).  Lots of information here.  Note the red arrow.  To install that window they had to cut away part of the stiffener at Sta. 207.  Really surprising that they would do that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2014, 08:21:59 PM
I just received permission to share the Miami Herald photos for research.  They must be credited to the Miami Herald and they can't be used in a book or documentary without special permission.  Enjoy.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on July 01, 2014, 08:57:13 PM
This photo from page 13 of the July 3, 1937  Melbourne Argus (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=1903&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=3.83044&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%2520Darwin&DMTHUMB=1&REC=11&DMROTATE=0&x=32&y=44) seems to have the area of interest on NR16020 that was seldom photographed.  The National Library of Australia's online copy on  Trove (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/printArticlePdf/11115382/3?print=n) unfortunately does not offer better quality, but an original surviving photo from the newspaper's archives might. 


[Edit: Purdue appears to have an original copy (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=284&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=1572&DMY=1448&DMTEXT=%2520Electra&DMTHUMB=1&REC=15&DMROTATE=0&x=261&y=311). I can see the patch in it but can't make out rivet lines.]

It may be a totally moot point if the Miami photo proves to show everything we hope it might show, but it may be another option for study if it does not.

From what I can see, though, the stars appear to be aligning around the Miami photo in terms of quality.  That could be hard to beat.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ken Nielsen on July 02, 2014, 03:40:47 AM
Journalists, groan.

"The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery claims that the skin and other items including a woman's shoe prove conclusively that Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan perished on the remote Pacific island of Nikumaroro while on the final leg of a round-the-world flight in 1937."

Could this long forgotten picture FINALLY solve the mystery of Amelia Earhart's disappearance over the Pacific Ocean?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677486/Did-Amelia-Earhart-perish-castaway-desert-island-Long-forgotten-picture-hints-tragic-demise-aviator-disappeared-nearly-80-years-ago-today.html#ixzz36IncUczh
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 05:35:19 AM
Journalists, groan.

Ahh well, at least they spelled my name right.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 05:55:13 AM
Just realized (duh).  News about this new research is breaking on the 77th anniversary of the disappearance.  That may be why we're getting so much coverage.  People are going to assume we planned it this way but you guys know I'm not that clever.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on July 02, 2014, 07:18:13 AM
Re window in Miami photo - Boy that plane seems like it was a patchwork of skin panels.  What's with the apparently recessed panel just above AE's head?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on July 02, 2014, 07:20:29 AM
A friend just forwarded the article in today's Stars and Stripes: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/piece-of-metal-in-photo-may-offer-clue-to-amelia-earhart-s-disappearance-1.291318
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 02, 2014, 08:51:40 AM
Just realized (duh).  News about this new research is breaking on the 77th anniversary of the disappearance.  That may be why we're getting so much coverage.  People are going to assume we planned it this way but you guys know I'm not that clever.

Unusual for you to be that sleepy, Ric... I guess we can forgive you!  It must be organic by now, you didn't even have to consciously plan it...

77 years... Don't worry Amelia, a bunch of us are still looking for you, even if a bunch of us (not here  ;)) are wrong about 'where'...

Well, she's past being hungry, but who wants to be forgotten?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 02, 2014, 09:15:11 AM
Does this look normal or could it be possible damage from the hard landing?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 09:15:29 AM
Re window in Miami photo - Boy that plane seems like it was a patchwork of skin panels.  What's with the apparently recessed panel just above AE's head?

Yeah, I noticed that.  It's non-standard (other Electras don't have it) but it seems to have been there from the start.  No idea why.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 09:18:51 AM
Does this look normal or could it be possible damage from the hard landing?

Damn you're good!  Let's see if we can find that spot in pre-Miami photos.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on July 02, 2014, 09:33:41 AM
Extra attention probably due to the current "world flight" taking place in addition to the anniversary.   As most of you have, I have noticed it only resembles the original flight.  Not the number of stops...and in different places...most likely due to lack of relations and/or permissions, safety, etc. for some locations.  But, it has brought some extra attention and that is a good thing.
These new pics and info regarding this artifact is getting exciting!!   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 09:37:56 AM
These new pics and info regarding this artifact is getting exciting!!

Yes, but let's remember how often we've been disappointed.  The light at the end of the tunnel is usually an oncoming train.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on July 02, 2014, 09:38:30 AM
Does this look normal or could it be possible damage from the hard landing?
Well done Greg! That may assist in an explanation of why the patch was made. Which at the end of the day proves nothing of 2-2-V-1, however is very interesting nonetheless. Although the media is FULL of inaccuracies, may the interest spark membership/support to further the cause. Right or wrong, media coverage is vital to interest.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on July 02, 2014, 09:42:05 AM
Does this look normal or could it be possible damage from the hard landing?

Could that also be just another recessed panel?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 09:45:26 AM
Could that also be just another recessed panel?

No.  That's the skin juncture at Sta. 293 5/8.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Peterson on July 02, 2014, 10:23:52 AM
So many pictures - so many thoughts - not enough time!

Something that sticks out to me: the two rivets above the upper right corner of the window in the Miami detail. Not sure of the correct terminology, but the installer of the window added a vertical 'stiffener' at station (approx) 294-294.5? Note the small strip of metal left rearward of station 293 5/8. Not represented accurately in the Harney drawing. I do realize this was based on educated guesses and this picture wasn't available. Just noting in the interests of validating/invalidating the patch as an origin of 2-2-V-1.

The Pensacola reconstruction shows all sorts of wonderful details - especially around windows and partial circumferential stiffeners. Are the tapers at the ends of the partials a cap? A separate piece riveted onto the actual stiffener? Note the rivets attaching the 'cap' at the far right of the Pensacola picture. If the original partial at station 307 has a cap, does removing it result in a natural upper edge to the added lav window? How does this play out with the framing of the new window? Was the new window framed like an original window, with a rounded rectangular channel? Or was it just straight channel? That is, given the vertical channel that seemed to be added at station 294(ish), would there be a horizontal channel at the top edge of the new window? How is this actually constructed to hold a window. I know, these are not necessarily known details. But how does this play into the inclusion/exclusion of 2-2-V-1?

Finally, while the Purdue picture(s) don't give good indication of rivets, it does show pretty well the extent of the patch. You can count rivets in the Miami detail and see exactly where the upper edge of the new window is. From the Purdue picture this seems to coincide precisely with the upper edge of the patch. Something that I seem to notice, though it could just be illusions from the various angles involved, but is the rectangular patch out of line with the conical shape of the plane? That is, is the rear edge going farther up the plane than the front edge? The 'tapper' isn't matched? Does that have any bearing on including/excluding 2-2-V-1? Also, I wish Ric could have turned 2-2-V-1 180 degrees in the pictures he took at the New England air museum. I know that double row of rivets is trying to be matched to the bottom of the window, but it doesn't - at all. Would the upper edge of the patch have been double riveted to the upper skin of the aircraft? Does the wonky rectangle against the tapered fuselage and a horizontal stringer-cum-window-frame piece explain the odd pitch of the 2-2-V-1 double rivets?

Just things noticed that I thought I'd share.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Peterson on July 02, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
Oh, one more thought that came to mind:

Note the partial stringers at the front and rear edges of removed windows in the Pensacola reconstruction. They divide the window opening into four rows - five rows of riveting. If you divide the new window opening by four, do you get the rivet spacing of 2-2-V-1?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 02, 2014, 11:05:47 AM
Dave,

Those are the stub intercostals I was refereing to earlier.  I wonder if the spacing between those is any where near waht is found on the patch?

I really don't think Lockheed installed that window.  The visible window "frame" is well done, but, you can tell that it is a "one off" hand produced part.  You can see that on the blow-up of the forward edge.  I guess the question is there enough rivet holes remaining on the patch so that we can correlate them to any of those visible in these photos.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 11:09:03 AM
Does this look normal or could it be possible damage from the hard landing?

I can tell you this much.  It didn't look like that before the Luke Field wreck. The first photo below was taken just before the flight to Hawaii. The second photo was taken at Luke Field the day before the accident.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
It's also apparent that there there was no such separation on other side of the airplane.  This photo was taken upon their arrival in Lae.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 11:31:02 AM
If the separation was the result of the Luke Field wreck it seems like Lockheed would have fixed it during the rebuild.  That lower skin forward of Sta. 293 5/8 was one of the ones replaced.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 02, 2014, 12:14:03 PM
May just be looking at a 'step' and a shadow resulting from it.  Sometimes replacement skins don't seat in as nicely as brand-new and you get a slight step; lighting can accentuate it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on July 02, 2014, 12:19:13 PM
And look how low that antenna is to the ground!! 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 12:31:44 PM
And look how low that antenna is to the ground!!

Now imagine the plane with a full fuel load on a turf field.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on July 02, 2014, 02:01:10 PM
Just realized (duh).  News about this new research is breaking on the 77th anniversary of the disappearance.  That may be why we're getting so much coverage.  People are going to assume we planned it this way but you guys know I'm not that clever.

Don't admit it... Just smile and wave to the crowd!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on July 02, 2014, 02:30:08 PM
"Now imagine the plane with a full fuel load on a turf field."

EXACTLY!! 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 02, 2014, 02:31:08 PM
So many pictures - so many thoughts - not enough time!

Something that sticks out to me: the two rivets above the upper right corner of the window in the Miami detail. Not sure of the correct terminology, but the installer of the window added a vertical 'stiffener' at station (approx) 294-294.5? Note the small strip of metal left rearward of station 293 5/8. Not represented accurately in the Harney drawing. I do realize this was based on educated guesses and this picture wasn't available. Just noting in the interests of validating/invalidating the patch as an origin of 2-2-V-1.

The Pensacola reconstruction shows all sorts of wonderful details - especially around windows and partial circumferential stiffeners. Are the tapers at the ends of the partials a cap? A separate piece riveted onto the actual stiffener? Note the rivets attaching the 'cap' at the far right of the Pensacola picture. If the original partial at station 307 has a cap, does removing it result in a natural upper edge to the added lav window? How does this play out with the framing of the new window? Was the new window framed like an original window, with a rounded rectangular channel? Or was it just straight channel? That is, given the vertical channel that seemed to be added at station 294(ish), would there be a horizontal channel at the top edge of the new window? How is this actually constructed to hold a window. I know, these are not necessarily known details. But how does this play into the inclusion/exclusion of 2-2-V-1?

Finally, while the Purdue picture(s) don't give good indication of rivets, it does show pretty well the extent of the patch. You can count rivets in the Miami detail and see exactly where the upper edge of the new window is. From the Purdue picture this seems to coincide precisely with the upper edge of the patch. Something that I seem to notice, though it could just be illusions from the various angles involved, but is the rectangular patch out of line with the conical shape of the plane? That is, is the rear edge going farther up the plane than the front edge? The 'tapper' isn't matched? Does that have any bearing on including/excluding 2-2-V-1? Also, I wish Ric could have turned 2-2-V-1 180 degrees in the pictures he took at the New England air museum. I know that double row of rivets is trying to be matched to the bottom of the window, but it doesn't - at all. Would the upper edge of the patch have been double riveted to the upper skin of the aircraft? Does the wonky rectangle against the tapered fuselage and a horizontal stringer-cum-window-frame piece explain the odd pitch of the 2-2-V-1 double rivets?
Just things noticed that I thought I'd share.

Good observations in my view, Dave.

The 'big window' is an odd duck - unlike the rectangular windows further forward where the upper fuselage section is more constant, this appears to be a rectangle ('odd' shape is illustion, I believe) placed in a distinctly compound-tapering section - so the effect is a 'wonky' shape, i.e. the aft edge is out of visual proportion to the forward edge due to the shape of the landscape in the form of the tapered aft fuselage.  I do not believe that would exclude 2-2-V-1 from the running.

As to the double rivet row - I am having the same issue with that as you - the 'doube row' does not seem to match the pitch found along the bottom edge of the window to me.  Rotate 2-2-V-1 and consider whether the pitch matches - it appears to be close; then the question is, would the modifier have laid-in a second row, staggered, of rivets - and very well may have: in some pictures the upper edge of the 'patch' appears to be slightly tooled over, as if 'turning the corner' slightly to overlay the existing window frame and perhaps more tightly close the rain gap.  A second row of rivets would be ideal to do so.

So would a second row of staggered rivets be a natural if someone wanted to lay-in a doubler to both close the upper edge more effectively, and possibly restore rigidity by picking up added internal material where it may have been compromised earlier by the window cut?  I could see that possibility.

All conjecture on my part, I realize.  And I realize that there may be a stilted 'stiffener spacing problem' after 'inverting' 2-2-V-1, if one looks at where the inner-field rows are situated relative to the window edges (too close to edge to make sense?).  Of course I can only do so much from the armchair and by these photos and graphics and am not expert.  But the double row now does not look like a good fit to the lower edge double row to me; upper row pitch may be closer indeed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 02, 2014, 02:46:29 PM
The Harney drawing Ric posted just above (reply #145) shows a double row of rivets on both top and bottom.  Is this just a guess or did he have some source to work from?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 02, 2014, 02:52:20 PM
The Harney drawing Ric posted just above (reply #145) shows a double row of rivets on both top and bottom.  Is this just a guess or did he have some source to work from?

I don't know answer to that, Bill.  It's obvious that Harney's drawings are not perfect to the real ship, but they are remarkably detailed and I'm far from dismissing that detail as completely inauthentic (but must take with risk / grain of salt).

Below is a highlight showing the upper 'tooled edge' I spoke of just up stream - meaning a slightly bend-form to the upper inch or so of edge material to perhaps cause it to lay into the original airplane skin after translating over the window coaming (assuming the coaming was left in place).  In this photo the light catches a slight but distinct change in plane along a fairly crisp line, consistent with gentle forming of such an edge for the reasons I've described.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 03:00:05 PM
Here's 2-2-V-1 flipped so that the tab is on the top.  Remember, this overlay is a rough approximation. We'll need a much more precise rendering.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 02, 2014, 03:06:19 PM
You might also take another photograph of 2-2-V-1 and flatten it out a bit.  Seems to me the curvature it now exhibits is a little more than the actual curvature of the fuselage at that point.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 03:22:10 PM
You might also take another photograph of 2-2-V-1 and flatten it out a bit.  Seems to me the curvature it now exhibits is a little more than the actual curvature of the fuselage at that point.

I agree with you but I'm a bit hesitant to squish it. 

I had a thought (always dangerous).  The left side of the artifact failed by metal fatigue along a rigid straight edge.  If I butt the artifact up tight against Sta. 320, the "gap" in the "tab" comes enticingly close to Sta. 307 where they had to deal with the partial circumferential and one of the lines of #3 rivets lines up nicely with an existing stringer.  We need more precise graphics to work with.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Peterson on July 02, 2014, 04:51:14 PM
This is maddening. What are the chances that this piece of metal, with the correct metallurgical characteristics, in this most remote of locations, that just so happens to juuuusssstttt fit this particularly odd piece of this aircraft, isn't this patch? It boggles my mind.

Yet, I'm about one inch or less from being convinced 2-2-V-1 cannot be the patch.

One of the most telling pictures for me is the one of the actual artifact held against the New England Air Museum Electra (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32043.html#msg32043 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32043.html#msg32043)). For all the grainy uncertainty of all the post-patch pictures of NR16020 I think it's pretty clear that the patch was placed precisely in place of what Jeffrey calls the coaming. In fact, when I think about it, if I were the one placing the patch, wouldn't it make sense to drill out the coaming and use it as a template for the patch? Maybe add a little vertical length to double the top row of rivets (to seal it better because they patched the window because it leaked like a sieve? Maybe? Guessed Dave). But the horizontal length therefore must be less than the station 293 5/8 to 320 distance? Or more precisely, equal to the coaming vertical rivet holes?

Oh, and I have to say, I think it unlikely (not that I have any expertise, especially in respect to Jeffrey and those with actual aircraft construction experience) that the patch installer would have drilled new holes and placed the patch over the existing coaming. Considering the detail apparent in the Miami close up, the plane would be Swiss cheese at that point. Seems an Ocam's razor kind of thing - removing, templating, and reusing existing holes is way easier. And a cleaner result I would think. But, I admit, I know relatively nothing about the realities of aircraft construction and field maintenance.

Nothing absolute about it, but given the detail of the front edge of the window now available, and what can be seen in the post-patch pictures, is 2-2-V-1 too long to fit the patch? The picture of the actual artifact against the plane is more telling than the uncertain scaled Photoshop renderings. The patch appears to match the coaming width, and the coaming rivets are about an inch inward from stations 293 5/8 and 320 (see detail from Miami and Oakland pre-first attempt pics). If it was a 1-to-1 fit with the coaming, wouldn't these vertical rivets/rivet holes be on 2-2-V-1? Every time I strain to see clearly, yet try to be coldly rational about it, I'm convinced the patch as pictured on the actual aircraft is within the 293 5/8-320 frames, and that it's just too likely that it would be riveted directly in place of the existing coaming holes. Does that make 2-2-V-1 too long? The rivet holes would show? Maybe. Still, if 2-2-V-1 were just rotated ever so slightly in the pic at the NEAM I could believe that the vertical rivet holes wouldn't show on 2-2-V-1. It's really, really, close.

I'm starting to wonder if this horizontal dimension is crossing the line and excluding 2-2-V-1. It pains me, but (think Johnny Cochran), "if it doesn't fit, you must quit." Perhaps enough clarity in nailing down the horizontal dimension of the patch is enough to exclude 2-2-V-1? As much as it pains me to say so, but that seems a possible avenue of investigation if horizontal rivet rows can't be resolved. Or maybe that line of investigation can show that 2-2-V-1 is still possibly the patch?

Here's hoping a clearer picture of the patch shows up validating that 2-2-V-1 fits.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 05:37:48 PM
Nothing absolute about it, but given the detail of the front edge of the window now available, and what can be seen in the post-patch pictures, is 2-2-V-1 too long to fit the patch?

It's not rocket science.  The station numbers are the distance in inched from the tip of the aircraft's nose, so Station 293 5/8 where the window and patch begin is 293 5/8 inches from the tip of the nose.  Station 320, the aft edge of the window/patch is, therefore 27 3/8 inches from station 293 5/8 so length of the window/patch (the envelope please)  .... is 27 3/8 inches. 
Artifact 2-2-V-1 is, as measured by the NTSB, 23 inches long. The court finds for the Defendant.
In the photo of the artifact being held up against the New England Air Museum Electra, remember that the artifact is several inches closer to the camera than the skin of the airplane and therefore looks bigger than it would if it was flush.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on July 02, 2014, 06:27:03 PM
Quote
It's not rocket science.  The station numbers are the distance in inched from the tip of the aircraft's nose, so Station 293 5/8 where the window and patch begin is 293 5/8 inches from the tip of the nose.  Station 320, the aft edge of the window/patch is, therefore 27 3/8 inches from station 293 5/8 so length of the window/patch (the envelope please)  .... is 27 3/8 inches. 
Artifact 2-2-V-1 is, as measured by the NTSB, 23 inches long. The court finds for the Defendant.
In the photo of the artifact being held up against the New England Air Museum Electra, remember that the artifact is several inches closer to the camera than the skin of the airplane and therefore looks bigger than it would if it was flush.

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 06:33:16 PM

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

No way to do that without cutting a hole in the side of the airplane. The museum is TIGHAR-friendly but not THAT friendly.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Albert Durrell on July 02, 2014, 07:21:37 PM
320-293 5/8 = 26 3/8
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 02, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
320-293 5/8 = 26 3/8
Thanks. I knew I would screw that up.  26 3/8 it is. Still fits with 3 3/8 inches to spare on the length. 

Harder to judge the width.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 03, 2014, 12:10:00 AM
I'm not entirely sure whether this exercise (about the "bar" and window) is in fact irrelevant or not.  If indeed the bar can be attributed to a structural function then clearly additional strengthening was deemed necessary at that point in the body of the craft. It also stands to reason that if it were to be replaced/filled in, that additional bracing to the replacement structure would also be needed as it wasn't an integral part of the whole surrounding structure, hence the additional rows of rivets indicating additional underlying bracing. Unfortunately, the fact that the bar disappears from later fotos suggests it might not have been structural.  I'm beginning to suspect that the "bar" may have functioned more to protect the plexi than to strengthen the structure. Just a guess though.

So much for that theory. But is it? Look at the skin to the fore and aft of the smaller window farther forward, where there are multiple longitudinal rows of rivets on either side of the window. Stands to reason that skinning over a hole where a larger window had been would would have been reenforced similarly.  Now we just need to see the rivet lines  to confirm.  Does 2-2-V-1 fit the pattern suggested by rivet lines on either side of the smaller window?



In reference to Tim's comments...I have to agree that the bar was primarily used to protect the plexiglass window. Although, the bar is part of the structure of the plane. One of things that caught my eye was how the window in question is bigger than the window used to do experiments. So my question is....was the window closed up because it couldn't handle the stress of the equipment that was in that particular window at the time in the past...or was it because the landings were very hard and caused weakness in the window or causing the window to pop out from the jolt of the landing? One thing that I thought of...is it possible that the window was closed up not so much because of possible structure failure or anything related to the window itself...but was Fred Noonan able to make accurate readings from this location in the plane, and is it possible that the wing may have caused interference in taking those readings? Could this be a reason? The two pictures I have show clearly that experiments were taken in the rectangular window and not the large square one!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 03, 2014, 06:45:20 AM
So would a second row of staggered rivets be a natural if someone wanted to lay-in a doubler to both close the upper edge more effectively, and possibly restore rigidity by picking up added internal material where it may have been compromised earlier by the window cut?  I could see that possibility.

As we imagine all the what-ifs? let's also remember this. The lavatory window was skinned over in Miami. Amelia knew the meter was running (figuratively) on getting the second effort going in time for maximum media attention, book deals, etc. Not to mention the weather. I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.

Which might help explain the irregular spacing of the larger rivets. It's one thing to set up a simple jig to drill the holes at the 1-inch pitch we're seeing. That could be done in the shop, on a flat surface, where everything was easy to get to and with maximum speed. It's another thing to hold the patch up to the hole and and have to, ahem, "make it fit" once you see what you're up against.

LTM, who thinks the dry paint was worth staring at,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 03, 2014, 06:58:41 AM
I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.

So can I, but Aris Scarla is quite sure that work like this would require a engineering drawing approved by the local Bureau of Air Commerce office and the finished work would have to be signed off by a BAC inspector.  I don't think PanAm would risk a violation by doing otherwise.  Finding that paperwork would be great but it's hard to know where to even start to look. It apparently didn't end up with the rest of the airplane's documentation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 03, 2014, 07:05:30 AM
The two pictures I have show clearly that experiments were taken in the rectangular window and not the large square one!

There were no experiments.  The photos show the pelorus that was mounted in the standard cabin window.  A pelorus is a simple sighting device used for taking a bearing on an object or terrain feature on the ground.
The standard cabin windows were made of plexiglas and had a subtle compound curve which made them inappropriate for taking celestial observations. The special window in the cabin door and the big window in the lavatory were presumably to provide an optically correct way to take star and sun shots.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on July 03, 2014, 07:07:06 AM

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

No way to do that without cutting a hole in the side of the airplane. The museum is TIGHAR-friendly but not THAT friendly.

Haven't you made a mylar template for this purpose?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on July 03, 2014, 07:20:55 AM

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

No way to do that without cutting a hole in the side of the airplane. The museum is TIGHAR-friendly but not THAT friendly.

Ric,

What's the interior cabin surface exposure like?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 03, 2014, 07:43:03 AM
Haven't you made a mylar template for this purpose?

The template we have is paper and now pretty tattered but we could make a new more durable one.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 03, 2014, 07:45:54 AM
I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.

So can I, but Aris Scarla is quite sure that work like this would require a engineering drawing approved by the local Bureau of Air Commerce office and the finished work would have to be signed off by a BAC inspector.  I don't think PanAm would risk a violation by doing otherwise.  Finding that paperwork would be great but it's hard to know where to even start to look. It apparently didn't end up with the rest of the airplane's documentation.

I respect Aris's view of that and agree with the 'requirement', but life isn't always so neat.

These kinds of things DO happen WITHOUT official oversight - and think about it: the last thing Earhart needed was public scrutiny over yet another mishap (presuming for a moment that the hard landing may have necessitated some attention to the window area, including perhaps even a precautionary reinforcement by covering over).

No, PanAm likely would NOT want that entanglement - and may well have lacked the official capacity to do ANYTING to a Lockheed 10 anyway: they were likley 'rated' for working on their own ships, not just any that came along; repair stations are still 'rated' that way, and I'm not sure PanAm would have had need of an unlimited rating and therefore likely had nothing like that granted to them.  The guidanc of the day also pointed toward the manufacturer doing this sort of work, field stuff of that magnitude was discouraged (stress skin work was still in the relatively early days, somewhat more art than science in a way).  Obviously there were exceptions - but despite extensive Air Bureau files on the belly, etc. (I've now seen some of it), nothing has turned up so far either to install this window, or to cover it - nada.

That's not saying PanAm didn't support - but it may have been with materials and looking the other way while some of their guys unofficially helped Earhart out.

I'll stop short of confessing to the point that a sitting FAA FSDO manager might want to know how I, an A&P and former IA happen to realize these things personally ( ;) ), but I'm sure he realizes it can, does and has happened before.  Shouldn't, but does - and Earhart arguably had reasons to want to breeze by in this case, IMO.  Of course I would never do such a thing, ever...

Funny what you notice if you work late enough into the evenings around a few airports, though.  I know a gent (now retired, I'm sure) who rose prominently at FAA to HQ level for maintenance.  Grand, smart guy - used to go to country airports where some questionable work was occasionally suspected; would drive up in his U.S. Guvmint motor pool sedan and sit in the heat with A/C on while the hangars all closed their doors, and wait... until the heat in the hangars started driving the owners out - where he'd meet them in friendly fashion and start asking about their prized birds... uncovered some mischief and helped keep things more honest, apparently.

Not a perfect system - but think where we'd be if we didn't have it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 03, 2014, 07:48:14 AM
What's the interior cabin surface exposure like?

Not sure what you mean.  The New England Air Museum airplane has the full airline lavatory installed.  The stringers are covered with insulation and furnishing. There's a small sink mounted on the wall where the window/patch was on 1055
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on July 03, 2014, 08:01:10 AM
What's the interior cabin surface exposure like?

Not sure what you mean.  The New England Air Museum airplane has the full airline lavatory installed.  The stringers are covered with insulation and furnishing. There's a small sink mounted on the wall where the window/patch was on 1055

Thanks kindly – it's all much clearer now. Seems the template approach then is best.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 03, 2014, 08:09:53 AM
I respect Aris's view of that and agree with the 'requirement', but life isn't always so neat.

You have a point. There's quite a bit of information available from various sources about what AE did and what work was done by Pan Am while she was in Miami (mostly struggling to get the radio working).  Elgen Long devoted eight pages of his book (most of "Chapter 8  World Flight Resumes - Oakland to Miami") to a day by day description of events in Miami but there is no mention at all of replacing the window with a patch. 

Earhart's disdain for government requirements is well documented.  This smells like an expedient "just do it, don't talk about it" fix.  If we build a careful chronology of known events in Miami we may be able to narrow down a window (sorry) of time when the work was done.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 03, 2014, 09:12:44 AM
Was the new window framed like an original window, with a rounded rectangular channel? Or was it just straight channel? That is, given the vertical channel that seemed to be added at station 294(ish), would there be a horizontal channel at the top edge of the new window? How is this actually constructed to hold a window. I know, these are not necessarily known details. But how does this play into the inclusion/exclusion of 2-2-V-1?

As to the double rivet row - I am having the same issue with that as you - the 'doube row' does not seem to match the pitch found along the bottom edge of the window to me.  Rotate 2-2-V-1 and consider whether the pitch matches - it appears to be close; then the question is, would the modifier have laid-in a second row, staggered, of rivets - and very well may have: in some pictures the upper edge of the 'patch' appears to be slightly tooled over, as if 'turning the corner' slightly to overlay the existing window frame and perhaps more tightly close the rain gap.  A second row of rivets would be ideal to do so.

So would a second row of staggered rivets be a natural if someone wanted to lay-in a doubler to both close the upper edge more effectively, and possibly restore rigidity by picking up added internal material where it may have been compromised earlier by the window cut?  I could see that possibility.


The way they framed around the original windows has the stringer at the top of the window not continuous across the entire opening. (edit: the framing may be notched to allow the stringer to be continuous)
Assume they framed around  the Lav window in the same manner and then removed the window frame. What would be remaining might need to be reinforced with a continuous stringer/ stiffener all the way across the opening. That could explain the wider spaced double row of rivets on 2-2-V-1. The attached sketch shows the suggested framing at the top. The same speculation might apply for the bottom of the window with 2-2-V-1 flipped.
edit- upon seeing another picture the stringer may be continuous. However providing a stiffiner still may be a good idea
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 03, 2014, 09:29:22 AM
I had a long talk with Jeff Glickman.  He has been traveling and just got home last night.  He'll start working with the print I FedExed to him.   It's really lucky that we got that print from the Miami Herald when we did. It was probably made from the original negative, now long lost.  All the other images are now digital scans which introduces distortions that make forensic analysis unreliable (that's why we had to go to NZ to take photos of the 1938 negatives). How much detail he can pull from the print remains to be seen.

Jeff and I agreed, as I'm sure all of you will, that the potential importance of this research is so great that we must proceed with the utmost diligence.  We're still in the preliminary stages of testing the hypothesis that 2-2-V-1 is the patch, or rather, most of the patch.  So far, the quick and dirty comparisons look promising but we now need to get much more precise.  Here's the plan.

Jeff will spend the next few weeks working with the print and with the other images we have that show the patch.  Sometime probably in early August we'll rent a portable Hyperspectral Imager.  Jeff will come here and we'll do a detailed hyperspectral examination of 2-2-V-1.  It's Jeff's feeling that a hyperspectral analysis of 2-2-V-1 could bring out new information critical to confirming (or disproving) the hypothesis.  Jeff will donate his time but renting the imager and Jeff's travel will run about $2,000 so we'll have to find the money.  We'll solicit donations to the 1937 Fund for that purpose.

This new research is getting good media coverage and, if all continues to go well, should help attract sponsorship for NIKU VIII.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 03, 2014, 11:06:15 AM
Ric,

I totally agree with your "just do it, don't talk about it" fix theory.  The earlier photos seem to show a very clean window installation.  The edges in those photos are not distinct.   Likewise, those lower skin panels do not appear to be "sprung" or abnormally deformed.  The location of damage in that area would be consistent with very hard landing.
 
The upshot of this whole recent investigation of the "patch" is that we may have visual proof that she was making the flight with a "bent" bird.  Aircraft bent to that magnitude quite often do not fly straight.  They quite frequently require more trim in one direction or another.  This would use more fuel, etc., etc.  Kelly Johnson's fuel vs. range estimates were based on an aircraft assumed to be in the condition it left the factory (aerodynamically speaking).
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Don Dollinger on July 03, 2014, 11:10:14 AM
A little national coverage always helps!
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/07/01/photo-may-offer-crucial-clue-in-amelia-earhart-mystery-report/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/07/01/photo-may-offer-crucial-clue-in-amelia-earhart-mystery-report/)

LTM,
Don
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: jgf1944 on July 04, 2014, 07:27:22 AM
Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: jgf1944 on July 04, 2014, 08:09:56 AM
erratum: rivit
JGF
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 04, 2014, 08:13:07 AM
Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R

Hooo Boy, that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.  I have some way-outside-the-box thoughts about that but before I say anything let me ask this.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2-2-V-1 is most of the patch:
If the airplane broke up in the surf, presumably scattering torn sections of skin all over the place, what are the chances that the only intact piece of skin we've found is from that little patch?
What force(s), other than water, could cause the variety of failures we see on the edges of the artifact?
In other words, how could almost the entire patch get broken out like that?

(To members of the Commission: You already know my loopy theory. Let's see where the others take this thought experiment.)


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: jgf1944 on July 04, 2014, 08:41:50 AM
erratum II (a record?):RIVET (2nd coffee finally got the crank moving…which could make things even worse!)
      The concaveness and rough edges could, I presume, have happened any time (an islander bends the patch and axes/shears away some of patch to fit a certain application). My scenario is an islander finding a piece of fuselage that had been washed ashore. Seeing utility in the patch, he axes the rivets away from the stringers (? I am not an engineer) and then removes the patch. (Remainder of fuselage returned to the sea per a superstition.)
      The pounding ocean scenario is one where I see the patch literally forced over the heads of the rivets; that is what got me thinking about telltale signs around the rivet holes.
      G.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on July 04, 2014, 09:52:29 AM
Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R


If the airplane broke up in the surf, presumably scattering torn sections of skin all over the place, what are the chances that the only intact piece of skin we've found is from that little patch?


Maybe there were many parts, but only 2-2-V-1 seemed useful for use. A later inhabitant  took it away. So it was saved when other parts were lost.

Oskar, #4421A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 04, 2014, 10:40:22 AM
OK.  First thought is that to not put too much faith in the contour as it exist in the artifact.  Whether torn free by wave action or by someones hand the contour would have been altered.  Also, if I recall that the part had been heated as in a fire, more distortion would  have occurred.  I would put more faith in trying to get a flat pattern of the artifact to match up some place.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 04, 2014, 10:51:45 AM
I would put more faith in trying to get a flat pattern of the artifact to match up some place.

Flat or curved. the artifact does not fit anywhere on a Lockheed 10 and cannot be from any of the repaired areas either.  It's either from the patch or from some other aircraft.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 11:57:42 AM
Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R

Hooo Boy, that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.  I have some way-outside-the-box thoughts about that but before I say anything let me ask this.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2-2-V-1 is most of the patch:
If the airplane broke up in the surf, presumably scattering torn sections of skin all over the place, what are the chances that the only intact piece of skin we've found is from that little patch?
What force(s), other than water, could cause the variety of failures we see on the edges of the artifact?
In other words, how could almost the entire patch get broken out like that?

(To members of the Commission: You already know my loopy theory. Let's see where the others take this thought experiment.)

Well, Ric, I'm sure you'll be just ecstatic to hear my loopy theory:

NR16020 lands on the reef, parks pointing North.

The sun heats the interior of the plane above 130oF.

Eyeing the weakest piece of the fuselage, Fred kicks out the panel covering the window opening, basically in order to create a cross draft inside the rear of the fuselage through the open main doorway (the prevailing wind being from the East, or Starboard side of the aircraft).

The metal piece falls onto the reef and is taken in by the tide, while the remainder of the aircraft eventually gets swept off the reef into the abyss.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 04, 2014, 12:03:16 PM
Not bad!

One wonders though that if after one, two or three days in the heat, without food or water (or whatever might have been left from what they brought with them) either AE or FN would have had the strength or energy to do this.

Might be easier to exit the a/c and find shade and breeze on the beach.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 12:12:22 PM
Not bad!

One wonders though that if after one, two or three days in the heat, without food or water (or whatever might have been left from what they brought with them) either AE or FN would have had the strength or energy to do this.

Might be easier to exit the a/c and find shade and breeze on the beach.

Logic would dictate that Fred mitigate the heat ASAP.

The radios could not be used from the beach.

Walking across the reef is extremely slippery and hazardous.

Don't mention the sharks, please.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 12:22:58 PM
Of course, I suppose it is also theoretically possible that the piece of metal fell off of Lambrecht's search aircraft in early July of 1937.

The picture below shows what is believed to be a sponson from the Martin seaplane that terminated its last flight just off Howland Island.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 04, 2014, 12:27:56 PM
Agree, if you think they never left the a/c for any reason.  Seems to me they'd be a just little curious about that big shipwreck just up the beach from them and if Betty's Notebook has any credence, and I believe it does, they learned the name somehow.  Maybe from the wreck or from the lifeboats on the beach where the crew ended-up.  If any of the ships name was left on the bow I'd bet it wasn't readable from much of a distance.  I think one estimate here someplace put the Bevington object a quarter of a mile away or so and perhaps the final rollout location a bit further.

I like the idea of kicking out the patch for ventilation though, especially if they were reluctant to open the cabin door and possibly get water in the cabin.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: jgf1944 on July 04, 2014, 12:52:54 PM
FN kicking out the panel would mean what in terms of the rivet holes? Back to the forensic question of what, if anything, might be expected for the 22V1 rivet holes.
G.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 12:53:46 PM
Agree, if you think they never left the a/c for any reason.  Seems to me they'd be a just little curious about that big shipwreck just up the beach from them and if Betty's Notebook has any credence, and I believe it does, they learned the name somehow.  Maybe from the wreck or from the lifeboats on the beach where the crew ended-up. If any of the ships name was left on the bow I'd bet it wasn't readable from much of a distance.  I think one estimate here someplace put the Bevington object a quarter of a mile away or so and perhaps the final rollout location a bit further.

I like the idea of kicking out the patch for ventilation though, especially if they were reluctant to open the cabin door and possibly get water in the cabin.

Perhaps they could read the name using the binoculars on board.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 04, 2014, 01:00:59 PM
"Of course, I suppose it is also theoretically possible that the piece of metal fell off of Lambrecht's search aircraft in early July of 1937."

If it had he would likely have told someone about it or the crew chief would have asked, "Sir, just what did you do to my airplane?"



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 04, 2014, 01:13:04 PM
Well, Ric, I'm sure you'll be just ecstatic to hear my loopy theory:

NR16020 lands on the reef, parks pointing North.

The sun heats the interior of the plane above 130oF.

Eyeing the weakest piece of the fuselage, Fred kicks out the panel covering the window opening, basically in order to create a cross draft inside the rear of the fuselage through the open main doorway (the prevailing wind being from the East, or Starboard side of the aircraft).

For once we agree.  My loopy theory is pretty much the same as yours - that the damage we see on the artifact was caused by AE and/or FN.  My thought was that the other means of egress (cockpit hatch and cabin door) might have somehow become unusable and they knocked out the patch to escape the aircraft, but I like your ventilation motivation better.  It's simpler. Doesn't much matter which way the airplane is facing. During the day the interior of the airplane would be unbearably hot, 130° is certainly within the realm of possibility. 

There are dents, scratches, and a cut on the interior surface of the artifact that show up under low angle lighting.   Were they made by AE and/or FN?

The metal piece falls onto the reef and is taken in by the tide, while the remainder of the aircraft eventually gets swept off the reef into the abyss.

Leaving the Bevington Object behind.  Which explains why we only have this one piece of skin, but what of all the anecdotal accounts of wreckage seen on the reef edge, and a control cable being used as a fishing leader, and the piece of plexi we found that matches the standard cabin window?  The airplane's fate may have been more complex than simply "into the abyss."  Perhaps the aircraft partially broke in the surf.  Pieces of wreckage remained in shallow water for several years until being washed up, salvaged and used by the locals.  2-2-V-1 never went over the edge and therefore traveled a different path to where we found it.

Maybe it's a loopy theory.  Maybe not.  But first we have to determine, if we can, whether all the dimensions fit and whether the rivet patterns match.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on July 04, 2014, 01:20:08 PM
Tim points out that "The radios could not be used from the beach."
The radio could not be used from the back of the aircraft, either. 

Tim also states "Logic would dictate that Fred mitigate the heat ASAP."
Why would Fred need to mitigate heat ASAP, rather than Amelia?  Is your assumption that Fred stayed in the back, and Amelia in the cockpit?
Ventilation at the back of the a/c would have little effect up in the cockpit, which had opening windows on both sides for cross-wind ventilation, a great big overhead hatch to open, and a door to the aft section that could close off heat from back there.  The cockpit was also the only place with access to the radio.  I'd argue that logic would dictate that anyone in the back of the plane leave ASAP to get out of the heat.  There's nothing constructive to do back there once they're on the ground.
Perhaps the only way to get out was by kicking out the panel, if the cockpit door and the cabin door couldn't be opened, as Ric suggests.  That sounds like a badly bent bird.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 04, 2014, 01:26:50 PM
It's worth noting that we have no evidence (via the credible post-loss signals) that they were aboard the aircraft during the heat of the day on any day until Monday, July 5 (f we have the date of Betty's reception right).  At that time Fred seems panicked to get out of the aircraft.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 04, 2014, 01:49:13 PM
That lav seems kind of cramped to get momentum or accuracy in a crouched position to kick the panel between the stringers. Knocking out the cabin plexiglass makes a lot of sense. I can see if they thought of that, and after saw an improvement, then they might look for anything else to open up, even if it may not have had as big an impact being that far back. Perhaps with some kind of tool or combination of tools, maybe extended through the door.
I think the more holes the better in trying to get cross ventilation. In this case the hot air might rise and escape through the cockpit hatch and the more inlet holes at the lower rear the better. see stack effect (http://chuck-wright.com/calculators/stack_effect.html)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 04, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
That lav seems kind of cramped to get momentum or accuracy in a crouched position to kick the panel between the stringers. Knocking out the cabin plexiglass makes a lot of sense. I can see if they thought of that, and after saw an improvement, then they might look for anything else to open up, even if it may not have had as big an impact being that far back. Perhaps with some kind of tool or combination of tools, maybe extended through the door.
I think the more holes the better in trying to get cross ventilation. In this case the hot air might rise and escape through the cockpit hatch and the more inlet holes at the lower rear the better. see stack effect (http://chuck-wright.com/calculators/stack_effect.html)

The cabin window might have been a good option for ventilation and might account for the way the plexiglass fragment ended up looking the way it does, but is awfully small for a quick exit.  Conversely, can you imagine the kinds of cuts and scrapes you'd get trying to leave through the hole where the patch was.  Ugly!  >:(
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on July 04, 2014, 04:28:32 PM
My loopy theory is pretty much the same as yours - that the damage we see on the artifact was caused by AE and/or FN.
I think this hypothesis is extremely smart.  Congratulations to Tim Mellon for intuiting what Ric was hinting at and to Ric for sharing it.  The hypothesis stands somewhat at odds with retired Lockerbie investigator Walter Korsgaard's  interpretation  (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.195.html) of the artifact's having been exposed to a "fluid force (air or water) sufficient to blow the heads of the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal."

Had Mr. Korsgaard seen the dents, scratches and cut? 

I suppose it's somewhat academic.  The kick-out hypothesis requires a leap outside the box of accident investigator.  Korsgaard properly applied his expertise to the question of what event in the category of aircraft accident would cause the metal to look this way.  It's only when one reframes the question as what event of any kind under the circumstances imagined would cause it that this plausible extra answer emerges.  I think Smart World author Richard Ogle would approve.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Repischak on July 04, 2014, 09:40:18 PM
Hi, my first post on this forum.

While this particular photo may be new (and the best view of the patch), there are at least two more photos that show that "there is nothing new under the sun".

The following photo, perhaps mis-captioned, of arrival in Miami:

http://www.womeninaerospacehistory.com/23-may-1937-amelia-mary-earhart/

And this photo taken over the Dutch East Indies (a careful study of some of the small structures on top of the fuselage also "shows" the patched window):

http://www.womeninaerospacehistory.com/27-june-1937-amelia-mary-earhart/
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Anderson on July 05, 2014, 12:36:30 AM
I'm just casually following this so forgive me if I'm completely missing the boat, but..  from what I've read the repair/patch was made in Miami after the landing.  However on this page http://www.deejay51.com/amelias_life_in_pics_p3.htm (http://www.deejay51.com/amelias_life_in_pics_p3.htm) and a couple others that have the same photo the patch is there and the caption always reads "Arriving at Miami".  Is this just a mistake or was the patch already in place at the time of the landing in Miami?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on July 05, 2014, 07:11:01 AM
Based on the crowd and the shiny appearance of the patch I would say this is her departure from Miami, not arrival. Most likely a  mistake in captioning.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 05, 2014, 07:29:00 AM
Based on the crowd and the shiny appearance of the patch I would say this is her departure from Miami, not arrival. Most likely a  mistake in captioning.

Clearly a bad caption. We have a photo of the airplane the day it left Burbank with the window intact; there wasn't time to change it on either of the overnight stops en route to Miami; and we have a Miami Herald photo of the plane with the window intact.  Earhart is dressed exactly as she is in other photos known to have been taken in Miami. Case closed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Anderson on July 05, 2014, 07:47:18 AM
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...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 05, 2014, 11:06:55 AM
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?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lyle Gunderson on July 05, 2014, 11:12:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 05, 2014, 11:28:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 05, 2014, 04:57:44 PM
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."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on July 05, 2014, 05:59:57 PM
In today's San Francisco Chronicle...

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

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 06, 2014, 07:01:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on July 06, 2014, 09:27:30 AM
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
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 06, 2014, 11:20:23 AM
Isn't it a mission impossible???

Maybe, but we have to try.  We've actually gotten pretty good at accomplishing the impossible.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 06, 2014, 10:09:49 PM
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/
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on July 06, 2014, 11:34:20 PM
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/TUz3jPn.jpg)

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 07, 2014, 04:13:43 AM
Jeff, I don't know how you were able to get such great detail in this picture. Thanks for the good work!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 04:30:17 AM
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/TUz3jPn.jpg)

Very nice work!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 06:50:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 07:19:21 AM
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." 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 08:10:35 AM
Nice flattening, Ric - that took guts but somehow seems worth it after all as it suddenly takes a lot of mystery out of 2-2-V-1.

The overall dimensions do not appear to be disqualifying.

I've heard the surviving straight edge mentioned before, but now it is truly graphic. 

That edge also lacks any corresponding (parallel) row of rivet holes.  Does anything suggest that it is an edge that was present as-installed, or does it appear to have resulted during or after removal from the host ship by some mechanical means?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
The overall dimensions do not appear to be disqualifying.

Coincidences happen, but what are the chances that a random piece of wreckage would be so close to the dimensions of the patch? This is starting to get scary.

I've heard the surviving straight edge mentioned before, but now it is truly graphic. 

That edge also lacks any corresponding (parallel) row of rivet holes.  Does anything suggest that it is an edge that was present as-installed, or does it appear to have resulted during or after removal from the host ship by some mechanical means?

That is not a manufactured edge.  That edge very clearly failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a rigid straight edge.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 08:54:58 AM
The overall dimensions do not appear to be disqualifying.

Coincidences happen, but what are the chances that a random piece of wreckage would be so close to the dimensions of the patch? This is starting to get scary.

Realize that - this one has been scary for some time to me.

I've heard the surviving straight edge mentioned before, but now it is truly graphic. 

That edge also lacks any corresponding (parallel) row of rivet holes.  Does anything suggest that it is an edge that was present as-installed, or does it appear to have resulted during or after removal from the host ship by some mechanical means?

That is not a manufactured edge.  That edge very clearly failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a rigid straight edge.

Thanks for that refresher on the detail, couldn't remember if that was determined.  Given the dimensions, that's another detail that does not disqualify the artifact: if 2-2-V-1 is what is currently theorized, that edge could easily correspond to the framing at forward or aft edge of the lav window, which might have acted as a stiff brace to allow that sort of cyclic fatigue to be imposed.

For any who don't realize what cyclic fatigue is, think of the old trick of bending a wire coat hanger back and forth until the point of failure.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 07, 2014, 09:25:46 AM
And since there's no paint residue on the putative patch (I just love saying that for some reason), that's another indicator.

LTM, who thinks no paint can be pretty cool,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
And since there's no paint residue on the putative patch (I just love saying that for some reason), that's another indicator.

Yes indeed.  Here's the official report on the paint research.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 07, 2014, 02:20:18 PM
So if I remember correctly the absence of any paint traces pretty much rules out WWII aircraft and most civilian aircraft.  That narrows it down quite a bit.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 05:38:14 PM
So if I remember correctly the absence of any paint traces pretty much rules out WWII aircraft and most civilian aircraft.  That narrows it down quite a bit.

"Rules out" is probably a bit strong but the apparent absence of paint is certainly supportive of the Patch Hypothesis.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 07, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
I just thought of another data point that supports the putative patch theory - The Saga of the Fonts.

Remember that? And how we all went round and round the font merry-go-round, even to the point of spending quite a bit of the Dayton expedition on seeking out various fonts stenciled on various parts of various aircraft. But at the end of the day ... the font really doesn't matter that much as far as Lockheed goes.

Because if the putative patch is actually THE PATCH, then we should start digging into Pan Am aircraft, construction and repairs of that time period, if such a thing is possible, and if it can be tied in with Pan Am's Miami operations. Would that be a slam dunk? Noooooo, but it'd make The Patch a lot harder to explain away as something else.

LTM, who thinks no paint can be as exciting as dry paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 08:39:18 PM
Because if the putative patch is actually THE PATCH, then we should start digging into Pan Am aircraft, construction and repairs of that time period, if such a thing is possible,

Good point Monty. Pan Am's Miami operation might very well have a different source for aluminum sheet than Lockheed Burbank.  It's all going to be ALCOA product but it might be from a different plant.  Also, unlike Lockheed, Pan Am didn't build airplanes.  Any sheet they had on hand was for repairs and modifications - but finding photos that show labeling on Pan Am aircraft being repaired in Miami could be tricky.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James Stephen Magers on July 07, 2014, 08:55:58 PM
Just a thought here about the possibility of Fred N. kicking out the Patch. Betty's notebook hinted at Fred acting upset, possibly even a bit irrational. Let's imagine a Hard Landing bad enough to damage the aircraft and maybe even cause a head injury to Fred. When Fred climbed to the front of the aircraft for the landing he left his Sextant in the rear of the aircraft. After the rough landing he wants his instruments & personal effects and climbs back there to get them. It is hot and the smell of gasoline from the ruptured gas tanks is overwhelming. With that motivation he kicks out the Patch. If he felt those instruments were worth the risk I can see him retrieving them, even at his own peril. The more I think about this the more Betty's cryptic notes send chills down my spine!

Stephen Magers

The night wrote a check that the morning couldn't cash
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 07, 2014, 11:39:30 PM
James has a good point!!! From reading Betty's notebook, its a strong indication that Fred was trying to get out of the plane for a big reason! Here's a scenario...Take James theory and add this into the big picture. Amelia ran out of gas approaching Gardner Island. She puts the plane down in a hurry, but the landing is very hard. So hard that it breaks the landing gear off and maybe a wing or two as it scoots along the reef. Now the plane comes to a complete stop...Basically a shell! As it sits there briefly it rolls and blocks the doorway on the left side of the plane. Fred has no way of getting out. Fuel tanks are mangled and he's badly hurt from the hard landing. He's overcome by fumes and is panically trying to get out of the plane in fear of the plane blowing up. He can't get out of the window, because of the brace against the window. So he goes to the back of the plane and kicks out the patched window. By now, Amelia has made her way out of the plane...and begins to help Fred. He's badly hurt. He's desperately trying to get out of the plane as water begins to fill the back of the plane. He's hysterical because of his head injury. Eventually, after he gets out of the plane...sometime later he dies from his head injury. In the meantime, Amelia goes back and retrieves the necessary things to survive and then tries to radio for help. For several days she tries...but eventually the shell of the plane is sliding closer to the reef's edge. As its doing this its rolling from side to side with every wave action. Eventually, sometime on or after July 7...the remnants of the plane rolls over the reef's edge and possibly to the present site of the Richie anomaly!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 08, 2014, 01:30:36 AM
With respect but is this acceptable aviation archeaological technique?  Might you have destroyed the original curvature of the piece of aluminum, which some day might have been useful in determining where it really came from?  Why did you have to push it flat to measure it?  Could you not have used a soft tape measure to measure along the curvature or cut a narrow strip of thin cardboard and placed it on the piece following the curvature of the metal.

Just a thought thats all :)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 08, 2014, 04:58:24 AM
Does 2-2-V-1 belong to TIGHAR or to Kiribati?

Is straightening out the piece of metal what is contemplated by the concept of "preservation" as used in the 13 October 1989 hand-written Agreement between TIGHAR and the Republic of Kiribati?


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 08, 2014, 06:18:57 AM
Does 2-2-V-1 belong to TIGHAR or to Kiribati?

Is straightening out the piece of metal what is contemplated by the concept of "preservation" as used in the 13 October 1989 hand-written Agreement between TIGHAR and the Republic of Kiribati?




It wasn't permanently straightened.  It popped back to its 'original' shape when released.  No harm done.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 08, 2014, 06:42:31 AM
Does 2-2-V-1 belong to TIGHAR or to Kiribati?

Is straightening out the piece of metal what is contemplated by the concept of "preservation" as used in the 13 October 1989 hand-written Agreement between TIGHAR and the Republic of Kiribati?




Who says?

It wasn't permanently straightened.  It popped back to its 'original' shape when released.  No harm done.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 08, 2014, 07:00:08 AM
I suspect that some here know this already but Pan Am's records are held by the University of Miami

http://scholar.library.miami.edu/panam/index.html

 A Tighar member in the Miami are might be able to check the holdings to see if any maintenance records from 1937 still exist.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 08, 2014, 07:09:59 AM
Who says?

I say.  Squishing 2-2-V-1 flat just long enough to take accurate measurements did absolutely no harm to the artifact.  The metal remains highly ductile and resilient. TIGHAR has permission from Kiribati to perform whatever research we deem appropriate.  2-2-V-1 and other artifacts have had pieces cut out of them for analysis. Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 08, 2014, 07:48:09 AM
Does 2-2-V-1 belong to TIGHAR or to Kiribati?

Is straightening out the piece of metal what is contemplated by the concept of "preservation" as used in the 13 October 1989 hand-written Agreement between TIGHAR and the Republic of Kiribati?


Why the shouting?  :o

This seems aimed more at some concern with TIGHAR's legal arrangements than artifact handling to me, just MHO.

But as long as it sits here, does it matter if an agreement is hand-written, typed or printed?  Words is words, binding is binding; good will is where you find it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 08, 2014, 07:54:49 AM
Who says?

I say.  Squishing 2-2-V-1 flat just long enough to take accurate measurements did absolutely no harm to the artifact.  The metal remains highly ductile and resilient. TIGHAR has permission from Kiribati to perform whatever research we deem appropriate.  2-2-V-1 and other artifacts have had pieces cut out of them for analysis. Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.

Wondered about that a bit myself (incurable purist) but realized, having see the thing, that not much would be lost, if anything - and there are lots of photographic records of this thing from various angles as well.

It's true that should we drag an L10 carcass up to the reef's surface for examination one day that this might just 'drop in' a hole somewhere - and the various contours might just happen to match parent-structure damage -

Or NOT.  We don't know what might have happened in the ensuing years, if it is from the Electra.

Should that become the happy case one day, then things like sizing and hole patterns would likely be more telling as to fitment or not, perhaps not so much the wacky contours.

I don't take it lightly that Ric held his breath and did this though - it did involve a potentially destructive and direct application of 'the teeth of time', but for the sake of an understandable effort me thinks.

Interesting argument in any case.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 08, 2014, 07:59:53 AM
Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.

Thinking of the legions of 2-v-1-1 detractors/nitpickers/naysayers/etc., I'm reminded of that famous line in A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth!

LTM, who will return to thinking that no paint is a good thing,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on July 08, 2014, 09:24:58 AM
Once an artifact has been conclusively identified there is no longer a need to sacrifice some aspect of it to research but until then we do what we need to do to get at the truth.

Thinking of the legions of 2-v-1-1 detractors/nitpickers/naysayers/etc., I'm reminded of that famous line in A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth!

LTM, who will return to thinking that no paint is a good thing,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

In TIGHAR Tracks 1992Vol_8/0801_2, in a detailed examination and discussion of 2-V-1-1 by Ric (those relatively new to the forum might find this an interesting read), reference is made to other 'smaller pieces of wreckage' on the beach and inland of 2-V-1-1 as follows: "...extensive beach erosion caused by the storm (ap- parently the worst in 52 years) churned the artifact up out of the sand and left it where we found it along the high water line. A further search of the beach and areas inland turned up a few more smaller pieces of wreckage which are still under investigation." Have these items been catalogued and investigated to some degree by now? Could those familiar with these pieces please elaborate a bit more on this topic for the benefit of the forum? Or have these items turned out to be unrelated to 2-V-1-1?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 08, 2014, 10:58:45 AM
Interesting argument in any case.

There's really nothing to argue.  We're frequently faced with decisions about whether or not to do destructive testing. It's risk/benefit analysis and we take it very seriously.  Heck, DNA testing is destructive. We allowed the University of Oklahoma to destroy most of the possible finger bone in an effort to get a complete mtDNA sequence.  We stopped when there was still enough left for another try if and when the technology improves.  Determining that the freckle ointment jar was impregnated with mercury involving cutting a small chunk out of the base for destructive testing, but without defacing the artifact we wouldn't know that the mercury is there. The NTSB Lab, ALCOA, and Dr. Jennifer Mass ave all cut pieces off 2-2-V-1.  At the Air Force Museum, I watched the Restoration Supervisor casually squish 2-2-V-1 flat so I knew the artifact could take it - still, I don't like to stress any artifact so I "held my breath" when I did it myself to get an accurate measurement.  (We've tried using soft tape and you get a different newer every time.) 

We're out to solve a mystery. The techniques that we use to search for and recover artifacts are archaeological, but what we do with the artifacts once recovered is more akin to accident or crime scene investigation. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 08, 2014, 11:17:12 AM
In TIGHAR Tracks 1992Vol_8/0801_2, in a detailed examination and discussion of 2-V-1-1 by Ric (those relatively new to the forum might find this an interesting read), reference is made to other 'smaller pieces of wreckage' on the beach and inland of 2-V-1-1 as follows: "...extensive beach erosion caused by the storm (ap- parently the worst in 52 years) churned the artifact up out of the sand and left it where we found it along the high water line. A further search of the beach and areas inland turned up a few more smaller pieces of wreckage which are still under investigation." Have these items been catalogued and investigated to some degree by now? Could those familiar with these pieces please elaborate a bit more on this topic for the benefit of the forum? Or have these items turned out to be unrelated to 2-V-1-1?

Here's the catalogue of artifacts recovered at that time.  All were found far enough inland so as to not be associated with the storm. All have been researched. Some are aircraft parts - clearly cut up by the locals. The only one that could be identified as to aircraft of origin was 2-2-V-8 which had a part number on it (it was from a B-24). The shoe top and boot sole are clearly village-related.

From Fieldwork at Ritiati/Noriti (Village) 1991
2-2-V-1   Aluminum sheet with rivet holes
2-2-V-2   Piece of cut out material with metal mount
2-2-V-3   Bent metal cylinder
2-2-V-4   Metal ring
2-2-V-5   Metal comb
2-2-V-6   Misc. unidentified metal objects (5)
2-2-V-7   Remnant of rubber hose
2-2-V-8   Torn aluminum structure, apparent # 32B 10
2-2-V-9   Aluminum channel section
2-2-V-10   Aluminum strips /1 and /2
2-2-V-11   Shoe top
2-2-V-12   Boot sole
2-2-V-13   Section of aluminum pipe


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on July 08, 2014, 11:33:30 AM

We're out to solve a mystery. The techniques that we use to search for and recover artifacts are archaeological, but what we do with the artifacts once recovered is more akin to accident or crime scene investigation.

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it is the most precious thing we have." - Albert Einstein
Primitive and childlike in that we must have the courage to touch/feel/experience discovery. Get our hands dirty, if you will. Preservation is necessary when applicable, but we can only experience so much from afar.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 08, 2014, 11:37:32 AM
An axiom of trollism: If you can't fault the investigation, harass the investigator.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 08, 2014, 11:45:11 AM
Interesting argument in any case.

There's really nothing to argue.  We're frequently faced with decisions about whether or not to do destructive testing. It's risk/benefit analysis and we take it very seriously.  Heck, DNA testing is destructive. We allowed the University of Oklahoma to destroy most of the possible finger bone in an effort to get a complete mtDNA sequence.  We stopped when there was still enough left for another try if and when the technology improves.  Determining that the freckle ointment jar was impregnated with mercury involving cutting a small chunk out of the base for destructive testing, but without defacing the artifact we wouldn't know that the mercury is there. The NTSB Lab, ALCOA, and Dr. Jennifer Mass ave all cut pieces off 2-2-V-1.  At the Air Force Museum, I watched the Restoration Supervisor casually squish 2-2-V-1 flat so I knew the artifact could take it - still, I don't like to stress any artifact so I "held my breath" when I did it myself to get an accurate measurement.  (We've tried using soft tape and you get a different newer every time.) 

We're out to solve a mystery. The techniques that we use to search for and recover artifacts are archaeological, but what we do with the artifacts once recovered is more akin to accident or crime scene investigation.

That's a good summation of the reality of what this is about in my view, thanks.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 08, 2014, 12:14:15 PM
Well I thought mine was a reasonable and polite question and it has been answered in a reasonable manner.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Will Hatchell on July 08, 2014, 03:12:23 PM
Ric, thanks for that helpful summary and list – appreciate it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Richards on July 09, 2014, 01:51:30 PM
As an almost never poster but a lurker it seems to me that research resulted in the images produced by the Miami Herald at one stop over but what about the other stops in the itinerary.  Surely in many places the local media covered the arrival/departure and quite possibly have images in their archives that could assist in the identification of 2-2-V-1 or at least shed additional light?

San Juan Puerto Rico, Caripito Venezuela, Natal Brazil, Karachi, Singapore, Darwin to name a few?  Has much research been directed at the news media archives in those locations?

Also, while googling maps with routes of the journey I came across a link from the Univ. of New Mexico for a class syllabus for a "Water Resources Engineering" course where the instructor had an assignment for students that used the flight plan for AE's trip.  Not sure entirely why but it was somewhat interesting and most of the students homework is viewable online though they do not speak directly to the AE mystery.
Course Link (http://www.unm.edu/~jcoonrod/GIS/GISstudents.html)
Students from 2013 and older had AE's route as part of their assignments.  Some of them show the final leg as mission planned and as what may have happened...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Wallace on July 09, 2014, 02:24:55 PM
In Karachi, from Purdue archives, probably a partial view (but is resolution an issue to see rivits?):
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=17&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0 (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=17&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 10, 2014, 07:56:52 AM
In Karachi, from Purdue archives, probably a partial view (but is resolution an issue to see rivits?):
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=17&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0 (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501&DMSCALE=12.5&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=17&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)

I can make out the leading edge of the 'patch', all the way up to the 'right waterline', clearly enough.  Lighting probably made it stand out - kind of "birdshit white" in appearance (that's a technical pigment description used by many A&Ps).

I cannot make out any hint of rivet pattern, but what do I know of photogrammetry...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2014, 05:28:51 PM
On July 4th I received this email:
"To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to you you today out of a deep interest in your search for Amelia Earhart's plane and have enjoyed reading about your work and all of the information that you now share via the internet.
 My reason for contacting you today is that my father-in-law, Frank McDonald, regularly related to me stories of working on the plane after the crash in Hawaii and has left some small amount of information in his memoir that I felt may be of interest to you and your team.
 If you have any interest in reviewing his statements I would be happy to send them along to you but I am not exactly sure of how to go about that.

Thank you for your time, 
                     Sincerely,    Steve Ahnert "

I suggested that he scan the appropriate pages of his father-in-law's memoir.  Today he sent the attached scans.  This is the first I've heard of a problem with the baffling in the fuselage tanks.  I also find it interesting that the skylight in the lavatory was cracked.  Of course the plane had been through quite a wreck but I wonder if the cracked skylight is evidence of the fuselage flexing in the area of the lavatory.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2014, 05:35:15 PM
More info from Jeff Glickman:

He had wondered whether the print he is working with is from a negative or a scan.  I replied, "We got that print from the Miami Herald in 1996 or earlier - before the days of scanning."  He corrected me.

"Ric,
 
Scanning was first developed and used in the late 1800’s in conjunction with telegraph lines to transmit images. The modern high-resolution drum scanner was first developed in the late 1950’s. High-resolution laser-based drum scanners and printers were in use in the 1990’s, often by news organizations, to manage photographic content. Drum scanners have been manufactured by several companies including Heidelberg, a primary supplier to the print and news industries. While they have reached resolutions of 25,000 DPI+, drum scanners were more commonly built in the low-thousand DPI region.
 
The rear of the Miami Herald print bears the labeling “Kodak Electronic Imaging Paper”.  Kodak entered the electronic imaging market in 1987.  There was a series of Kodak printers that were compatible with this paper, including dye-sublimation printers.  For example, the Kodak XL-7700 dye-sublimation printer was introduced in 1989.  I located the manual for the Kodak XL-7720 dye-sublimation printer and its resolution was 203 DPI, a standard dye-sublimation printer resolution for the era.  Other standard dye-sublimation resolutions included 314, 320, 480, 540, 720 and 1,440 DPI.  Measurement of the frequency of the raster band artifact that is observed on the Miami Herald photo at 6,400 DPI optical resolution shows a rate of 20:1, suggesting that the resolution of the imaging system was 6,400 DPI / 20 = 320 DPI, which is consistent with a known resolution for dye-sublimation printing."

He later added:
"The banding seen in the Miami Herald photographic print on “Kodak Electronic Imaging Paper” is consistent with dye-sublimation printing.  What I can now reasonably assert is that the Miami Herald photographic print is not a print from a negative: It is probably a print from a dye-sublimation printer that may have been retrieved from a photograph archival system.  Whether an original print or negative was used during the storage recording process is currently unclear, nor is the recording method currently known. I anticipate that the band artifacts will slow down, but not prevent, analysis of the image."
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 10, 2014, 05:53:58 PM
Hey Ric...I wanted you to see this comparison on two Electras side by side and tell me if this was indeed a retro-fit to fix a problem they might have had. Let me know...thanks! The plane on the left is the Electra Junior 12.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2014, 06:58:31 PM
Hey Ric...I wanted you to see this comparison on two Electras side by side and tell me if this was indeed a retro-fit to fix a problem they might have had. Let me know...thanks!

The photo on the left is c/n 1001, the first production Model 10.  The area you have circled looks to me like just a dark skin.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2014, 07:30:01 PM
In Adobe Illustrator I made a precise outline of the presumed minimum dimensions of the patch and overlaid two photos of the artifact - one taken when it was still complete and one of the recent flattened shots. I scaled the flattened shot to the known dimensions of the artifact and scaled the other photo to match it as best I could.  My purpose was to get a more precise idea of how well the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch.  The two photos don't match up exactly because tin the old photo of the intact artifact it is not flattened.  The fit speaks for itself.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on July 10, 2014, 09:45:05 PM
Whow!!! I can really smell the smoke....
It seems to be the gun!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 11, 2014, 06:39:30 AM
Take a deep breath, Oskar. Remind me sometime to show you my Life magazine article from 1996, I think? TIGHAR's gotten shot in the foot a few times. I've taken steps to get boots on the ground for this quest, but it takes time.

LTM, who has been kicked in the head by a boot a time or two,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: richie conroy on July 11, 2014, 04:36:59 PM
Hi All

Ric

Am not 100% sure if the following image is Earhart's Electra

But if it is maybe the owner of website can share were he got image

(http://media.theolympian.com/smedia/2013/10/10/23/47/3uyBo.AuSt.38.jpeg)

http://imgarcade.com/1/amelia-earhart-lockheed-electra/

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 11, 2014, 04:43:48 PM
Am not 100% sure if the following image is Earhart's Electra

I'm, quite sure that's the Finch/Kammerer replica that is now in the Museum of Flight.  Too shiny to be Earhart's Electra and it appears to have full-feathering props.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 11, 2014, 04:59:36 PM
Ric

Does the movie of AE taxiing out in Lae show the patch?

I tried to view that video on the TIGHAR site, but seems what is mounted there for downloading requires software I don't have anymore.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 11, 2014, 05:24:49 PM
Does the movie of AE taxiing out in Lae show the patch?

Good thought. It shows the right side of the plane but you can't see the patch at all.  Blends right in.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Gard on July 11, 2014, 05:28:29 PM
Ric

Does the movie of AE taxiing out in Lae show the patch?

I tried to view that video on the TIGHAR site, but seems what is mounted there for downloading requires software I don't have anymore.

Andrew

Here is the  Lae departure footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_3lxO1vUQ), unless you mean  this movie (http://www.impdb.org/index.php?title=Amelia)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on July 12, 2014, 02:11:48 AM
Hi!
I don't think it's the original NR16020. The antenna behind the loop-antenna seems to be missing. And it's to shiny too.
Oskar
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 12, 2014, 09:20:31 AM
If you watch the youtube documentary featuring Linda Finch's trip, you can see video that looks to be taken at the same time as this photo, with the same ground features below.  I think this has to be Linda Finch.

amck
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on July 12, 2014, 09:35:03 AM
The location of the loop antenna is the give-away to me.  Linda's is larger and forward of the hatch, just above the windscreen.  Amelia's was just behind the hatch during her final around the world attempt.
Later Edit - I have no idea where I got the idea that Amelia's loop antenna was behind the hatch.  Sorry for any confusion.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 12, 2014, 10:02:49 AM
The location of the loop antenna is the give-away to me.  Linda's is larger and forward of the hatch, just above the windscreen.  Amelia's was just behind the hatch during her final around the world attempt.
John, I can't agree with you there. In a photo taken in Venezuela (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisdayinaviation.com%2F3-june-1937%2F&tbnid=d7vo7StRbgfbAM:&docid=cpU54h9M7uG72M&h=1125&w=1557) on the Final Flight, that loop antenna seems to clearly be forward of the hatch. Don't you agree?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on July 12, 2014, 11:36:07 AM
Right. Foto taken at Lae, june 29 (A.E. standing on the left wing, coming off after landing) shows the loop-antenna in front of the the hatch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on July 12, 2014, 12:02:59 PM
Ric,
@ V-V-2-1: Any news from Jeff???
@ Niku VIII: Do you think TIGHAR will get enough money??? (no Niku VIII in september would be a big disappointment!)
Oskar #4421A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 12, 2014, 09:29:22 PM
Here is a screen shot of Linda Finch's aircraft that seems to be flying over the same type of terrain as the photo Richie Posted.

You can find it at minute 2:17 of Part 2 of 4 of "The Final Hours Amelia Earhart's Last Flight - 2000 Documentary"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1899&feature=iv&src_vid=ZkZa0O3ZvVk&v=T-mlCT4ED3w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1899&feature=iv&src_vid=ZkZa0O3ZvVk&v=T-mlCT4ED3w)

The funny little blob on the aft starboard side is evident in both photos, but not in any of AE's photos.

amck
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 13, 2014, 10:12:19 AM
The red trim along the leading edge of the wings is nothing like it was on AE's aircraft either. See photo 1 for AE's ship and compare it to photo 2 the other Electra.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 13, 2014, 11:26:03 AM
And here again we have a picture that's been undoubtedly miscaptioned as having been taken in Miami as NR16020 was being refueled. The rainy conditions and overcoats would more likely mean that this was taken the day of the departure from Oakland in March 1937 at the beginning of the First World Flight (remember the puddles on the runway as AE's plane lifted off the runway that day?). I think I can pick out Mantz in a light-colored overcoat, such as he's seen wearing in another photo that day (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=380) as the postmistress of Oakland handed over a package of first-day covers. Also, notice the presence of the window in the lavatory area, which we know was not there when they left Miami.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 13, 2014, 12:04:27 PM
The red trim along the leading edge of the wings is nothing like it was on AE's aircraft either. See photo 1 for AE's ship and compare it to photo 2 the other Electra.

I'd agree on the configuration of the leading edge stripes - the one on Amelia and Fred's Electra had a graceful curve leading to the back of the engine nacelle - AND a very thin black strip to separate the International Orange (TIGHAR has a piece of her plane with that color, it is not red) from the bare metal.

LTM, who has a lot more gray paint than he will ever need,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

EDIT - Thinking back (always better to do that before you post), I believe TIGHAR was able to look at a piece of the Electra from the Luke Field crash, to verify the paint color, but it was returned to the owner afterwards.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 13, 2014, 02:07:08 PM
And here again we have a picture that's been undoubtedly miscaptioned as having been taken in Miami as NR16020 was being refueled. The rainy conditions and overcoats would more likely mean that this was taken the day of the departure from Oakland in March 1937 at the beginning of the First World Flight (remember the puddles on the runway as AE's plane lifted off the runway that day?). I think I can pick out Mantz in a light-colored overcoat, such as he's seen wearing in another photo that day (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=380) as the postmistress of Oakland handed over a package of first-day covers. Also, notice the presence of the window in the lavatory area, which we know was not there when they left Miami.

Bruce, you are absolutely correct. We have discussed that issue before at some length. I saved the picture with the caption that it had when I saved it. It noticed it after I posted it here but didn't change it hoping no one would notice that part. I should have known that you or someone else with those "sharp eyes" would pick it up. Touche'.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 13, 2014, 02:11:45 PM
I'd agree on the configuration of the leading edge stripes - the one on Amelia and Fred's Electra had a graceful curve leading to the back of the engine nacelle - AND a very thin black strip to separate the International Orange (TIGHAR has a piece of her plane with that color, it is not red) from the bare metal.

Very interesting Monty. This is the first time I have seen anything about TIGHAR having a piece of the Electra painted that color.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 13, 2014, 02:40:06 PM
Here is a screen shot of Linda Finch's aircraft that seems to be flying over the same type of terrain as the photo Richie Posted.

You can find it at minute 2:17 of Part 2 of 4 of "The Final Hours Amelia Earhart's Last Flight - 2000 Documentary"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1899&feature=iv&src_vid=ZkZa0O3ZvVk&v=T-mlCT4ED3w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1899&feature=iv&src_vid=ZkZa0O3ZvVk&v=T-mlCT4ED3w)

The funny little blob on the aft starboard side is evident in both photos, but not in any of AE's photos.

amck

The "funny little blob" appears to be an exhaust outlet that somehow relates to the cabin heater system.  I studied that on the Finch airplane at Museum of flight.  My guess is that there was an alternate exhuast path that ran from the nacelles to the fuselage and along the lower outboard edges of the cabin (inside and just above the floorboards, where we know the 'heater ducts' were normally located), thence out at the rearward area where we see the 'little blob'.  The 'blob' is a faired protrusion - aluminum - that houses what appears to be an exhaust outlet similar to the one we can also observe on the outboard sides of each nacelle. 

Guessing again, my thought is that with cabin heat selected, some or all of the engine exhaust would be routed through this contraption - which may have included a double-walled pipe as it traveled through the cabin (just a thought - the whole thing give me the willies and wouldn't be certifiable today...).  Maybe someone can dig up more facts on how that all worked - but that is what the 'blob' device appears to be part of.

The Earhart airplane does not seem to have this arrangement.  Perhaps the bird was spec'd to exclude a heater system.  My additional guess is that cabin heat would not have been so vital on the round the word trip since it was fairly equatorial, but one does wonder about other flying Earhart did.  It does seem there were likely compromises such as this to save weight in the 'flying laboratory', however.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 13, 2014, 03:12:05 PM
The "search" function is such a beautiful thing. Now if only I would remember to use it before spouting off. From the old forum, http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/199809.txt (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/199809.txt) :

"From Ric

That's right, but fortunately we do know what color the airplane was.  Of course, most of it was bare aluminum.  The leading edge of the wings and the top of the horizontal tail surface was painted orange edged with a black stripe.  A former Lockheed employee who now lives in Oregon salvaged a chunk of discarded tail skin when the airplane was being repaired after the Luke Field mishap.  It has the orange paint and piece of the stripe.  The piece has been lovingly kept for all these years so the orange paint has not faded.  The color has been matched to Federal Standard 595B - 12197 December 1989.

Now, here's a question.  What is the equivalent PMS Standard color?  We need this information so that we can be sure we get the color correct on the new models.

LTM,
Ric"

LTM, who will now go back to chasing dust bunnies,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 13, 2014, 04:40:10 PM
Monty, thanks for the "new"(old) information about the color of the paint on the Electra.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 14, 2014, 05:05:08 AM
Hi Monty.
I looked up the 595-12197 Federal Standard paint code for the International Orange paint that was cited as being on AE's Electra and came up with the colors below. The first came from this site (http://www.fed-std-595.com/FS-595-Paint-Spec.html) and the second from this one. (http://www.netfront.fr/Services/rgb2pantone/) While the color is called "International Orange", it looks pretty RED to me.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on July 14, 2014, 10:15:35 AM
For reference, the Golden Gate Bridge is International Orange. Kind of a lighter brick red...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 14, 2014, 01:11:27 PM
Here is a screen shot of Linda Finch's aircraft that seems to be flying over the same type of terrain as the photo Richie Posted.

You can find it at minute 2:17 of Part 2 of 4 of "The Final Hours Amelia Earhart's Last Flight - 2000 Documentary"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1899&feature=iv&src_vid=ZkZa0O3ZvVk&v=T-mlCT4ED3w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1899&feature=iv&src_vid=ZkZa0O3ZvVk&v=T-mlCT4ED3w)

The funny little blob on the aft starboard side is evident in both photos, but not in any of AE's photos.

amck

The "funny little blob" appears to be an exhaust outlet that somehow relates to the cabin heater system.  I studied that on the Finch airplane at Museum of flight.  My guess is that there was an alternate exhuast path that ran from the nacelles to the fuselage and along the lower outboard edges of the cabin (inside and just above the floorboards, where we know the 'heater ducts' were normally located), thence out at the rearward area where we see the 'little blob'.  The 'blob' is a faired protrusion - aluminum - that houses what appears to be an exhaust outlet similar to the one we can also observe on the outboard sides of each nacelle. 

Guessing again, my thought is that with cabin heat selected, some or all of the engine exhaust would be routed through this contraption - which may have included a double-walled pipe as it traveled through the cabin (just a thought - the whole thing give me the willies and wouldn't be certifiable today...).  Maybe someone can dig up more facts on how that all worked - but that is what the 'blob' device appears to be part of.

The Earhart airplane does not seem to have this arrangement.  Perhaps the bird was spec'd to exclude a heater system.  My additional guess is that cabin heat would not have been so vital on the round the word trip since it was fairly equatorial, but one does wonder about other flying Earhart did.  It does seem there were likely compromises such as this to save weight in the 'flying laboratory', however.

Interesting, however, we know that Earhart's aircraft did have heater ducts, they can be seen in some of the construction photos.  Furthermore, it would seem that the Dado structures were used to shield the fuel tanks from the heater ducts as we discovered with the Gilliam Electra in Alaska.

Perhaps there was an alternate exit port for Earhart's heater system that was later replaced by the "blobby" thing we see on Finch's aircraft.

Begs the question, if Earhart's Electra had heater ducts running along the floor, how and where did they exit the aircraft?  What about the Alaska Electra?

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 14, 2014, 01:59:51 PM
Good questions, Andrew.  I don't know the answers, but if that is how the heater worked, there should have been outlets somewhere near the aft belly area.  Maybe there were and they were flush in the early days and we just haven't seen them.

I'd have to look at the construction pix again to see what was actually installed inside of NR16020 - were the actual heat ducts there, for sure?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 14, 2014, 04:29:43 PM
I'd have to look at the construction pix again to see what was actually installed inside of NR16020 - were the actual heat ducts there, for sure?

For sure. Those are the heater ducts running along the base of then cabin wall.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 14, 2014, 04:42:47 PM
Check my logic.

IF 2-2-V-1 is the patch, how did it end up washed up where we found it?
IF the plane was torn apart in the surf and the patch was just one of the pieces that got ripped apart by the water, why is it the only more or less intact section of skin we've found?
If, on the other hand, it was kicked, pried, broken out by AE and/or FN and ended up lying on the reef surface it could explain why if suffered a different fate than the rest of the airplane which went over the edge into the ocean.
The absence of sheets of skin may suggest that the plane did NOT get torn apart in the surf and, instead, sank more or less intact.
Does that mean that there's a greater chance that the anomaly is the fuselage of the Electra?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 14, 2014, 05:48:41 PM
2-2-V-1 looks more like a target of opportunity to me than the result of a full break-up, if it came from NR16020.  "Human intervention" is somehow implied when a single piece of sheet is found clear and away from the mother ship like that, and further suggested by the relatively 'clean' removal of so many fasteners as we see.

Pure speculation on my part, but it is not hard for the mind's eye to see someone grabbing and tearing away a somewhat loose or apparently easily dislodged component like the window patch might have been from a carcass lying in the surf, otherwise more or less largely intact.

That would also tend to support the possibity of a whale-like remnant of the Electra lying about somewhere down-cliff, it would seem to be.

Just thoughts - other's MMV, of course.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 14, 2014, 06:13:53 PM
Where is the location of the window/patch in relation to the cabin door?

The impression I've gotten is that it was pretty much directly across the cabin from the door.  If so, could the patch have been blown out by wave action coming in through the door?

Yes, if the patch was separated from the aircraft in a different way other than total destruction of the aircraft, it would stand to reason that the rest of the aircraft may be more intact than you've been speculating.  I've never subscribed to the "ground up into bits" theory.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 14, 2014, 06:34:04 PM
If the 1953 aerial mapping photos Jeff G. analyzed are pieces of aluminum, they are most likely from the tail; i.e. horizontal and vertical stabilizers and maybe, just maybe a section of the fuselage aft of where the patch was.  Seems there's an awful lot of stuff there -- the patch, the cut through frames and stringers for the patch, the cabin door on the port side, and now the apparent buckled skin seen in the Herald photo -- that would have created a weak point for separation to occur and the surface area of the tail provides a large 'lever' effect as the waves break over it.  This separation would also account for the way 2-2-V-1 looks now.

I can't really buy into the idea of human intervention, especially out off the beach.  I cannot imagine standing in knee deep surf, barefoot on a slick reef trying to pry, lever and tear a small piece of aluminum away from a larger piece of the fuselage.  You're going to get hurt -- badly!

The remainder of the fuselage, the engines and main spar went over the reef and probably remain someplace on the trail Richie's Anomaly made as it traveled sideways down the reef face.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on July 14, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
All,

Since we are all noodling on the issue with the patch let me introduce another scenario:

There was some type of low level explosion inside the plane – a battery coming in contact with sea water or a short circuit in one or more of the aux gas tanks.  This could account for the two “window” pieces we’ve found.  The Plexiglas sheet we found earlier and the patch we’ve found later.

What would be the weakest part of the fuselage, the main body or the windows?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 14, 2014, 07:03:58 PM
More to my post above:

Of course the patch -- 2-2-V-1 -- could have been 'hanging by a thread' or stringer more likely and been ripe for picking.

And isn't there a colonist story of kids playing with what sounded like an aircraft cabin door over on the other side of the island?

All these factors or issues present in one section of the fuselage in total represent a not insignificant percentage of the circumference of the fuselage just in front of the tail, just the right place for it to break.  I can just imagine the surf working the tail back-and-forth and up-and-down, tearing aluminum and separating rivets.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 14, 2014, 08:44:33 PM
Feel free to move to another thread if appropriate.

Here's one way we may have ended up with "The Artifact Formerly Known as 2-2-V-1

----------------------

The Breakup of NR16020

Here's how I envision the breakup of NR16020 after it's abandoned by AE and FN.  I'm not an aircraft
architect, so the terms may not be precise.  Please correct. 

This didn't happen all at once.  With a little more work I can fit it into the time line Ric came up with a few years ago.

Once the surf starts pushing the aircraft around the first thing to fail are the landing gear.  They're probably broken off where the strut attaches to the main spar/engine mount, maybe not all at once so they're flopping around underneath as the a/c is moved around, grinding up the underside of the wings and the belly.

Eventually the a/c gets broadside to the breaking waves and the tail begins to break off at the patch/cabin door/buckled skin/weakened frames point.  The tail separates, ripping and tearing the window patch but keeping it, and being relatively light is washed inshore. It begins its journey through the Norwich City debris field, getting knocked apart even more as it moves toward the lagoon entrance and the large reef flat just to its north.  By now it is separated into its component parts; horizontal and vertical stabilizers and a section of fuselage from just in front of the patch/cabin door.  Our artifact 2-2-V-1 is probably still attached to the tail section of the fuselage at this point.  Later, months or years later given the amount of carbonate (coral) encrustation,  it's recovered by an enterprising colonist.  The flat tail sections and fuselage piece are photographed in the 1953 aerial mapping survey, then are likely washed through into the lagoon to be buried in the sand or ground to aluminum dust.  At some point the cabin door washes ashore is found and played with.

Meanwhile, back at the landing site, the remaining largest section of the fuselage is broken off from the main spar, washes over the edge, sinks and begins its journey across the reef face, ending up as Richie's Anomaly.  The sections of the wing outboard of the engines have gone away and probably drift a fair piece as they sink.  More surface area for the current to push against means they probably went past the NC debris field and are further off shore and deeper. 

The main spar, one or both engines and both main gear are left.  One gear, strut, and tire become the Bevington Object.  The other, somehow makes its way to Tatiman Passage and becomes the Wheel of Fortune.

The main spar and perhaps one or both engines remain in the surf line north of the North City and are photographed as the 'dot-dot-dash' by the New Zealand expedition and are seen by the colonists (and Emily) before eventually falling off the edge of the reef.  I expect they went straight down and did not drift as the fuselage did.  I think the engines would come off and go tumbling down into the depths.  The main spar frame, a large, heavy rectangular shape would resist tumbling may still be fairly shallow.

Nothing is left above water except 2-2-V-1

--------------------

A fun thought piece.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Gard on July 15, 2014, 02:00:24 AM
As a baseline, Norwich City hullplates were simply blown from the wreck and frisbeed along the beach.

Since the Electra was closeby and exposed to the same seas, it's reasonable to conclude that fuselage plates suffered the same fate.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 15, 2014, 06:15:15 AM
Where is the location of the window/patch in relation to the cabin door?

The impression I've gotten is that it was pretty much directly across the cabin from the door.  If so, could the patch have been blown out by wave action coming in through the door?

Andrew

Andrew, the window/patch was in a separate compartment, the lavatory area of the Electra, with a door between the two areas.

Picture 1 below shows the main cabin door open with the two regular passenger windows across from each other and the "blank" side panel across from this door. This blank area is the area shown between the two windows in picture two. Picture 3 is a Harney drawing of the interior of the Electra, and while not well labeled for the purpose here, does show the general layout of the interior. The area shown as where the rear interior door opens is also the area where the main cabin door (external) opens.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on July 15, 2014, 05:04:20 PM
A near analog of the Earheart hypothesis was the landing of the Monospar Croydon ST-18 on Seringapatam Reef in October, 1936 (see this (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_a_Reef:_A_Case_Study) and this (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/64_ReefLanding/64_ReefLanding.htm) ). Interviews with the fishing crew which picked up the aircrew of the Croydon can be found in Chapter 4 (http://books.google.com/books?id=qFKy_2eMGCMC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=seringapatam+reef&source=bl&ots=CnQeYjb0gM&sig=NldHBofwxQ35g6R6mTVTJekPMEc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oqrFU4OFG8bwiwLU4IHoAQ&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=seringapatam%20reef&f=false) of Boats to Burn: Bajo Fishing Activity in the Australian Fishing Zone:

"We went to have a look at the plane afterwards and measured the wingspan¬-it was eight depa (fathoms) long.” “The frame of the plane is still there to this day”

 It appeared these crew interviews were made in the 1990's.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: pilotart on July 15, 2014, 08:49:59 PM
Off the 'skin' topic...  I had been searching to locate where a contemporary Aviation expert (Harold Gaty??) had told a Pacific Island Official that most likely scenario from not finding your destination Island was to land on a reef, when I happened across the Croyden story (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg18857.html#msg18857).

The next 15 posts following my post linked above (inside a 34 page topic) have a lot of information and links dealing with that somewhat very much parallel incident.

Have never seen anything about the 'expert opinion' (Harold or whoever) statement I was looking for.  It was certainly 'drowned-out' by truth of what HAD happened.  Rick did an excellent job of outlining and documenting it.


The possibility of tying this 2-2-V-1 panel to that repair in Miami truly has potential, I believe it will happen.

I have had difficulty finding FAA or Repair Station Engineering Reports that turned up lost or destroyed after just 20 years, looks like contemporary photographs and expert analysis might be the best hope.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 16, 2014, 06:21:48 AM

I have had difficulty finding FAA or Repair Station Engineering Reports that turned up lost or destroyed after just 20 years, looks like contemporary photographs and expert analysis might be the best hope.

Exactly. THE photo or drawing we need is there, somewhere. Things associated with Amelia Earhart are still turning up almost 80 years after the fact. We just have to get lucky. Again. Which is what I'm working towards.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 16, 2014, 07:44:52 AM
As a baseline, Norwich City hullplates were simply blown from the wreck and frisbeed along the beach.

Since the Electra was closeby and exposed to the same seas, it's reasonable to conclude that fuselage plates suffered the same fate.

Excellent point.  The Norwich City gives us a model for what happens to a metal structure (albeit a much larger, heavier structure) hung up on the reef edge. It took years for the ship to break apart. An airplane should break up much more quickly, but the distribution of wreckage should be similar.  Part of the ship broke off and tumbled down the reef slope directly behind the wreck. At least some of the hull plates of the part remaining on the reef ended up on the shore.
If the Electra followed this model I would expect some wreckage in deep water near where the plane was hung up (the anomaly?) and fractured sections of aluminum sheet on the reef flat (1953 debris?) and on the shore (Funafuti anecdote?).
Couple questions.
Three surveys - Maude/Bevington in Oct. '37; NZ in late '38/early '39; and Bushnell in late '39 - saw no airplane wreckage. Gallagher, Sept. '40 to June '41, saw no airplane wreckage. The earliest report of airplane wreckage is Emily some time between January '40 and November '41.
Where is the airplane between July 8, 1937 (day before Navy search) and late 1941 when wreckage starts to wash up?
Why does only the patch survive to be found in 1991?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on July 16, 2014, 09:01:01 AM
What is the likelihood that the patch was simply a "weak" point that was torn from the plane early on? It may have simply been caught on coral not far below the surface where it was eventually dislodged.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 16, 2014, 10:18:01 AM
 
Couple questions.
Three surveys - Maude/Bevington in Oct. '37; NZ in late '38/early '39; and Bushnell in late '39 - saw no airplane wreckage. Gallagher, Sept. '40 to June '41, saw no airplane wreckage. The earliest report of airplane wreckage is Emily some time between January '40 and November '41.
Where is the airplane between July 8, 1937 (day before Navy search) and late 1941 when wreckage starts to wash up?
Why does only the patch survive to be found in 1991?
[/quote]

No one saw any wreckage that they recognized as being airplane wreckage.

Both Maude/Bevington and the NZ team took photographs that knowingly or unknowingly included objects which are now believed to be from NR16020 (Bevington Object, 'dot-dot-dash').

USS Bushnell was likely far too busy for sightseeing, although the party putting the flag and electric beacon on NC's foremast would have had a good view if so inclined.  They spent most of their time on the lee side of the island.

Did Gallagher know what Emily knew?  Impossible to know.  If he did, after the bones were reported to him was that what caused him to make the connection to AE and make reference to her in his 23 Sep 40 messages?

I think the breakup of NR16020 I somewhat fancifully described above was complete before Maude/Bevington arrived.  Smaller pieces were probably still moving around of the reef flat but remained unnoticed.

There may have been other scraps found that are still out there, especially in/around the settlement, much of which, I understand remains to be exhaustively searched.  How much did the colonists remanufacture?  . . .and send away?  If they had been asked where they got the metal they used, would they have replied 'from the airplane on the reef'?  (A question we could wish Floyd Kilts had asked!)

More questions than answers still.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 16, 2014, 11:19:09 AM
OK, here is an alternate scenario ...

The Electra landing is HARD -- -hard enough to crunch the rear fuselage somewhere in the vicinity of the rear door, skylight in the lav and the large patched-over window opening.  I think that we have built a pretty good case for the fuselage being somewhat weak in that area.  So, the landing may have been hard enough to cause the fuselage to fold at that point. 

Where would Noonan have been during a landing attempt?  If he was in the back, and the tanks were empty, that may have been the perfect setting for an aft c.g., tail heavy, landing.

If the fuselage broke at that location it may have failed in a manner that would have caused the door opening to fold together which would effectively hopelessly jam the door or render the opening blocked.

If the break was across the patched window opening one or more sides of the "patch" could have been torn free during the event.  With two, or more, edges free it doesn't take too much of a leap in logic to get to the point where wave action could have completed the process. 

Continuing down this path ...  If Noonan was in the back, it is easy to imagine him being injured during such a landing, it might not have been impossible to get him out through the door if the fuselage folded at that point.  Likewise, getting him over the tanks and out through the cockpit hatch, may not have been an option.  Such a failure would have resulted in the aircraft sitting at a more pronounced nose up stance (assuming the main gear was not collapsed).  There might have been an attempt to kick the "patch" in order to get an opening large enough to get Noonan out.  If one, or more, edges were already torn free this would have made the decision easier to try to kick the patch out.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 16, 2014, 12:47:11 PM
OK, here is an alternate scenario ...

The Electra landing is HARD -- -hard enough to crunch the rear fuselage somewhere in the vicinity of the rear door, skylight in the lav and the large patched-over window opening.  I think that we have built a pretty good case for the fuselage being somewhat weak in that area.  So, the landing may have been hard enough to cause the fuselage to fold at that point. 

Where would Noonan have been during a landing attempt?  If he was in the back, and the tanks were empty, that may have been the perfect setting for an aft c.g., tail heavy, landing.

If the fuselage broke at that location it may have failed in a manner that would have caused the door opening to fold together which would effectively hopelessly jam the door or render the opening blocked.

If the brake was across the patched window opening one or more sides of the "patch" could have been torn free during the event.  With two, or more, edges free it doesn't take too much of a leap in logic to get to the point where wave action could have completed the process. 

Continuing down this path ...  If Noonan was in the back, it is easy to imagine him being injured during such a landing, it might not have been impossible to get him out through the door if the fuselage folded at that point.  Likewise, getting him over the tanks and out through the cockpit hatch, may not have been an option.  Such a failure would have resulted in the aircraft sitting at a more pronounced nose up stance (assuming the main gear was not collapsed).  There might have been an attempt to kick the "patch" in order to get an opening large enough to get Noonan out.  If one, or more, edges were already torn free this would have made the decision easier to try to kick the patch out.

I like the idea of a hard landing starting the break-off of the tail and tearing one or more sides of the patch.  I can't see FN in the back though.  Makes more sense to have both sets of eyes up front scanning the horizon looking for someplace dry to set down.  He's no good in the back.  He's given her a heading to fly - 157.  He's done his job.  "Fred, get up here and help me look!"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 16, 2014, 05:40:19 PM
If 2-2-V-1 is the patch, the scenario could be:

1. The plane had a hard landing on the reef. The top of the old window opening under the patch buckled.  If the lav window was framed like the other windows, the now cut circumferential stiffener at Sta. 307 pulls up near the middle of where the window was and makes the first tear. It makes the tear in two directions from near that point.

2. Surf action splits the plane in half aft of the cabin door and forward of the window. That is the non fatigue fracture on one end.

3. Possibly the fuselage comes apart in a way so it pulls the skin from some of the stringers, or waves are now able to hit it from the exposed opening and pop off some rivets.

 4. The dangling piece to used as a reflector to signal. It’s still possibly the shiniest piece and does not involve a lot of work to pull it the rest of the way off. A small fish is cooked on it. (on one edge so as to keep the main part shiny).

5. After the planes failed to see them, and before leaving for the seven site, they use some antenna wire to tie this reflective piece next to where they painted an SOS on the Norwich City to draw attention that message.(insert shameless link to kooky theory here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,689.msg13621.html#msg13621))

6.  Shortly after leaving their message, the patch blew off the Norwich City and the patch and wire were later was pushed by currents back to the shore near the village where it was covered up by sand until the storm uncovered it for TIGHAR to find.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 16, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
Since the last few posts have been suggesting scenarios of what happened to the Electra on the reef I have always wondered how the almost empty fuel tanks affected the buoyancy of the Electra.  While its fairly easy to understand how wave action could break up the fuselage I would expect that those extra fuel tanks in the body would keep the bulk of it afloat for quite a while, I would expect that they were sealed and water tight.  Unless something happened to breach them I would have thought the plane would still be floating when Lambrect flew.  The most likely scenario was a fire or explosion involving the remaining fuel that damaged them,an event that might also have caused the release of the patch.  Of course I remember that experts have said the artifact doesn't show sign of explosion damage.


I have looked at some older posts now and see that those fuselage tanks had vents that might allow water in, so it's not a given that they would increase buoyancy.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 16, 2014, 06:23:31 PM
The possible window patch 2-2-V-1 was in the rear loo area Matt so would be shielded by the aft compartment bulkhead and door from any direct explosive damage.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 16, 2014, 07:06:53 PM
Ric said,
"Excellent point.  The Norwich City gives us a model for what happens to a metal structure (albeit a much larger, heavier structure) hung up on the reef edge. It took years for the ship to break apart. An airplane should break up much more quickly, but the distribution of wreckage should be similar."

Not sure an all aluminum structure would break up the same way the NC did.  Being lighter, the major components of the a/c would tend to move before staying in one place and being hammered by the surf -- unless they were hung up on something, and there's not that much on the reef flat to get hung up on.  They would also tend to move further, faster.  Simply put, NR16020 may not have had enough time in the surf to get pounded to pieces.

Since the last few posts have been suggesting scenarios of what happened to the Electra on the reef I have always wondered how the almost empty fuel tanks affected the buoyancy of the Electra.  While its fairly easy to understand how wave action could break up the fuselage I would expect that those extra fuel tanks in the body would keep the bulk of it afloat for quite a while. . . .

I suspect the internal tanks in the fuselage were holed to some extent during the break up and were slowly filling with water.  This increased but still negative buoyancy may account for the rather extreme diagonal track Richie's Anomaly took as it sank.  It would have been much more affected by the current on the way down.  Same for the wings, but they were lighter and didn't damage the reef face as they descended.  They would also have a tendency to 'flutter' (a falling leaf) on the way down, only periodically striking the reef face.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Gard on July 16, 2014, 07:19:15 PM
As a baseline, Norwich City hullplates were simply blown from the wreck and frisbeed along the beach.

Since the Electra was closeby and exposed to the same seas, it's reasonable to conclude that fuselage plates suffered the same fate.
Why does only the patch survive to be found in 1991?

I'm wondering if the severed sections of reef that are the size of bulldozers, shown in   Aerial Tour of Nikamororo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8) (15:45), hold an answer.

Was a subsequent storm so powerful that previously submerged Electra wreckage suffered an upheaval?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 16, 2014, 08:42:54 PM
I suspect the internal tanks in the fuselage were holed to some extent during the break up

That would be bad news in such a small fuselage with five rather large fuel tanks. No doubt they would be near empty of fuel but, not fuel vapour. Five quite large 'empty' tanks contain a lot of fuel vapour. Add in a couple of lead acid batteries and some sea water and who knows what might happen.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 16, 2014, 10:29:29 PM
If 2-2-V-1 is the patch, the scenario could be:

1. The plane had a hard landing on the reef. The top of the old window opening under the patch buckled.  If the lav window was framed like the other windows, the now cut circumferential stiffener at Sta. 307 pulls up near the middle of where the window was and makes the first tear. It makes the tear in two directions from near that point.

2. Surf action splits the plane in half aft of the cabin door and forward of the window. That is the non fatigue fracture on one end.

3. Possibly the fuselage comes apart in a way so it pulls the skin from some of the stringers, or waves are now able to hit it from the exposed opening and pop off some rivets.

I like points 1 to 3 Greg and I'm sure I raised that as a likely area for the fuselage to come apart before. I will see if I can find the image again, its on one the external hard drives somewhere I think  :-\
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 17, 2014, 04:33:19 AM
I like points 1 to 3 Greg and I'm sure I raised that as a likely area for the fuselage to come apart before. I will see if I can find the image again, its on one the external hard drives somewhere I think  :-\

Is this the one?? :o
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 17, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
That's not the one I posted Woody but the rear part of the fuselage comes apart in the same area, thanks for looking  :D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 17, 2014, 06:30:08 AM
Personally I think all the speculation about the airplane 'breaking up' so in the surf is probably way off, just MHO.

Airplanes 'break up' in two cases, mostly -

- By crashing into terra firma or water in a high energy state, and

- Being impacted by something else of a high energy state while the main structure is pinned or tied in a way that leverages the impact and prevents the relatively light ship from simply being shifted about.

I don't see much shot at that for a hapless bird sitting on that reef.  At worst, IMO, a gear might have been 'pinned' (ala "Nessie"), in which case the tendency, IMO, would be that the gear would fail before feathers, wings, engines or other main structures like a fuselage would break.  Then the bird as a whole, more or less, would probably - IMO - simply windmill and slide hither and yon more or less intact (albeit damaged) until it eventually found a resting place - perhaps in the deep (a natural tendency for objects in that area).

Simply put, the airframe was too tough, and too light to so easily 'break up' due to tidal forces on the reef IMHO.  By comparison, the ship bears little comparison: it was quite heavy, was very much its own anchor; the tides could not dislodge it, so they nipped at it over time and took one plate and gusset away at a time until very little was left.  Lighter tough structures like airplanes don't behave that way if unpinned (and I believe the Electra would have been 'unpinned', once a pinned gear - if that happened, failed).

Might it have been carwheeled, for example, breaking off tail feathers, etc?  Possible, I suppose, if the surf got wild enough; but more likely I believe it would have endured a battering for as long as it managed to stay in the surf, and eventually would just be swept away, most major components still attached.

As long as these WAGs are floating around I thought I'd just throw mine in.  YMMV, of course - no offense - but in my lifetime of observing many wrecks and damaged airplanes and working with the design and certification of aerostructures, I just don't see all these colorful 'break-up' scenarios as very realistic or probable.  If Emily saw airplane wreckage, then most likely it was the bulk of the bird - unless just a gear that was left behind, etc. 

As to 2-2-V-1 and IF it was part of the Electra in the form of the Lavatory Window 'Patch' (I'd still love to know and it's still my pet notion), I further doubt that natural forces dislodged it.  It appears too robust for that, IMO, by what I can tell of the window structure and how it would have been logically covered.  More likely, in my view, someone would have found the wreck - possibly submerged but reachable, and went after what they could get for salvage.

All just my own views, of course.  If anyone can show us some examples of airplanes that 'broke up' after being deposited on a reef then I would happily yield, otherwise I think it is nonsense.  I think there are many examples of airframe failures because of what I've outlined above - high energy impact with the ground, or by another object while being forcibly pinned in place somehow.  Barring examples of it having happened elsewhere, I don't see the surf and reef themselves as highly qualified for that scenario - the light, tough airframe would - IMO - just be too easy to push around and while battering would happen, major break-up would not be so likely in my belief.

Of course none of us can get beyond speculation at this point.  The only real answers can come from finding the damned airplane.  The only way to find the damned airplane is to go look for it.  I've said it before in the context of other artifacts, so I'll repeat it in the context of 2-2-V-1 - these things are markers on the trail - they give us confidence, or not, as to a place to look; 2-2-V-1 is to me a 'marker' that gives me reason to wonder if the Electra is nearby; to me it draws two ways: learn if it can be firmly tied to the Electra (contemporary photo evidence needed) which would be as good as finding the Electra, in some sense - and as a pointer as to where to look for the bird itself.

Just my thoughts, as long as we're on this path of speculation. 

I look forward to any examples of 'airplanes that broke up like ships due to tidal forces', if they can be found.  Otherwise I think we have one of three things for a 'holy grail' (airplane wreck) a) a substantially intact Electra somewhere downslope of Niku (or another reef, if we've somehow missed the mark), b) a badly battered but more or less intact Electra that managed to ditch with relatively minimal damage that then sank somewhere out there, or c) a smashed and possibly dismembered Electra that simply crashed hard either into the sea or the shallows somewhere, finally being consumed by the sea over time.

Just my own WAG speculation, of course, YMMV.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on July 17, 2014, 07:59:52 AM
Very much tend to agree with you, Jeff.

Airframes are designed to withstand G-loadings in flight that far exceed the shearing action of surf over a coral reef.  Even if a large, storm-generated wave were to "catch" the fuselage and jam a wingtip in to the coral, flipping and slamming the aircraft on to the coral, I doubt the force would exceed that of a 70-knot ditching attempt, which is basically setting down on concrete at that speed. 

I can see panels of skin from the belly being mangled, torn and/or "ripped" where the aircraft rests on the coral, but I struggle to buy in to the "broken up and ground to bits" hypothesis.

I can only recall one famous WW2 story of a partially submerged aircraft abandoned on a coral reef after a successful reef landing, and interestingly, there was a discovery related to this whole affair just 10 days ago....

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/pby-engines-discovered-remote-south-pacific-reef-locate-wwii-ditching.html
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 17, 2014, 08:29:38 AM
These are two links to the Croyden ST-18 story mentioned further up this post.  That a/c eventually broke up on the reef leaving only the frame behind.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_a_Reef:_A_Case_Study
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/64_ReefLanding/64_ReefLanding.htm

In the Aerial Tour video Ric mentions the large coral block "the size of bulldozers" ripped from the reef face at the entrance to Tatiman Passage.  (I think it was "bulldozers".  Anyway, they're really big.)  If breaking waves can do that they should have little trouble taking apart an airplane.  I think that qualifies as a 'high energy impact'.



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 17, 2014, 11:14:06 AM
Unfortunately the reef at Gardner Island did, and still has, something which has the means of pinning an aircraft down just next to the surf line. It's a natural feature, I'll post an image of it later Jeff.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 17, 2014, 11:33:53 AM
Jeff, your thoughts on the non-likelihood of a surf break-up mirror mine exactly!  There are too many examples of ditched aircraft to use for comparison.  Ditching is a violent event --- much more violent than sitting in the surf.  When these aircraft are discovered they are usually in one piece.  I’m not sure most folks know how tough aluminum monocoque really is!  Over the years I have tried to “liberate” samples from aircraft being scrapped.  On a few cases I was successful.  It is a LOT harder than you might think.  If you don’t believe me give it a try yourself if you get the opportunity.  Because of this I believe that the aircraft will be found essentially whole.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 17, 2014, 12:20:36 PM
I can see the plane being sturdy enough to absorb wave action by moving with the waves. However, Emily describing wreckage in the same place as the Bevignton Object suggests the plane, or parts of the plane, did not move for years.  The location of the Bevington object and where Emily saw plane wreckage is near where the waves break. Based on that, it seems the parts there years later might be something very sturdy, like an engine,(Emily described something like rust, not shiny) possibly with parts of the nacelle including the landing gear. I don’t see the landing gear staying on the reef long by itself due the surface area of the tire unless it was hung up, secured or somehow connected to a bigger piece.

 The Glickman Debris Field also suggests some break up. However, if the “debris field” is from the plane, that debris could be from larger pieces, or most of the plane, tumbling down the underwater terrain after it sank, because the “debris” appears to be somewhat localized. The debris pieces are so close together, they could be from a large piece that disintegrated in place, underwater,  with pieces migrating downhill in a crevice after corroding.
Taking the Bevington object, Emily’s story, the Debris Field and the Sonar Anomaly all together, I think the plane broke into big pieces on the reef by getting blown offshore by the wind and then pushed back into the reef edge by the current and waves a few times. Enough back and forth to break it and/or open enough holes to allow most of it or big pieces to sink just south of where it initially went over. The heavier more sturdy pieces staying in the dynamic reef edge area long enough for Emily and her father to see them at neap tide. 

I don’t think  a person made the first fracture in 2-2-V-1 in an attempt to remove it. I also have some difficulty seeing someone popping the bulk of the rivet heads off and separating the skin from the stringers without deforming the skin more. However, I can see the fracture from fatigue being made by someone and some of the rivets or stringers being removed due to the tool marks. 
2-2-V-1 by itself would not float. Although possible, getting 2-2-V-1 to the point near the landing channel by currents alone pushing it along the reef does not seem likely to me by looking at the debris pattern from the NC. The fatigue fracture, tool marks and its found location, suggest to me that 2-2-V-1 was moved closer to the channel by someone and later abandoned. I don’t see it as being used for other purposes for long due to the awkwardness of the fractures
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 17, 2014, 02:15:23 PM
"Rising tides and surf wash the aircraft into one of the “spur and groove” features where it is swept into shallow water in the surf zone."

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/56_WhereIsElectra/56_where2.htm (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/56_WhereIsElectra/56_where2.htm)


Being wedged into one of the grooves pins the plane down as with the Bevington object further up the reef earlier in the break up. The general shape of a plane lends itself to having protuberances that can easily get caught in grooves e.g. landing gear, wings, engines, tailplane, props etc... even the fuselage itself.

Fom the Croydon ST-18 reef landing...

"At high tide on that day the reef was covered to a depth of 3 ft. A week later this would have increased to 14 ft., which meant that the aircraft would then be covered, and the heavy ocean swell would soon break it up. By the time we were able to get information through to the outside world it was therefore too late, and the reef too inaccessible for any salvage work to be done."

High tides at Gardner never approach 14 feet but heavy ocean swells are common.




Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: pilotart on July 18, 2014, 11:30:07 AM
These are two links to the Croyden ST-18 story mentioned further up this post.  That a/c eventually broke up on the reef leaving only the frame behind.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_a_Reef:_A_Case_Study
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/64_ReefLanding/64_ReefLanding.htm

Here's a link to a 3 page Forum Thread titled "A Reef in Time" (Croydon's):

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,942.0.html

Here's another vintage Airliner (http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austu/VH-UYW.jpg) Which successfully landed on a Reef. (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/40863594)
(Success meaning People and Cargo were saved; from page 3 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,942.30.html).)

...From the Croydon ST-18 reef landing...

"At high tide on that day the reef was covered to a depth of 3 ft. A week later this would have increased to 14 ft., which meant that the aircraft would then be covered, and the heavy ocean swell would soon break it up. By the time we were able to get information through to the outside world it was therefore too late, and the reef too inaccessible for any salvage work to be done."

High tides at Gardner never approach 14 feet but heavy ocean swells are common.
The most promising aspect of Croydon (as to survival of identifiable remains) is the report from 59 years later seeing  “The frame of the plane is still there to this day” [1995] remaining on a reef that is under a lot more Ocean Stress than Amelia's likely choice.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 18, 2014, 11:56:12 AM
From the link Nathan posted above:
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/pby-engines-discovered-remote-south-pacific-reef-locate-wwii-ditching.html

"FDMC hopes to go back and look for remnants for the Lana T (C-47). Ewan Stevenson cautioned Seth that with other shallow-water crashes the waves and coral, especially during typhoons, have ripped the skin of even larger aircraft into pieces smaller than 2 inches across, most of which are grown over with coral and hard to find, and the paint is dissolved. But at least the Lana T’s engines, of the same model as the PBY, might be found."

Mr Stephenson has considerable experience in the pacific  with wrecks
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/people/authors/stevenson/index.html

It seems how well the skin of aircraft survives depends on the environment it ends up in and the type of weather it encounters.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 18, 2014, 12:01:29 PM
These are two links to the Croyden ST-18 story mentioned further up this post.  That a/c eventually broke up on the reef leaving only the frame behind.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_a_Reef:_A_Case_Study
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/64_ReefLanding/64_ReefLanding.htm

In the Aerial Tour video Ric mentions the large coral block "the size of bulldozers" ripped from the reef face at the entrance to Tatiman Passage.  (I think it was "bulldozers".  Anyway, they're really big.)  If breaking waves can do that they should have little trouble taking apart an airplane.  I think that qualifies as a 'high energy impact'.

"The frame of the plane is there to this day" tells me nothing of what is really there (or was there when this report was made) - was that a 'nearly complete' airframe?  They described measuring a wingspan - 8 "depa" (fathoms) long - about 48 feet, if I recall what a fathom is; that implies a more or less still-intact airplane.

I think you missed my point, Bill - I well realize the force of the surf; what has been overlooked is the inherent strength of an airframe in a fluid environment when there is a lack of mechanical opposing force, i.e. airframe relatively free to react and move 'away' from the onslaught of hydraulic force.  My belief is that there may be more tendency to 'surf' than to 'break up' due to surf forces.

I would like to know more about the Croyden 'remains' but find that story a bit 'wanting to please' the listener, given aboriginal tendencies about such retellings as I've read them to be.

Whole point here really being, all this speculation is fun, but does nothing to advance whether 2-2-V-1 is or is not from NR16020, and does not even approach serious science, in my view.  Sorry if I seem impatient, but it all gets to be a bit much to wade through after while.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 18, 2014, 01:18:52 PM
"Whole point here really being, all this speculation is fun, but does nothing to advance whether 2-2-V-1 is or is not from NR16020, and does not even approach serious science, in my view.  Sorry if I seem impatient, but it all gets to be a bit much to wade through after while."

I thought we were looking into possible ways in which 2-2-V-1 became separated from the rest of the airplane? Normally you start with a blank sheet of paper or blackboard and then begin to put something on it. You can add or remove as ideas are discussed/debated and theories are tested.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 18, 2014, 01:29:09 PM
This just in from Jeff Glickman:

"I should have something for you on 2-2-V-1 in 5 to 7 days."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 18, 2014, 02:53:08 PM
This just in from Jeff Glickman:

"I should have something for you on 2-2-V-1 in 5 to 7 days."

Sweet. That will just about coincide with some other ongoing efforts.

LTM, who thinks dusty files are pretty cool,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: richie conroy on July 18, 2014, 07:02:02 PM
Monty

5 Star rating, 555 posts, Subject 2-2-v-1 - patch,  2-2-1 = 5   :o

Things we notice while wondering what else is going on  :) :)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 18, 2014, 07:06:16 PM
That's what I like about you, Richie ... you notice, well, stuff. Which is one reason I hope the Conroy Anomaly pans out.

This probably means something deeply profound and/or disturbing. Tonight, I opt for profound.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: richie conroy on July 18, 2014, 07:18:53 PM
Pans Snap  :o that anomaly could be anything even a mountain thing

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 28, 2014, 10:38:09 AM
I checked in with Jeff Glickman on how he's coming along with the 2-2-V-1 analysis.  He can't see individual rivets but he can discern rivet lines.  Does the spacing between rivet lines on the patch match the spacing between rivet lines on the artifact?  Is there a crossing (vertical) line of rivets on the patch that is not present on the artifact? Is there a line staggered rivets along one edge? These are questions he should be able to answer. The big issue, of course, is establishing scale in the photographs.  The bowed/bulged shape of 2-2-V-1 complicates that process but he can correct for that.  He's going to give us a full written report with illustrations.

We've decided to go ahead with the hyperspectral imaging of the artifact.  We'll rent the camera for three days ($1,500).  Jeff will fly here ($500) and we'll do the work at the new TIGHAR HQ on August 27, 28, 29.  We'll have a reception/cook-out on the Friday afternoon and evening for anyone who wants to come and meet Jeff and talk about the project. Planning is still in the initial stages.  More to come, but if you think you might be able to attend let me know.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 28, 2014, 11:47:43 AM
That is exciting news, Ric, thanks for passing this on.

If Jeff can reliably discern rivet patterns then we can know a great deal more!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2014, 10:56:29 AM
I need some input.  As you know, Artifact 2-2-V-1 appears to have the potential to be the long-sought smoking gun - a physical object found on Nikumaroro that can be conclusively linked to Amelia Earhart.  Specifically, it may be the patch that was installed in Miami. To clear that very high bar we'll need to be sure that we've answered every possible question about the artifact.  To that end, Jeff Glickman will be here at TIGHAR HQ on August 27 - 30 (Wed. though Saturday) to do hyperspectral imaging of the artifact.  We don't know what new information that technique may produce but it will sure be interesting to see.  Jeff's airfare from Seattle will cost about $650.  We're getting the rental of the hyperspectral imaging unit for $1,000 - a 30% discount. Who will help cover those costs?

As long as Jeff will be here, we want to give everyone a chance to meet him and discuss his work.  We also want to show off the new TIGHAR HQ.  We've never before had a facility where we can hold research meetings and social events.  It's still a work in progress (and will be for some time) but currently we can host upwards of about 12 people for meetings and meals in a beautiful country setting.  We're handy to Interstate 95 about an hour south of Philadelphia and an hour north of Baltimore. There are good hotels just a few minutes away.

The question is, what is practical to do?  What do you want?  An all day meeting followed by a barbecue in the evening?  That following Monday is Labor Day.  Is Friday better than Saturday so as not to interfere with Labor Day weekend plans? Is the timing just too short to do anything? Let us know how you feel.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nate Pickering on July 29, 2014, 01:47:35 PM
A couple questions about 2-2-V-1:

1. Would this have been an item manufactured by Lockheed in a standard size/configuration and purpose-built for this specific type of modification, or would it have been fashioned individually, on an ad hoc basis, by the crew carrying out the repairs on NR16020?

2. Are there any known examples of other Electras on which the same modification was performed?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 29, 2014, 02:05:03 PM
I'm in.  How much per plate? :)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 29, 2014, 06:16:51 PM
Nate -

1) Unique to Amelia and Fred's aircraft;
2) Not that I am aware of.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 29, 2014, 06:21:39 PM
Since some of us lead quite lives and there won't be any huge family gatherings, I would opt for Saturday since it'd be an all day drive for me.

LTM, who puts coleslaw on his hotdogs,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 29, 2014, 06:30:34 PM
Itchin' to go, long drive and flying is out for now. Saturday great for me if can do.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Karen Hoy on July 29, 2014, 07:19:42 PM
Saturday is good for me too.

Karen Hoy #2610CER
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 30, 2014, 09:52:16 AM
Saturday, August 30 it is.  We'll ask attendees to kick in $100 to cover beer expenses..  So far we have:
Ric Gillespie
Pat Thrasher
Jeff Glickman
Bill Mangus
Jeff Neville
Monty Fowler
Karen Hoy

I've signed and submitted the lease agreement for the SOC710-VP Multispectral Imaging unit.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on July 30, 2014, 10:09:04 AM
Unfortunately it is not possible for me to attend. However, it is assumed that those not attending are also encouraged to contribute funds  ;)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 30, 2014, 11:04:04 AM
Unfortunately it is not possible for me to attend. However, it is assumed that those not attending are also encouraged to contribute funds  ;)

You must be psychic. ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Karen Hoy on July 30, 2014, 05:00:02 PM
What time does the fun begin on Saturday?

Thanks,
Karen
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 30, 2014, 07:40:47 PM
What time does the fun begin on Saturday?

Let's officially begin at 1PM but anyone is welcome to arrive earlier.  We'll be here and there's always plenty to do on a farm.  Dress is casual of course.  We'll spend the afternoon with Jeff and 2-2-V-1 discussing what we've learned and what to do next. Drinks and a cook-out in the evening.  We'll chase you out at 10 if you last that long.  I'll have hotel information for you soon.
We'll put out an invitation to the TIGHAR membership.  This is the first time we've tried something like this so I have no idea what kind of response we'll get. We have plenty of room so we can expand to meet demand.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on July 31, 2014, 05:36:20 AM
Saturday, August 30 it is.  We'll ask attendees to kick in $100 to cover beer expenses..  So far we have:
Ric Gillespie
Pat Thrasher
Jeff Glickman
Bill Mangus
Jeff Neville
Monty Fowler
Karen Hoy

I've signed and submitted the lease agreement for the SOC710-VP Multispectral Imaging unit.

Much as I regret it, unrelenting work schedule is in the way - not going to be able to make this trip.

Really interested in what the rivet line traces can tell us as Glickman sorts out the imagery.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 31, 2014, 06:21:33 AM
We'll be here and there's always plenty to do on a farm.  Dress is casual of course. 

I knew it! He's going to have us mucking out the horse stalls  ;D

LTM, who tries not to mix and match his mucks much,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 31, 2014, 07:05:35 AM
Excellent article in today's online Philadephia Enquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Amelia_Earhart_mystery_Is_this_the_year_its_solved.html?dd)
The story will run in the printed newspaper tomorrow.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Wallace on July 31, 2014, 10:02:55 AM
Nice article.

Since Philly is pretty close, has any consideration been given to more of an open house type scenario for the Labor Day weekend?  "Come see how we are trying to find Amelia."  Open invitation with donations accepted/encouraged.  Could have a set time for Glickman to give a little talk. Bring your own picnic if weather nice. Might be able to draw in interested/non-members into the fold. I suspect level of advanced work and specifics of costs, might be able to get some current and future donations. I saw only room for 12 somewhere but isn't there a lawn and a big barn?

 Also, there is a pretty active little general aviation airfield up the road with actitivies several preceding weekends which would be additional opportunity to publicize/tie-in/garner interest. May be nice excuse for GA pilot to get out that saturday.
http://www.newgardenflyingfield.com/ (http://www.newgardenflyingfield.com/)

If others are traveling that weekend, they might be able to arrange slight detour/drop in.

Just some thoughts.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on July 31, 2014, 10:10:42 AM
I am trying to work out the logistics to being able to attend and see most of the 2-2-v-1 Commission members again, plus see the TIGHAR digs. Let you all know in a week or so if I can make it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 31, 2014, 01:45:16 PM
Since Philly is pretty close, has any consideration been given to more of an open house type scenario for the Labor Day weekend?

We'll call it a Research Conference and Open House.  We'll put out an invitation to the TIGHAR membership via TIGHARNews and see what kind of response we get.  If we decide to cast the net wider we can put the invitation on the TIGHAR Facebook page. 

I saw only room for 12 somewhere but isn't there a lawn and a big barn?

We can expand to meet demand. We have acres of lawn so, if need be, we could put up a tent like an old time religious camp meeting.  The barn is plenty big but it's not ready for prime time.

Also, there is a pretty active little general aviation airfield up the road with actitivies several preceding weekends which would be additional opportunity to publicize/tie-in/garner interest. May be nice excuse for GA pilot to get out that saturday.

New Garden is a great little GA airport.  I'm a member of the EAA chapter there.  I'm also a member of the Pennsylvania Aero Club based at Wings Field near Philadephia.  We'll extend invitations to both groups.  Again, I have no idea what kind of response we'll get.  We'll need to set a cut-off date for registrations so that we know how many to plan for.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 31, 2014, 05:50:35 PM
Hey Guys! In correlation to Jay Burkett's post to 'hard' landing. Which I feel is pretty much a definate picture of what might have happened to Amelia and Fred. I have a question on something in response to the hard landing idea. Okay, let's say for example that they are close to Gardner Island. They can actually see it, and then as they are approaching the engines stall. When this happens...can you still lower the landing gear or landing gears by hand or does the engine have to be running to do this? Not familiar with this!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 31, 2014, 05:59:30 PM
...can you still lower the landing gear or landing gears by hand or does the engine have to be running to do this?

The landing gear system on a Lockheed 10 is electric.  There is no manual retraction or extension system.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on July 31, 2014, 10:35:03 PM
Ric,

Do us a favor.  Ask the local EAA/FBO what they can do on discounted fuel prices, cost of a shuttle between the A/P and your place.  If the price of the shuttle is not crazy I’ll cover the initial cost after all I sent folks way south to get pictures that I would like to get copies of  - hint, hint.  My plan is to fly up there in my C 172, refuel, spend the night in a local hotel, spend the next day looking at objects recovered from Niku, etc.  I’ll be coming up from Atlanta.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 01, 2014, 06:44:47 AM
Do us a favor.  Ask the local EAA/FBO what they can do on discounted fuel prices, cost of a shuttle between the A/P and your place.

I'll talk to the FBO.  No guarantees, but I'll ask. We'll shuttle anyone flying in to New Garden.  Glad you can make it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 01, 2014, 07:57:54 AM
...can you still lower the landing gear or landing gears by hand or does the engine have to be running to do this?

The landing gear system on a Lockheed 10 is electric.  There is no manual retraction or extension system.

Thought there was an emergency hand-crank for extending the gear.

There should be no reason to use it if the engines quit, so long as the battery was in good shape - the electrical extension system ought to work fine.

As to the scenario of losing both engines, then a landing necessarily being harder than normal - maybe, but the only reason would be dealing with a compressed workload.  If there's time to get the wheels down, there's time to settle the bird normally.  So I don't see a hard landing as a 'necessarily so' outcome in such an event.

Also, had the engines flamed out prior to landing, presuming fuel exhaustion, then we'd not have certain other things that logically go with a landing on Niku - subsequent radio transmissions for several days, etc.  Plus some of us remain with the belief that there was enough fuel to get to Niku and broadcast for a time.

Not sayin' a dead-stick couldn't have been the case, just sayin' it would be a hell of a coinkydink.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on August 01, 2014, 08:12:57 AM
To Jeffrey's point, I think it might be a bad assumption that fuel starvation would only occur if all on-board fuel was exhausted.  It depends on which tank was selected, as well as how much "unusable" fuel remained.  The Lockheed had a complicated fuel system, with lots of places for fuel to hide.
Even if Amelia's protocol was to run each tank "dry" before switching to the next one, there might still be a considerable quantity left in the dry tank.  We don't have enough detail information about the ferry tank construction to estimate how much fuel might remain, but someone with knowledge of the Lockheed wing tanks (Ric?) might be able to give an estimate.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 01, 2014, 08:22:33 AM
Thought there was an emergency hand-crank for extending the gear.

You're right.  My mistake.
"..by pulling a T handle from the floor, the pilot can throw a clutch to the hand operating position and operate the gear with a hand crank at the right of his seat."

Oddly, there's no mention of that procedure in the Operating Manual.  Failure of the gear to extend is not even among among the emergencies listed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 01, 2014, 08:33:35 AM
To Jeffrey's point, I think it might be a bad assumption that fuel starvation would only occur if all on-board fuel was exhausted.  It depends on which tank was selected, as well as how much "unusable" fuel remained.  The Lockheed had a complicated fuel system, with lots of places for fuel to hide.
Even if Amelia's protocol was to run each tank "dry" before switching to the next one, there might still be a considerable quantity left in the dry tank.  We don't have enough detail information about the ferry tank construction to estimate how much fuel might remain, but someone with knowledge of the Lockheed wing tanks (Ric?) might be able to give an estimate.

It's only one obvious assumption that outright fuel starvation could have happened - you are right, there are other opportunities to misfeed the bird.

But how far to you want that dog to go in the field?  Like so many things, it's speculation - and still tells us nothing about how the ship might have landed (gently, despite dead-stick is quite possible). 

Just MHO, but more obvious reasons for a potentially hard landing exist: despite the survivable (also IMO) terrain, the bird could still get knocked around on an uneven surface - and might have certainly found a groove to drop a wheel in.  We know the Croydon Monospar  (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_a_Reef:_A_Case_Study) lost a tailwheel on a reef in more or less that way (I believe it dropped through the 'crust' in that case).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 01, 2014, 08:34:39 AM
Thought there was an emergency hand-crank for extending the gear.

You're right.  My mistake.
"..by pulling a T handle from the floor, the pilot can throw a clutch to the hand operating position and operate the gear with a hand crank at the right of his seat."

Oddly, there's no mention of that procedure in the Operating Manual.  Failure of the gear to extend is not even among among the emergencies listed.

That is interesting.

I'd bet that took about 80 turns on that handle... ouch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on August 01, 2014, 08:57:01 AM
My plan is to fly up there in my C 172, refuel, spend the night in a local hotel, spend the next day looking at objects recovered from Niku, etc.  I’ll be coming up from Atlanta.

Ted Campbell

Let me know if you have an empty seat in the 172.  If so, I could help with some gas $$. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 01, 2014, 09:06:42 AM
I'd bet that took about 80 turns on that handle... ouch.

Digging further, it was so common to have to use the crank that it was not considered an emergency.  If you were going 140 mph or more when you lowered the gear the electric motor couldn't get it down far enough to lock.  To get "two green" you had to give it about half a turn with the crank.  On the other hand, if lowered  below 120 mph the gear thunks down against the stops "unduly hard."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 01, 2014, 10:42:31 AM
That explains a lot - and makes me appreciate all the more the refinement that goes into our aero-machines today: the L10 was kind of a farm tractor compared to what we now fly.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 01, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
Will Jeff Glickman’s report on what he has been able to discern in images of the patch be a different report from the analysis of the hyperspectral imaging of 2-2-V-1?
Since Jeff has been able to discern rivet lines, is that enough to tell us at this point, if 2-2-V-1 has been eliminated as a possible match to the patch or not? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 01, 2014, 10:58:42 AM
Will Jeff Glickman’s report on what he has been able to discern in images of the patch be a different report from the analysis of the hyperspectral imaging of 2-2-V-1?

I expect that Jeff will write a single report that encompasses everything he has been able to discern.

Since Jeff has been able to discern rivet lines, is that enough to tell us at this point, if 2-2-V-1 has been eliminated as a possible match to the patch or not?

We've already eliminated 2-2-V-1 as part of standard Electra construction and also as part of documented repairs done by Lockheed.  The patch appears to be the artifact's "last stand" as a part of the Earhart puzzle.  So far, so good. He can discern rivet lines but matching them to the rivet lines on 2-2-V-1 requires precise scaling of the images.  That's what he's working on now. If the work Jeff has done so far had found something that eliminated the patch as a possible origin we wouldn't be spending $1,650 to do hyperspectral imaging.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joy Diane Forster on August 01, 2014, 11:05:38 AM
Excellent article in today's online Philadephia Enquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Amelia_Earhart_mystery_Is_this_the_year_its_solved.html?dd)
The story will run in the printed newspaper tomorrow.

I really hope some of the other papers pick this up....   Nice article that makes a good case for donations!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on August 01, 2014, 05:01:52 PM
Ric and Jeff...several days ago someone made the comment that they were trying to figure out if Fred may have been in the cockpit or in the rear of the plane. My question to the panel of expertise in regards to emergency landing gear cranking system is...could Amelia crank the landing gear down by herself while flying the plane or is this the job of a co-pilot? Let me know...thanks!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 01, 2014, 05:20:53 PM
could Amelia crank the landing gear down by herself while flying the plane or is this the job of a co-pilot?

The pilot could do it and the co-pilot could also do it - but there is no indication that anybody did it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gary Vance on August 05, 2014, 08:40:22 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster...

I was in Tucson Arizona last week and went to the Pima Air and Space museum. If you love aircraft this is the place to go. You also get to tour the Davis-Monthan AFB Boneyard.  A must do if in the area. One of their aircraft is an Electra Model 10 in pristine shape.  The attached picture shows the unpatched side of the plane.  I was hoping to get a super close look and see if there was any areas on this plane that would have matched the patch. The folks there were very interested in the Earhardt story and may be available as a resource, or may even allow a hands-on inspection if we need to look at another example of a Model 10.  Here are the specs from the website:

 http://www.pimaair.org/visit/aircraft-by-name/item/lockheed-model-10-electra (http://www.pimaair.org/visit/aircraft-by-name/item/lockheed-model-10-electra)




Manufacturer
LOCKHEED
Markings:
Northwest Airlines, 1936
Designation:
MODEL 10
Registration:
N4963C
Serial Number:
42-56638
LOCKHEED MODEL 10 ELECTRA
The Model 10 Electra was Lockheed's entry into the mid 1930s airliner market. Appearing almost simultaneously with the Boeing 249 and Douglas DC-2 the Electra is slightly smaller than its competitors, but it matched the speed of the DC-2. The Model 10 has the distinction of being the first aircraft on which Lockheed's famous designer Kelly Johnson worked. First flown in 1934 the Electra entered service first with Northwest Airlines and served successfully with many domestic and foreign airlines. Approximately 20 Electras were acquired by the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II from their civil owners and were used as personnel transports in the United States. After the war the Electras passed from major airlines into small regional and non-scheduled airlines and into use as personal and business aircraft. The Electra is probably best known as the aircraft in which Amelia Earhart vanished during her attempted around-the-world flight in 1937.
Specifications

    Wingspan: 55 ft
    Length: 38 ft 7 in
    Height: 10 ft 1 in
    Weight: 10,300 lbs (loaded)
    Max. Speed: 202 mph
    Service Ceiling: 19,400 ft
    Range: 810 miles
    Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Jr. SB, 450 horsepower each
    Crew: 2, 10 passengers

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 05, 2014, 08:59:48 AM
I was in Tucson Arizona last week and went to the Pima Air and Space museum. If you love aircraft this is the place to go. You also get to tour the Davis-Monthan AFB Boneyard.  A must do if in the area. One of their aircraft is an Electra Model 10 in pristine shape.

Great museum.  Glad you got to see it. We're well familiar with Pima's Electra.  C/N 1011 is the oldest surviving intact Model 10 (the eleventh one built). It's nice to see that they have brought it indoors.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2014, 01:50:33 PM
Latest results:

The attached photos show 2-2-V-1 (and my hands) overlaid on the patch in the Miami taxi photo to the correct scale.  As you can see, three of the five rivet lines (1,3 & 5) align with standard rivet lines and stringers on the airplane.  Line 5 is a double staggered row both on the artifact and the airplane. Jeff sees indications, but can't yet be sure, that there are rivet lines on the patch at lines 2 and 4.  There is no indication of a vertical line of rivets on the patch except, of course, at the fore and aft edges.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 26, 2014, 06:03:32 PM
Of course, TIGHAR's vast legion of detractors will insist that either:

1) 2-V-1-1 doesn't fit the putative patch hole to millimetric tolerances measured down to 8 decimal points;

2) The artifact has been deliberately manipulated to try to cram a square patch into a round hole;

or 3) TIGHAR has made the whole thing up and faked it from the word Go, all the way back to 1989.

My money has been, and remains, on TIGHAR.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2014, 06:13:00 PM
When Monty says,

My money has been, and remains on TIGHAR.

It's not a figure of speech.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 27, 2014, 05:55:08 AM
We seem to inch closer with this analysis - I believe this is the best shot at finding a 'key' that we're going to have for 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 27, 2014, 06:58:52 AM
Consider the "Null Hypothesis."  We know the artifact does not fit anywhere else on the Electra.  If the artifact is not the Miami Patch it is a random piece of airplane wreckage from some unknown wreck of an aircraft type we have not been able to identify, that just happened to wash up on this island and just happens to have all the characteristics that make us suspect it is the Miami Patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on August 27, 2014, 09:07:39 AM
Curious as to what additional data TIGHAR needs/hopes to see from 2-2-V-1 to reach the conclusion that the artifact did indeed (or at least has the highest percentage of probability) come from the Electra.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 27, 2014, 11:24:54 AM
Curious as to what additional data TIGHAR needs/hopes to see from 2-2-V-1 to reach the conclusion that the artifact did indeed (or at least has the highest percentage of probability) come from the Electra.

We want to see if we can confirm the presence of rivet lines at positions 2 and 4.  We also want to know if anything more can be learned through hyperspectral imaging.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on August 28, 2014, 06:33:18 AM
"If the artifact is not the Miami Patch it is a random piece of airplane wreckage from some unknown wreck of an aircraft type we have not been able to identify, that just happened to wash up on this island and just happens to have all the characteristics that make us suspect it is the Miami Patch."

That's a whole lot of "if's", "random's", "some unknown's", and "just happened's" that ALL had to come together for it NOT to be 'THE' patch! 
Whew!!  Makes me dizzy!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 28, 2014, 07:02:32 AM
That's a whole lot of "if's", "random's", "some unknown's", and "just happened's" that ALL had to come together for it NOT to be 'THE' patch! 
Whew!!  Makes me dizzy!

Oh, and the island this random piece of wreckage washed up on just happens to be the same island where the Pan Am radio bearings cross, where Lambrecht saw signs of recent habitation, where the Bevington Object appears in an October 1937 photo, where a castaway's bones were found in 1940, where later inhabitants told of a "downed plane" that was there when the first colonists arrived, where TIGHAR has found a variety of artifacts that speak of an American woman of the 1930s,  ..... shall I go on?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on August 28, 2014, 07:13:48 AM

Oh, and the island this random piece of wreckage washed up on just happens to be the same island where the Pan Am radio bearings cross, where Lambrecht saw signs of recent habitation, where the Bevington Object appears in an October 1937 photo, where a castaway's bones were found in 1940, where later inhabitants told of a "downed plane" that was there when the first colonists arrived, where TIGHAR has found a variety of artifacts that speak of an American woman of the 1930s,  ..... shall iI go on?
[/quote]

OK!!  I give up!!  It's from the Electra!  It has to be!  LOL! 
And YES....please "go on"...and on...and on...! 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 28, 2014, 07:29:06 AM
OK!!  I give up!!  It's from the Electra!  It has to be!  LOL! 
And YES....please "go on"...and on...and on...!

Let's not jump to conclusions. As our friends at the National Air & Space Museum are fond of saying, "TIGHAR has found nothing that can be directly linked to Earhart." 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 28, 2014, 08:46:30 AM
True, but I still believe it is a very odd piece of wreckage to have turned up at that place as it somehow did.

Search on - glad Glickman is pouring over it all.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 28, 2014, 09:34:48 AM
Very true, Mr. Neville, sir, but ... NASM won't be satisfied until TIGHAR finds a piece of our favorite Electra that has a uniquely identifiable serial number or other marking that absolutely and without the possibilty of a single question ties it to Earhart and Noonan.

Those of us who are more reasonable prefer to consider the totality of all of the evidence, and where that leads.

LTM, who has never seen a total eclipse,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on August 28, 2014, 12:10:43 PM

Let's not jump to conclusions. As our friends at the National Air & Space Museum are fond of saying, "TIGHAR has found nothing that can be directly linked to Earhart."
[/quote]

OK...if you consider 25+ years of research and new developments every year "jumping".   Yep, for NASM it will have to be a matching serial number, her watch, his watch, or maybe even a identifiable tooth...with them. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on August 29, 2014, 06:38:00 AM
Very true, Mr. Neville, sir, but ... NASM won't be satisfied until TIGHAR finds a piece of our favorite Electra that has a uniquely identifiable serial number or other marking that absolutely and without the possibilty of a single question ties it to Earhart and Noonan.

Those of us who are more reasonable prefer to consider the totality of all of the evidence, and where that leads.

LTM, who has never seen a total eclipse,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Unless you can get the right person to sign off on the project. Remember Ballard and his search for PT109? I don't think he ever got any push back on his "discovery" of that. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 29, 2014, 07:01:44 AM
Remember Ballard and his search for PT109? I don't think he ever got any push back on his "discovery" of that.

And most people still credit him with finding the Titanic.  Attached is a little-known "open letter" to Ballard from Commander Paul-Henri Nargeolet
Expedition Co-Leader, 1987, 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1998 Titanic Research and Recovery Expeditions.  I have no information as to the accuracy of Commander Nargeolet's allegations but I do know that Ballard's reputation in much of the ocean science community is quite different from his public persona. (The same was true of Earhart and the aviation community.)

The public's perception of historical events and personalities is shaped by the media.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on August 29, 2014, 07:45:56 AM
You know what, one can find or invent something negative regarding anyone...especially in command.  All these things are team efforts.  I do believe that Mr. Ballard was extremely responsible for getting the thousands of enemy soldiers, or even hundreds, the why should he get any credit for his amazing contribution to the WWII effort?  What ever Mr. Ballard's reasons were for not reacting to certain information only he can tell us. 

I do know there are three sides to every story.  One side's version, the other side's version, and the truth.  Ballard was still the one that made it happen and just because someone else may have pulled the trigger, or was at the helm at the time, or sleeping at that particular moment,  matters not to me.   But, that is just my opinion. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on August 29, 2014, 09:52:57 AM
I do believe that Mr. Ballard was extremely responsible for getting the thousands of enemy soldiers, or even hundreds, the why should he get any credit for his amazing contribution to the WWII effort?  ...

Huh? Did I miss something? Apparently. Anyway, back to my preparations for International Bacon Day (tomorrow)...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 29, 2014, 09:54:18 AM
Anyway, back to my preparations for International Bacon Day (tomorrow)...

NOW you tell me....
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 29, 2014, 11:18:33 AM
Nargeolet's letter seems to be many things -

I see things there that are 'fair game' and probably easily backed by facts from sources he cites; I also see a taking to task of Ballard for over-reaching - even as I do think Ballard deserves much credit for heading what became the first truly successful effort at definitively finding the wreck.  And some of it may be a bit of an over-reach by Nargeolet for entirely not unpredictable human reasons - Ballard got tons of press and became a household name - 'Nargeolet', et al?

For that matter, in theory, Ric could happen to be sleeping even as a submersible stumbles onto the distinctive wreckage of NR16020 one day - does that mean his role as a team leader / executive director of an expedition that finally definitively found the holy grail of aviation should be diminished?  That would be a low-shot IMO.

On the other hand, how Ballard has often presented his views and himself have frequently left much to be desired, IMO, in terms of recognizing big TEAM, LITTLE me, which is as it should be in a healthier, honest situation, also IMHO.  Nargeolet seems to rightly call Ballard's hand for some unwarranted criticisms, as well - and what he shares of destructive currents at the bottom of the sea at that locale is both enlightening and convincing as to the writer's own superior first-hand knowledge of the site.  That should be humbling to Ballard: he does not seem to have had the experience that Nargeolet has accumulated, not in the least.

All good lessons to apply by TIGHAR as a team, of course.  One hopes the attitude here is healthier, no doubt.  In my experience I believe it is - having seen others and even myself credited at times with positive ideas along the way.  That feels pretty good - not for the personal credit so much, but more for how TIGHAR operates as a whole.

Just one word to Ric - "don't sleep at Niku"  ;)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 29, 2014, 12:05:25 PM
Just one word to Ric - "don't sleep at Niku"  ;)

Every time I do, somebody takes a picture of me.  I could fill an album of photos of me sleeping at Niku.  When I'm awake all I do is shout and point anyway.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: pilotart on August 29, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
OK!!  I give up!!  It's from the Electra!  It has to be!  LOL! 
And YES....please "go on"...and on...and on...!
Let's not jump to conclusions. As our friends at the National Air & Space Museum are fond of saying, "TIGHAR has found nothing that can be directly linked to Earhart."
Wish I could see what you're doing tomorrow, but I certainly have faith in your prospects of pinning  2-2-V-1 over that patch installed by PanAm in Miami...

My very Best Friend (for 50 Years) is an Author working on a Completely Fictional Fantasy Novel featuring Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan ditching their Electra into a lake on an Island in the Palau Group which has the magical power to preserve the youth of not only Amelia and Fred, but even their Electra at the bottom of this magic lake.  Of course his story has them recovering it and continuing on their adventure all the way back to Miami in the present day time.  ;D

 ::) If and when he ever finishes it, I will send you a copy...  I have tried my best to get his support behind your hypothesis but he's solidly within the "crashed-and-sank" school.

Worst of all is that he is into the much too popular opinion that TIGHAR is just a group raising money to pay for their South Pacific Holidays... :(

He's even heavily into supporting "crowd-sourcing" of the Kiva type projects.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 29, 2014, 12:35:03 PM
Worst of all is that he is into the much too popular opinion that TIGHAR is just a group raising money to pay for their South Pacific Holidays... :(

I'd love to put together a tourist cruise to Niku exclusively for people who think we go there for South Pacific Holidays.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on August 29, 2014, 01:31:39 PM
But Ric, the pictures make it look so nice. . .and pretty. . . and inviting. . .and relaxing. . .and relaxing!! ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on August 29, 2014, 01:40:21 PM
...crabs, don't forget the crabs... BIG ol' nasty ones...

And all ya gotta do is kick down a little Scaveola in high heat to bed down..  with the crabs...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on August 29, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
...crabs, don't forget the crabs... BIG ol' nasty ones...

And all ya gotta do is kick down a little Scaveola in high heat to bed down..  with the crabs...

Oh my, just the mention of crabs make me itch.......unless I'm throwing them in the pot to boil.  :P
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: pilotart on August 29, 2014, 03:21:21 PM
Worst of all is that he is into the much too popular opinion that TIGHAR is just a group raising money to pay for their South Pacific Holidays... :(

I'd love to put together a tourist cruise to Niku exclusively for people who think we go there for South Pacific Holidays.
Looks like a great Cruise (not-tourist, I know ;) ) you have set for 2015.  Donna and I enjoyed some great cruises (Alaska & Caribbean with dinner at the Captain's Table :)

Now I get all these lovely brochures offering "two for the price of one", but I'm only one now...

I saw that the Niku Cruise deal offered something about assigning a room-mate, will have to see how that works if you have it again in 2016.

Huge Land Crabs were so easy to catch on Little Cayman.  We always prepared our own (gathered & caught) sea delicacies, but it was said that the Land Crabs had to be Baked in a Special Sauce, so we always gave them to a 100 year old Native, she would prepare them with great skill in a casserole.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on August 29, 2014, 03:38:04 PM
I’m a first time poster but long time reader of the Forum.

I have several questions about 2-2-v-i whose answers may be obvious to others, but in spite of my best efforts to be well versed in this subject, I am still in the dark.  Sorry if the answers to these questions are obvious to others, but I did make an effort to find the answers before posting.

About the line of 5/32 inch rivet holes — line 5 at the bottom of the picture that Ric posted up thread at reply #369: 

-This is said to be line of doubled rivet holes, but all that is seen on 2-2-v-1 itself is a single line of rivet holes, so how do we know that there was a second line of rivet holes? 
-There is a ‘tab’ of sorts below the three complete rivet holes we see along this line of 5/32 holes, and here we don’t see double rivet holes.  I recall that the explanation is that there was an underlying structural element at this location whose presence caused these rivets to be skipped; if that is correct, then what was that structural element underneath the skin below the tab? This seems an important point, because showing how the tab correlates with the underlying structure would help build the case that 2-2-v-1 matches the known underlying structure of AE’s Electra.
-The spacing between the 5/32 rivet holes is irregular (the partial holes as well as the full holes), while the spacing between holes for the other 4 lines of rivet holes is uniform. What is the reason for the irregular spacing of the 5/32 inch rivet holes?

Also:

 I know nothing about airplane construction except from looking at various airplane rivet patterns as the discussion of 2-2-v-1 unfolded.  My understanding from this very limited perspective is that airplane skins are typically riveted to the underlying airplane structure within perhaps a half inch of their edges.  But I see perhaps 3/4 of an inch, maybe more, of aluminum skin beyond the line of row 1 rivets in Ric’s picture; also, what I referred to as the ‘tab’ below row 5 was presumably riveted somewhere below the red line in Ric’s picture, or else it would not be properly fastened to the plane, so it seems that 2-2-v-1- extended some distance beyond the edge of the tab.

 So, my question comes down to this:  at a minimum, how far above row 1, and how far below the tab, did 2-2-v-1 extend before it was torn away from the structure it was attached to?  How and where were the upper and lower edges of 2-2-v-1 attached to the underlying structure of the Electra?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: richie conroy on August 29, 2014, 05:05:12 PM
Hi All

I was looking through photo's and upon looking at following image, i noticed faint lines either side of rivet line obviously the edges of stringer or structure this skin was attached, Do we know the width of the stringers/structure of Electra and do they match these faint lines ?

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on August 31, 2014, 01:55:19 PM
Richie, I see it too. But I also think I see it continue across the entire length. Unfortunately I dont have any fun photo editing software to put my mark on it.  Anyone else see what Im talking about?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 31, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
Anyone else see what Im talking about?

Yes. What you're seeing is a subtle deformation of the sheet caused by the underlying stringer it was riveted to.  The width of the stringer appears to have been 3/4 inch.  That's the width of standard stringers in a Lockheed 10 (and probably many other aircraft of similar size).

One of the things Jeff Glickman and I discovered this past week is that there is a similar deformation running vertically across the piece, as if there was an underlying stringer or stiffener on the interior surface of the sheet that was not riveted.  It's narrower than the one your mentioned - only about 3/8 inch wide.  The attached photos show the deformation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2014, 05:58:34 PM
I've forgotten who it was on the Forum that first noticed a gap in the skins at Station 293 5/8 in the photo taken in Miami before the patch was installed.  That sharp-eyed person wondered if it was caused by fuselage flexing in the area weakened by the window being almost opposite the area weakened by the cabin door (too many cut stringers). Now Jeff Glickman has found photographic evidence of fuselage deformation in that same area in a photo taken in late January or early February 1937 soon after the window was first installed.  It looks like that airplane had a problem as soon as the structure was weakened by cutting the stringers for the window.  Whether it was a factor in later events is hard to say.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 02, 2014, 06:28:10 PM
Now we know where the staggered rivets line up.  Notice the bottom row of #5's vis the upper row.

Look close for that offset revit hole.

Great job Jeff!

Ted

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 02, 2014, 06:38:06 PM
This observation of structual problems tells me that this patch job is way beyond an A&P quick fix.

Pan AM is involved some how, maybe by their factory rep from lockheed there in Miami.  Most airlines have mfg reps on site - we did at United in the '60s.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2014, 07:25:09 PM
This observation of structual problems tells me that this patch job is way beyond an A&P quick fix.

Consider this.  The photo in which Jeff sees what appears to be damage was taken before the accident in Hawaii and subsequent major repair at the factory.  Do you think it would go unrepaired if it was considered serious? 

Pan AM is involved some how, maybe by their factory rep from lockheed there in Miami.  Most airlines have mfg reps on site - we did at United in the '60s.

Pan Am didn't have any Lockheed airplanes in Miami.  They operated Sikorsky flying boats from their Dinner Key seaplane base.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 02, 2014, 08:36:02 PM
Speculation: The faint vertical deformation in 2-2-V-1 could be evidence they attempted to make sta 307 continuous again, addressing the structural weakness caused by the big added window. This area could have been something of a continuing problem, maybe they thought they had it fixed, but after the Miami hard landing, they finally addressed it by returning it to original condition, or as best they could with the local assets.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 02, 2014, 09:06:13 PM
Ric,
Isn't this a picture at Miami?  Hence the damage is still there after the CA repair?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on September 02, 2014, 10:00:18 PM
<a href="http://s1295.photobucket.com/user/muledeer5/media/skin-separation_zps7136b411.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/muledeer5/skin-separation_zps7136b411.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo skin-separation_zps7136b411.jpg"/></a>

Could the area with the suggested damage , be a result of shading? , as per the area outlined in yellow.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 03, 2014, 07:28:14 AM
<a href="http://s1295.photobucket.com/user/muledeer5/media/skin-separation_zps7136b411.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/muledeer5/skin-separation_zps7136b411.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo skin-separation_zps7136b411.jpg"/></a>

Could the area with the suggested damage , be a result of shading? , as per the area outlined in yellow.

My thought is that this is normal 'shading', not damage.  This doesn't look like a big deal to me, but a result of the natural 'step' and minor deformations (normal in light stress skin birds) where the skin lap joint occurs.

Had there been visible damage from a hard landing, I'd expect to also see evidence of diagonal wrinkles in the open-field areas of skin between inner bracing - that is a common failure mode in semi-moncoque designs where bending loads were excessive - especially were the forces large enough to cause what has been speculated here (a 'gap' at a lap joint).  All MHO, of course - but I don't agree that we're seeing 'damage' here.  I also doubt Earhart would have permitted a cameo shot involving any hint of a damaged Electra, somehow, at least in that situation; the Luke field photos were unavoidable - but the 'hard landing' in Miami surely wasn't much publicized (or desired to be, logically).

None of that takes away from 2-2-V-1's potential, as I see it, either.  We really don't know why the window was covered.  I recall (but cannot find reference) something about 'not needed and concerned with airplane security', i.e. too easy to get into airplane via this portal, which was large and relatively low to the ground.

The 'vertical bracing' evidence just found on 2-2-V-1 (with no fastener holes - odd) is peculiar.  The skin had to have been pressed fairly hard against some sort of a flange to get that 'mark' - doable by any number of means of applying broad, blunt force which wouldn't necessarily create a major crease if broad and blunt enough, but enough leave this tell-tale evidence, I suppose.  It is very odd that no fasteners were used here - what was the point of the mystery brace, if not attached?  IF 2-2-V-1 is of NR16020 as is hoped, did the mechanics re-establish the vertical member, but simply run out of time before fastening?  Did someone later lean on this area (or other forces apply pressure) to make this tell-tale crease?  One more mystery in this part it seems.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 03, 2014, 10:40:19 AM
This observation of structual problems tells me that this patch job is way beyond an A&P quick fix.

Pan AM is involved some how, maybe by their factory rep from lockheed there in Miami.  Most airlines have mfg reps on site - we did at United in the '60s.

Ted Campbell

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Pan Am archives at the University of Miami about any of this. That has been checked.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 03, 2014, 10:48:50 AM
I'm glad that was checked, but have always had doubts about whether this would have been well documented at all anyway.  It looks more like a moonlight special to me - maybe done out of Pan Am's scrap bin by a couple of their guys for a hundred bucks under the table or something.

How much do we really know about the 'hard landing'?  Might have had a scare, but I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that she damaged the ship, IMHO.  Somehow I think they just wanted to cover that stuipid oversized window as useless and a nuisance so as to keep curiosity seekers out, etc.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 11:23:12 AM
My thought is that this is normal 'shading', not damage.  This doesn't look like a big deal to me, but a result of the natural 'step' and minor deformations (normal in light stress skin birds) where the skin lap joint occurs.

Had there been visible damage from a hard landing, I'd expect to also see evidence of diagonal wrinkles in the open-field areas of skin between inner bracing - that is a common failure mode in semi-moncoque designs where bending loads were excessive - especially were the forces large enough to cause what has been speculated here (a 'gap' at a lap joint).  All MHO, of course - but I don't agree that we're seeing 'damage' here.  I also doubt Earhart would have permitted a cameo shot involving any hint of a damaged Electra, somehow, at least in that situation; the Luke field photos were unavoidable - but the 'hard landing' in Miami surely wasn't much publicized (or desired to be, logically).

The "damage," if that's what it is, is not particularly apparent to the layman.

The 'vertical bracing' evidence just found on 2-2-V-1 (with no fastener holes - odd) is peculiar.  The skin had to have been pressed fairly hard against some sort of a flange to get that 'mark' - doable by any number of means of applying broad, blunt force which wouldn't necessarily create a major crease if broad and blunt enough, but enough leave this tell-tale evidence, I suppose.

However the imprint happened and whatever the reason the underlying structure wasn't riveted to the sheet, it's presence is significant.  Follow me on this.

First:  So far, Jeff Glickman has been able to confirm the presence on the patch of four of the five rivet lines on 2-2-V-1. Three of the lines (1, 3 and 5)  align with known stringer.   locations. Line 2 appears to be an added stiffener.  Line 4 falls within a dark area of reflection on the patch and is much harder to see. If it's there, it's another added stiffener.  In any case, 4 out of 5 ain't bad.

Second (and this is really neat):  We know that one edge of the artifact failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a rigid underlying structure. Let's call it the "straight edge."  With the artifact accurately scaled and overlaid on the photo of the patch so that the rivet patterns line up we can position the artifact so that the straight edge is up against the underlying structure that the window was riveted to. (Note that the window was not riveted to the bulkhead at Station 293 5/8 but to a structure about an inch or so aft of that bulkhead.) If we place the artifact there the mysterious vertical imprint lines up exactly with Station 307 where there was once a vertical structure before it was cut to make the hole for the window.  The skin around the rivet at the top of the imprint tore when the rivet failed, possibly because the rivet was attached to the circumferential structure at Station 307.

Of course this could all be coincidence. ;D

It looks like the patch was an attempt to restore the structural integrity of the fuselage in that area.  Why the vertical member never got stitched to the patch is a mystery.  Maybe they just ran out of time. I've been able to establish that the photo of the airplane in Miami with the window still in place was taken on Saturday, May 29.  The window was gone and the patch was in place by the time AE and FN left early on the morning of Tuesday, June 1st - so the modification to the airplane was done sometime on Sunday or Monday (Memorial Day). 

 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 11:35:36 AM
I'm glad that was checked, but have always had doubts about whether this would have been well documented at all anyway.  It looks more like a moonlight special to me - maybe done out of Pan Am's scrap bin by a couple of their guys for a hundred bucks under the table or something.

I think the logical patch-maker is Earhart's own mechanic Bo McKneely with some assistance from the FBO at Miami Municipal, Karl Voelter Inc.
The Pan Am guys had to come all the way from Dinner Key, about a half hour away, and they were instrument and radio techs, not metal benders.
Turns out Karl Voelter kept scrapbooks of his aviation career.  The scrapbooks are now in a Miami archive.  We're making arrangements to have a look at them.

How much do we really know about the 'hard landing'?
A Miami Herald reporter was apparently there to witness it.  He said the screech of metal could be heard all over the airport.  Bo McKneely was so concerned that he put the plane in the shop the next day to check the gear for damage.  He didn't find any but he did discover that some clown had scratched his initials in one of the gear struts.  They were worried that they might have to replace the gear leg.  They called Lockheed. Lockheed techs said that if the initials could be buffed out it should be okay.  The initials did buff out so nothing further was done.  All of this is according to Elgen Long's book.  Elgen has a whole chapter about Miami but no mention of the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 11:55:51 AM
This just in.

"Please see the attached image from Miami.  This is a false color image which aids in the visualization of the gradient in and around station 293 5/8.  In the detail inset, the color gradient appears to show a shadow underneath the lower right-hand skin.  My interpretation of this image is that the lower left-hand skin has separated from the lower right hand skin.
 
Thanks,
Jeff"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 03, 2014, 12:20:51 PM
All of this is according to Elgen Long's book.  Elgen has a whole chapter about Miami but no mention of the patch.

Of course he doesn't. Why should anything about The Earhart Project be slam-dunk easy?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on September 03, 2014, 01:18:09 PM
This may be a stupid question.  If so, won't be my first...or my last. 
Is it at all possible, that in the emergency of the situation (meaning they didn't have a whole lot of time and wanted to stay on schedule), the patch could have been made from a previously used, or removed piece from another repair job?

If a piece of skin had been cut wrong or shaped wrong, couldn't be used for some reason on a repair, it may have been stored for some future use.  It may have had some rivet holes that didn't fit exactly but was substantial enough for this quick fix...to cover a window opening. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 03, 2014, 01:24:10 PM
This just in.

"Please see the attached image from Miami.  This is a false color image which aids in the visualization of the gradient in and around station 293 5/8.  In the detail inset, the color gradient appears to show a shadow underneath the lower right-hand skin.  My interpretation of this image is that the lower left-hand skin has separated from the lower right hand skin.
 
Thanks,
Jeff"
What is interesting to me about that picture is the sun is behind and above the plane. That area of suspected separation is already in the shadow of the direct sunlight.

I don’t believe accentuation of a shadow from direct sunlight there is possible. Instead I believe it is dark because even indirect light cannot reflect back to the camera. Something more like a "cave" (http://www.art.net/studios/visual/Rebecca/ShadeDefinitions.html#anchor55297) made at skin overlap that has been separated. If this happened wouldn’t the rivets be compromised?  I wonder if Mr. Glickman can tell if there are rivets or rivet holes at the possible separation?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 03, 2014, 01:33:47 PM
I've forgotten who it was on the Forum that first noticed a gap in the skins at Station 293 5/8 in the photo taken in Miami before the patch was installed.  That sharp-eyed person wondered if it was caused by fuselage flexing in the area weakened by the window being almost opposite the area weakened by the cabin door (too many cut stringers).
Thanks Ric! My eyes aren’t that sharp but I was looking for something there  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32234.html#msg32234)because it is where I suspected possible damage might be from previous speculation (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31889.html#msg31889) and study sketches (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31928.html#msg31928) before your newly discovered Miami picture was posted.
Edit:"Thumbs firmly planted under suspenders" ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 01:41:30 PM
Is it at all possible, that in the emergency of the situation (meaning they didn't have a whole lot of time and wanted to stay on schedule), the patch could have been made from a previously used, or removed piece from another repair job?

I won't say it's impossible but I've never heard of that being done.  You don't fix airplanes like you fix cars or the back porch.

It may have had some rivet holes that didn't fit exactly but was substantial enough for this quick fix...to cover a window opening.

The point of my recent explanation is that four of the five observable rivet lines on the patch exactly match the rivet lines on the artifact.  In other words, the artifact matches the patch in terms of vertical placement. In addition, the distance from the "straight edge" on the artifact to the imprint of an underlying structure (12.5 ") matches the distance from the window edge to Station 307. In other words, the artifact matches the patch in terms of horizontal placement.
We have two observable and independent complex correlations between the artifact and the patch - and no disqualifying features.  The probability that 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch is approaching certainty.  We're not finished yet but we're way past the "threshold of coincidence."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 01:43:54 PM
Edit:"Thumbs firmly planted under suspenders" ;D

And deservedly so.  Sorry I couldn't remember/find who it was who first blew that whistle.  Well done!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on September 03, 2014, 02:08:20 PM
 You don't fix airplanes like you fix cars or the back porch.
I bet there was a lot of 'shade tree' quick fixes going on back in 'those days'.  Bailing wire and bubble gum.
The probability that 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch is approaching certainty.  We're not finished yet but we're way past the "threshold of coincidence."
That is music to my ears!  I certainly hope so! 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 03, 2014, 02:46:18 PM
My thought is that this is normal 'shading', not damage.  This doesn't look like a big deal to me, but a result of the natural 'step' and minor deformations (normal in light stress skin birds) where the skin lap joint occurs.

Had there been visible damage from a hard landing, I'd expect to also see evidence of diagonal wrinkles in the open-field areas of skin between inner bracing - that is a common failure mode in semi-moncoque designs where bending loads were excessive - especially were the forces large enough to cause what has been speculated here (a 'gap' at a lap joint).  All MHO, of course - but I don't agree that we're seeing 'damage' here.  I also doubt Earhart would have permitted a cameo shot involving any hint of a damaged Electra, somehow, at least in that situation; the Luke field photos were unavoidable - but the 'hard landing' in Miami surely wasn't much publicized (or desired to be, logically).

The "damage," if that's what it is, is not particularly apparent to the layman.

The 'vertical bracing' evidence just found on 2-2-V-1 (with no fastener holes - odd) is peculiar.  The skin had to have been pressed fairly hard against some sort of a flange to get that 'mark' - doable by any number of means of applying broad, blunt force which wouldn't necessarily create a major crease if broad and blunt enough, but enough leave this tell-tale evidence, I suppose.

However the imprint happened and whatever the reason the underlying structure wasn't riveted to the sheet, it's presence is significant.  Follow me on this.

First:  So far, Jeff Glickman has been able to confirm the presence on the patch of four of the five rivet lines on 2-2-V-1. Three of the lines (1, 3 and 5)  align with known stringer.   locations. Line 2 appears to be an added stiffener.  Line 4 falls within a dark area of reflection on the patch and is much harder to see. If it's there, it's another added stiffener.  In any case, 4 out of 5 ain't bad.

Second (and this is really neat):  We know that one edge of the artifact failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a rigid underlying structure. Let's call it the "straight edge."  With the artifact accurately scaled and overlaid on the photo of the patch so that the rivet patterns line up we can position the artifact so that the straight edge is up against the underlying structure that the window was riveted to. (Note that the window was not riveted to the bulkhead at Station 293 5/8 but to a structure about an inch or so aft of that bulkhead.) If we place the artifact there the mysterious vertical imprint lines up exactly with Station 307 where there was once a vertical structure before it was cut to make the hole for the window.  The skin around the rivet at the top of the imprint tore when the rivet failed, possibly because the rivet was attached to the circumferential structure at Station 307.

Of course this could all be coincidence. ;D

It looks like the patch was an attempt to restore the structural integrity of the fuselage in that area.  Why the vertical member never got stitched to the patch is a mystery.  Maybe they just ran out of time. I've been able to establish that the photo of the airplane in Miami with the window still in place was taken on Saturday, May 29.  The window was gone and the patch was in place by the time AE and FN left early on the morning of Tuesday, June 1st - so the modification to the airplane was done sometime on Sunday or Monday (Memorial Day).

That would be a heck of a set of coincidences...

The vertical element placement is very supportive - and an unexpected find.  If you study the interior picture you posted where the windows are covered it can be seen that vertical frames were extended across what had been the window.  The same pattern could easily have been adopted (or been as a matter of restoration of what 'had been' in place).

While I respect the graphics, I'd really feel good if you could flatten this thing out and put it up, physically, against a surviving L10 in that area to get a match.  Any chance of that?  I realize it is not all apples to apples - the placement of the forward edge of the window is oranges to apples on a stock bird, etc. - but it might validate what you are illustrating very nicely.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 03, 2014, 03:02:10 PM
While I respect the graphics, I'd really feel good if you could flatten this thing out and put it up, physically, against a surviving L10 in that area to get a match. 

Ric has already done some flattening. I'd be hesitant to do much more, for no more reason than TIGHAR would be accused of trying to get the putative patch to fit an Electra regardless, the old square peg in round hole argument.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

P.S. - Now .. if there was a way to make an exact metal replica of 2-V-1-1, we could flatten that out to a fair the well.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 03:02:54 PM
While I respect the graphics, I'd really feel good if you could flatten this thing out and put it up, physically, against a surviving L10 in that area to get a match.  Any chance of that?  I realize it is not all apples to apples - the placement of the forward edge of the window is oranges to apples on a stock bird, etc. - but it might validate what you are illustrating very nicely.

It takes quite a bit of pressure to flatten out 2-2-V-1 (not my favorite thing to do) and pressing it against the side of an existing Lockheed 10 would scratch the hell out of the airplane.  When I was at the New England Air Museum back in June, I drafted a visitor and had him hold 2-2-V-1 up to - and only lightly touching - an area on c/n1052 that I had taped off with scotch tape to represent the patch.  It's not a great photo and the placement is a bit too high and a tad too far forward on the airplane but, as you can see, it all works.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Brad Beeching on September 03, 2014, 03:17:03 PM
I've suggested this before, but why dont you make a negitive mold and have a duplicate made from 60 mil plastic? I'm sure you can get the material in PVC or CPVC. Nalgene might even work. In any case, it should allow you to make an exact copy that was flexable enough to lay it over almost anything without damaging the host surface.

Just my two cents..

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on September 03, 2014, 03:45:50 PM
I'll offer a suggestion from the 'for what it's worth' department.

If, as it's beginning to sound like, it may be time to think about making some kind of "official" announcement, it might be worth considering making a mock-up of this part of the Electra fuselage showing the ribs and stringers, the cabin window, the window cut-out, the patch, the deformation on the belly/side below the window and any other pertinent features.  This mock-up would be used to demonstrate/illustrate to those not willing to take the time to read and comprehend all the technical information from Jeff G., this forum and other research/analysis that puts forth the theory that 2-2-V-1 is, in fact, the patch for the window.  The mock-up could be made from wooden lathe strips and cardboard as long as dimensions were correct and wouldn't cost all that much.  It would make a great visual aid for those looking for the 'any idiot artifact'.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 03:46:07 PM
I've suggested this before, but why dont you make a negitive mold and have a duplicate made from 60 mil plastic? I'm sure you can get the material in PVC or CPVC. Nalgene might even work. In any case, it should allow you to make an exact copy that was flexable enough to lay it over almost anything without damaging the host surface.

Sounds like an interesting idea but I'd need help from somebody who knows how to do something like that.  Or maybe there are companies that do stuff like that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 03:51:09 PM
If, as it's beginning to sound like, it may be time to think about making some kind of "official" announcement, it might be worth considering making a mock-up of this part of the Electra fuselage showing the ribs and stringers, the cabin window, the window cut-out, the patch, the deformation on the belly/side below the window and any other pertinent features.  This mock-up would be used to demonstrate/illustrate to those not willing to take the time to read and comprehend all the technical information from Jeff G., this forum and other research/analysis that puts forth the theory that 2-2-V-1 is, in fact, the patch for the window.  The mock-up could be made from wooden lathe strips and cardboard as long as dimensions were correct and wouldn't cost all that much.  It would make a great visual aid for those looking for the 'any idiot artifact'.

I like the concept but a wire-frame, 3-dimensional, rotatable, animated CAD presentation would seem like the way to go.  After all, it IS 2014.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on September 03, 2014, 04:01:22 PM

"I like the concept but a wire-frame, 3-dimensional, rotatable, animated CAD presentation would seem like the way to go.  After all, it IS 2014."

True but very technical.  It's tough to get 'hands-on' with a CAD presentation and some would critique its accuracy.  A mock-up that critics could walk up to and see, touch, measure, contemplate and consider would be much more effective and convincing.  The media would love it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 05:26:14 PM
True but very technical.  It's tough to get 'hands-on' with a CAD presentation and some would critique its accuracy.

They could just as easily critique the accuracy of digital presentation.

  A mock-up that critics could walk up to and see, touch, measure, contemplate and consider would be much more effective and convincing.  The media would love it.

But it would be big and heavy.  The media would love it but they would have to physically come to it to see it.  We could use it to make a video presentation but then you're back to the same thing as a CAD presentation.  A digital presentation would be instantly accessible to millions.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Brad Beeching on September 03, 2014, 06:11:11 PM
Quote
I've suggested this before.....
Quote
"Or maybe there are companies that do stuff like that."

Custom Molds Plastics, Inc
210 Martin Street
Red Lion, PA 17356

717-246-2652
www.custommoldplastics.com (http://www.custommoldplastics.com)

Ill bet that if they can't help you, they know someone who can. They may also welcome the advertisment possibilities. "We helped find Amelia!" Or, you could make enough copies of the panel to sell for funding, you know, "Own a piece of the long lost Electra!"
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 06:20:34 PM
Heck, they're only about an hour from here.  I'll give them a call.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 03, 2014, 06:25:38 PM
All,

I have been giving some thought to what Ric said regarding when the patch had to be designed, fabricated and installed in Miami.

Also, I have been thinking about why would you bring your own mechanic from Burbank and then make arrangements to return him home – where ever that may be.

Finally, I have seen the factory quality of workmanship that was carried out on the patch’s construction – not typically what you would expect on a field repair.

Considering the above points and the suspicion that AE/FN had already decided the window had to go before leaving Burbank (for what ever reason) I tend to lean toward the idea that Lockheed may have made the patch in Burbank and sent it along on the plane to be installed later.

Why would AE, FN and the mechanic rely on a FBO having the correct size stringers, the correct thickness/etc. material, the proper size and number of rivets, drills and sheet metal tools to fabricate and install the patch in Miami – why not bring all these things with you.

In closing, I suggest that Lockheed engineered the installation of the window in the first place why not the replacement patch as well.

Jeff Glickman, look closely for a Lockheed part number and/or an engineering change order number on the piece.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 06:57:56 PM
Also, I have been thinking about why would you bring your own mechanic from Burbank and then make arrangements to return him home – where ever that may be.

The airplane came out of the Lockheed shop in Burbank on May 19.  AE, FN, GP and Bo McKneeley departed for Miami on the 21st.  The flight across the country was a shakedown flight. it made sense to bring along her mechanic.  Any problems that turned up would be addressed in Miami.  If the problems all got fixed she would announce that she had begun her second world flight. Problems did turn up but by Saturday, May 29, the problems had been sufficiently resolved and AE made her announcement to the press.  The window was still on the airplane at that time.
McKneeley was probably living somewhere around Burbank where the Electra was based.  He probably went home with GP who lived in North Hollywood.

Finally, I have seen the factory quality of workmanship that was carried out on the patch’s construction – not typically what you would expect on a field repair.

That's true. 

Considering the above points and the suspicion that AE/FN had already decided the window had to go before leaving Burbank (for what ever reason) I tend to lean toward the idea that Lockheed may have made the patch in Burbank and sent it along on the plane to be installed later.

Then why did they wait for over a week after they got to Miami before installing the patch?

Why would AE, FN and the mechanic rely on a FBO having the correct size stringers, the correct thickness/etc. material, the proper size and number of rivets, drills and sheet metal tools to fabricate and install the patch in Miami – why not bring all these things with you.

Because they didn't know they needed to replace the window until they got to Miami.  The materials probably had to be ordered.  That's why it took so long.

In closing, I suggest that Lockheed engineered the installation of the window in the first place why not the replacement patch as well.

I'm not sure Lockheed engineered the window.  It was a dumb thing to do.  It may well have been done at Mantz Air Service.

 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Timothy Smith on September 03, 2014, 07:28:26 PM
Ric - I live about 20 mins from Red Lion.  If you need me to help out with hauling things around I will be happy to help.

Tim Smith 1142CE
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 07:36:05 PM
Thanks Tim.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 04, 2014, 06:38:54 AM
How close are we to getting a report of 2-2-V-1?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2014, 07:34:28 AM
How close are we to getting a report of 2-2-V-1?

I assume you mean a report from Jeff Glickman.  We decided that it would be best for Jeff to write a single report after all the analysis is complete rather than for him to write a series of interim reports.  For one thing, something he discovers later could change something that seems apparent now.  It's going to take weeks to process and analyze the hyperspectral imaging data we collected last week so we won't have a final report from Jeff until sometime this fall.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to write updates on what we've learned (or think we've learned) so far.  The Forum's role in all this is important. Jeff Glickman is a dynamite forensic imaging specialist but he's not an aircraft structures expert. The observations, opinions, and suggestions made here are valuable in helping to direct his research and analysis.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 04, 2014, 11:03:30 AM
Regarding lack of rivets in the vertical stiffener.
If the vertical member suggested by the deformation in 2-2-V-1 is only 3/8” wide, is that wide enough to rivet to?
If made of metal, it is possible that part of that 3/8” width included another leg( “L” shaped) or two legs (“U” shaped) and those legs took up some of the width which would not leave much for the rivet seat. Also the hole for the rivet would not leave much area of remaining metal around the hole.

The vertical stiffeners in other Electras appear to be notched to allow the stringers to be continuous with the two legs of the stringer “U” shape set into it.
 Assuming they re-installed a vertical stiffener Station 307, and it was only 3/8” wide, and was notched to allow the stringers to continue,  it could be that the vertical stiffener was solid material, maybe even plywood(easy to shape a curve and possibly locally available) and therefore could not take rivets. Maybe part of its purpose was to help “form” the curve in the middle of the opening until the assembly was riveted elsewhere and since the original circumferential structures look like complex shapes, plywood may have been an option they chose as a substitute?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2014, 11:58:23 AM
Regarding lack of rivets in the vertical stiffener.
If the vertical member suggested by the deformation in 2-2-V-1 is only 3/8” wide, is that wide enough to rivet to?

Apparently yes.  See attached photos.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 04, 2014, 01:06:10 PM
Regarding lack of rivets in the vertical stiffener.
If the vertical member suggested by the deformation in 2-2-V-1 is only 3/8” wide, is that wide enough to rivet to?

Apparently yes.  See attached photos.

Thanks.  I should have looked at the similar ones in closer view to see the size better. They do look about 3/8” wide using the 3/4” horizontal stringers as a rough scale.  Another chill just went down my back looking at that! The narrow width of the smaller intermittent vertical members in a standard Electra seems like another fit to 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2014, 01:27:35 PM
Another chill just went down my back looking at that! The narrow width of the smaller intermittent vertical members in a standard Electra seems like another fit to 2-2-V-1.

Yep.  At some point you stop being surprised when some new piece of information fits.  You cross what I call the "threshold of coincidence."  All the data are not yet in but you reach a point where there are so many matches that it more difficult to believe that the hypothesis is NOT correct than it is to accept that it IS correct. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: pilotart on September 04, 2014, 01:32:23 PM
It might not have even taken a 'Hard Landing' to cause them problems with that window.

I had two 400 Series Cessna's, first was bought new (1980) and a subsequent (1986) SB called for reinforcing with retainer ring doublers all around the cabin windows on the inside, lots of rivets (all of them) to drill out and reset. 

Second 400 was the Conquest which I found the best one of that 'out-of-production' aircraft in a 1985 model in 1991.  Pre-Purchase inspection revealed that this SB had never been performed.  It took a prism to see them, but three windows were found to have cracks.

Later, the same Prism Inspection revealed similar cracks necessitating replacement of the co-pilot's windshield.  All of these operations took many, many "AOG" days (& $$$) to accomplish, so I can see the logic in their replacing that window with 2-2-V-1 since under their rules, it would be allowed and save them a lot of time and money.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on September 04, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
* stiched-inside.jpg
 
     Was wondering about the size of the vertical stringer in the location ( where 2-2-V-1 is purported to fit) ...looking at the images , it appears forward of the cabin door, and just forward of the navigator's window,... the vertical stringers are wider down to the bottom of the window level, then change to the narrow bands from there to the floor, ....I am unable to see whether that pattern continues aft of the cabin door, ( they appear to be the narrow width from top to bottom however; do you have any close up views of those aft stations)?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2014, 04:56:06 PM
     Was wondering about the size of the vertical stringer in the location ( where 2-2-V-1 is purported to fit) ...looking at the images , it appears forward of the cabin door, and just forward of the navigator's window,... the vertical stringers are wider down to the bottom of the window level, then change to the narrow bands from there to the floor,

The airplane is c/n 1130, an Electra that was being rebuilt as a replica of NR16020.  They removed the cabin windows and skinned over the holes.  The wider vertical stiffeners are
where the windows once were.  (That project got cancelled and the airplane is now in the Navy's collection.)

 
....I am unable to see whether that pattern continues aft of the cabin door, ( they appear to be the narrow width from top to bottom however; do you have any close up views of those aft stations)?

Unfortunately no, but I agree that the stiffeners back there are narrow top to bottom.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 09, 2014, 06:13:55 PM
New Research Bulletin up.  Check out A Smoking Gun? (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html?utm_source=TIGHAR+News+9%2F9%2F2014&utm_campaign=AmeliaCliff&utm_medium=email)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Gard on September 09, 2014, 11:04:55 PM
New Research Bulletin up.  Check out A Smoking Gun? (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html?utm_source=TIGHAR+News+9%2F9%2F2014&utm_campaign=AmeliaCliff&utm_medium=email)

Great news Ric.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on September 10, 2014, 07:15:57 AM
I like the new bulletin titled “A Smoking Gun?”
I just want to ask for clarification of two items if possible.

First question applies to the following statement: “So far, Jeff Glickman has been able to confirm that four of the five lines of rivet holes on the artifact match rivet lines that are detectable on the patch. The line of rivets that falls within the dark area on the patch may or may not be possible to find simply due to the lack of contrast.”

I thought there were no clear images of the rivet pattern in the vintage photos, seeing the patch area on the photos is too grainy. What are the rivet patterns on the artifact being compared to?

Second questions applies to that fantastic indentation at station 307. What would have created that indentation? Is high altitude a factor? Possibly a hard landing? Continuous wave action beating parallel to the fuselage?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on September 10, 2014, 07:25:13 AM
I’m still fascinated by the two very different edges on this skin. The jagged triangular tears has always given me the impression of having been created by human hand.
What is interesting on the jagged edge is that the triangular tears on the right “peak” to the left, while the triangular tears on the left “peak” to the right.
Almost appears as if this was removed from the plane with a hard object wedged under the each rivet space and pried towards the center-middle of the patch, first popping one side loose and then the other. Sure seams easier to wrestle an aluminum patch off of the side of a plane than dig into a continuous seam. Has the jagged edge been examined on the backside for marks that may indicate a tool (wood or metal) was wedged under the lip to lever and break each rivet individually in order to remove this part from the fuselage.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on September 10, 2014, 09:55:19 AM
I have just finished reading the TIGHAR Bulletin, Smoking Gun. In the first picture below, TIGHAR has identified the second woman in the photo as Nilla Putnam, the daughter-in-law of George Palmer Putman. The second photo below, taken from this story (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/28/4208139/piece-of-metal-may-offer-clue.html) calls the second woman an unidentified friend of Amelia.

When TIGHAR first used this photo, several weeks ago, I became curious as to the identity of the second woman. I found the last two photos in this article. (http://www.somethingquiteodd.com/Jacqueline_Cochran_3.html)

I may be totally wrong, but IMHO, the second woman in this photo is either Amelia's friend, Jacqueline (Jackie) Cochran, or her twin.

For what it's worth ::)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 10, 2014, 10:01:48 AM
I’m still fascinated by the two very different edges on this skin.

What is really fascinating is that each of the four edges of the skin exhibits a different kind of failure. We'll need to recruit a forensic metallurgist with experience in aircraft crash investigation to look at these edges and give us an opinion about what kind of tool or force could have created the damage we see.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 10, 2014, 10:08:33 AM
I may be totally wrong, but IMHO, the second woman in this photo is either Amelia's friend, Jacqueline (Jackie) Cochran, or her twin.

We're sure it's Nilla Putnam because we found another photo taken at the same time but from a slightly different angle with the notation "Amelia with Nilla Putnam."  David and Nilla Putnam, who lived in Ft. Pierce, FL are known to have been in Miami on May 29.   Cochran lived on the West Coast and we're aware of no indication that she was present in Miami at that time.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on September 10, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
If you say so :-X
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 10, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
I may be totally wrong, but IMHO, the second woman in this photo is either Amelia's friend, Jacqueline (Jackie) Cochran, or her twin.

We're sure it's Nilla Putnam because we found another photo taken at the same time but from a slightly different angle with the notation "Amelia with Nilla Putnam."  David and Nilla Putnam, who lived in Ft. Pierce, FL are known to have been in Miami on May 29.   Cochran lived on the West Coast and we're aware of no indication that she was present in Miami at that time.

Mr. Gillespie, is it possible for you to post the other picture from a different angle for comparison?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Palshook on September 10, 2014, 02:14:36 PM
Ric,

I am interested in the 2nd photo of Earhart and Nilla Putnam you mentioned, too.  If you could post it (the Miami Herald permitting), that would be great.  I'm interested in the thin, (almost) straight line shadow falling diagonally across the Electra fueslage and seemingly disapperaring behind Nilla.  A 2nd view of that shadow line might be helpful.

Jeff P.
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 10, 2014, 02:17:41 PM
Here's the second picture of AE and Nilla. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on September 10, 2014, 02:41:02 PM
Ric,

I am interested in the 2nd photo of Earhart and Nilla Putnam you mentioned, too.  If you could post it (the Miami Herald permitting), that would be great.  I'm interested in the thin, (almost) straight line shadow falling diagonally across the Electra fueslage and seemingly disapperaring behind Nilla.  A 2nd view of that shadow line might be helpful.

Jeff P.
 

Jeff,

Pretty sure that line is a shadow of one of the antenna cables on top of fuselage.  Note AE and NP's shadows and figure backwards to top of fuselage.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 10, 2014, 09:15:46 PM
What Bill said. My first thought was it was the antenna lead-in to the fuselage, but the Harney drawings show that entering the fuselage lower down at about Station 239, which would be forward of that window. 

Or ... it could just be a scratch  ;D

LTM, who watches what he scratches,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 10, 2014, 09:30:54 PM
See the other picture (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32224.html#msg32224) to see it's a wire.
Edit: It vanishes behind Nilla in both images. Could be a shadow of a wire. I don't see its reflection. It is kind of wierd but I don't think it is a scratch
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 10, 2014, 10:23:17 PM
The story of Nilla herself charmed me, and Woody's wondering about Jackie Cochran was interesting, so I did a bit of digging -

Nilla was reported to have been "several months pregnant" when she saw Earhart in Miami (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1997-07-20/entertainment/9707190244_1_earhart-george-putnam-amelia).

Quote
On hand to see off Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan were Earhart's husband and business manager, publisher George Palmer Putnam; his 24-year-old son, David Putnam, who lived up the coast in Fort Pierce; and David's wife, Nilla, who was several months pregnant.

Quote
As the plane waited on the runway, there were last goodbyes and hugs. Earhart told David to keep an eye on his dad for her. And she placed her hand on Nilla's stomach as she whispered in her ear, ''Take care of yourself, little one.''

Then it was time. The plane's two engines fired, and Earhart lifted off, flying east, into the sun, into history.

There is even kind mention of a man who believes he has found a piece of Earhart's plane out on Nikumaroro -

Quote
One man thinks he has found a piece of her Electra on a Pacific coral reef. Everyone, it seems, has an Amelia Earhart story.

As to the child Nilla was carrying that last day of Earhart on American mainland soil -

Quote
Sally Putnam Chapman herself, born just months after her mother watched Earhart fly into the dawn sky, didn't know the full, surprising story until she read the revealing diaries kept by her grandmother Dorothy - an independent-minded woman who was both George Putnam's first wife and Amelia Earhart's close friend.

Not surprisingly, little Sally Putnam grew up on stories of Amelia Earhart.

''Amelia was the heroine of my childhood,'' she says.

Today, she is Sally Putnam Chapman, a slim, youthful woman with short, feathery blonde hair, her mother Nilla's fine-boned features and the Putnam family's love of travel and adventure

I can't tell if the woman next to Earhart is "several months pregnant" or not, but she's not "showing" if she is (I guess it varies).

Chapman herself is quoted saying that her mother was "five months pregnant" when Earhart laid a hand on her pregnant belly for a fond goodbye, and wrote of the event  (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/aug/08/unlocking-the-past-diaries-reveal-dorothy-binney/)-

Quote
All the while she wrote, Chapman wore the silver fish pendant that Earhart had given her grandmother in 1928. (Chapman says her mother Nilla was five months pregnant with her when Earhart departed Miami for her round-the-world trip. Earhart “… reached down, gently placed her hand on Mom’s swollen belly, and whispered, ‘Take care of yourself, little one.”’) Chapman hired a secretary to type her manuscript. Later, Warner Books sent Stephanie Mansfield, who is credited as her co-author, to help organize the book. “I had just seven chapters in the book, and she said shorter chapters were better,” Chapman says.

If that's Nilla in the picture with Earhart (upstring), she certainly carried 5 months of baby very nicely.  Lovely lady.

Added below: another picture - of Nilla, with George and Amelia - looks like from newsprint, perhaps; attractive lady - hair and facial features seem different.  Circa not known except look at Amelia's outfit - looks the same as the other with the plane, down to the neck tie; AE may be in short sleeves in the airplane photo, though - her left bare arm appears visible.  The other lady, if Nilla, is sans-coat as well. 

I guess one question that comes to mind, are we certain this photo of Earhart and 'Nilla' was made in Miami, or something that was mislabeled?  Maybe silly - I guess it is a Miami Herald photo.  Reason for asking though is possibility this was made in California - the window is still very open in one view, pre-patch.

Not knowing Cochran to be in Miami may not disqualify same - but I'd agree that's a long way and perhaps a longshot. 

Anyway, all interesting as a history puzzle.

Here's Jackie Cochran with her P-51B Mustang on 24 May 1948 (http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/24-may-1948-2/), after setting a speed record - nearly 11 years after Earhart flew away from Miami; she was one of my aviation heroes, for sure -

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Palshook on September 11, 2014, 02:37:37 AM
Ric, Thanks for posting the 2nd photo.

Bill,

The shadow from one of the antenna wires was my thought, too, after studying the 1st photo.  However, the shadow line did not look right to be the shadow of of either of the horizontal legs of the dorsal V-antenna.  Playing around with a small plastic model of the Electra convinced me this was the case -- neither leg of the dorsal V-antenna was making that shadow line.

That left the feedline from the radio transmitter to the starboard leg of the V-antenna.  Extend the shadow line down to the right from where it disappears behind Nilla's shoulder and it appears to be heading right toward the fuselage exit point for the transmitter feedline used for the 2nd world flight attempt.  (This point is almost directly below the forward edge of the navigator's window and is clearly visible in several photos taken during the 2nd world flight attempt.  The shadow line stopping at Nilla's shoulder, not continuing across her body, indicated to me the object casting the shadow must have been behind her and thus very close to the surface of the fuselage.

This was a puzzle, though, because the antenna feedline on the 2nd world flight attempt (post-Miami) ran from the fuselage penetration point upward and slightly forward to the starboard leg of the dorsal V-antenna.  If that were the case in the first photo, this feedline and/or its shadow should have been visible running upward and forward along the fuselage.  This is obviously not the case in the photo.

That left me with the tentative conclusion that the shadow line was cast be the antenna feedline, but the feedline was running upward and aft from the fuselage penetration point to the dorsal V-antenna.  This was an unknown (to me) "intermediate" configuration for the feedline -- different from the configuration used during the 1st world flight attempt, and different from the configuration used during the 2nd world flight attempt post-Miami.  With the various changes made to the Electra's radio system after the Luke Field crash (some known, some not well known or documented), including changes made while Earhart was in Miami, this intermediate configuration certainly seems like a possibility.

The 2nd photo seems to support my conclusions above about the antenna feedline configuration present when Earhart arrived in Miami.

Jeff P.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 11, 2014, 07:02:48 AM
Facts can be elusive things, and facts obtained from newspaper accounts always need to be taken with a grain of salt (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1489.msg31830.html#msg31830). Even Nilla’s child Sally, born December 6, 1937, stretches things a bit by saying that her mother was 5 months pregnant with Sally (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/aug/08/unlocking-the-past-diaries-reveal-dorothy-binney/) at the time her parents joined the others at the Miami airport on Tuesday, June 1, to bid farewell to AE and FN. By my reckoning, her mother would have only been barely 3 months pregnant at that time. That’s 12-14 weeks pregnant — and in my experience, many women at that stage are able to conceal their baby bump.

Whether the woman standing beside AE in the photo that shows the window in the lavatory area of NR16020 is the pregnant Nilla Putnam is not the important thing. An essential question is whether that photo was taken in late May 1937 as AE and FN prepared to depart for San Juan, thus showing that the lavatory window was still installed during that stop in Miami. Subsidiary questions include, “Who fabricated the patch, where was it fabricated, who installed it, and when was it installed, and why was it even done?”

Woody has called into question the identification of the woman (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33662.html#msg33662), suggesting another person as being the one standing beside AE. That has led to legitimate questioning of the time and location of the photograph. As I recall, we’re told that the source of the photograph is the archives of the Miami Herald, but that does not guarantee who the woman was or the time and location of where it was taken.

But to repeat, an important thing is to nail down whether that window was in place when NR16020 arrived in Miami in late May 1937. So the challenge is to find other photographs taken as AE and friends flew across the U.S., from California to Arizona to Louisiana and on to Florida, showing that the lavatory window was in place during that trip.

They departed Oakland on May 20, 1937, and landed in Burbank about 6 p.m. The next afternoon they departed Burbank and landed in Tucson, Arizona about dusk, where the infamous backfire of the port engine occurred, causing AE to activate the engine fire extinguisher and her mechanic Bo having to replenish the extinguisher.

On May 22, leaving Tucson in the early morning they flew on to New Orleans and spent the night at a hotel near the airport. Then after a late morning breakfast on Sunday, May 23, the gang flew across the Gulf of Mexico, passing over Tampa and landing in Miami (at the wrong airport). Here began 8 days of preparations, involving Pan American personnel attending to autopilot and radio repairs. And, we believe, at some point the lavatory window was replaced with an aluminum covering, before the departure for San Juan, Puerto Rico.

So Forum detectives: can incontrovertible photographic evidence be found from that cross-country hop that shows the lavatory window still in place? That’s really the important point.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 11, 2014, 07:46:59 AM

...As I recall, we’re told that the source of the photograph is the archives of the Miami Herald, but that does not guarantee who the woman was or the time and location of where it was taken.


Here is another photo of Nilla Putnam, with David Putnam, her husband.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PNzlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

The "second picture" of AE and Nilla is reproduced in Sally Putnam Chapman's 1997 book, "Whistled like a bird: the Untold Story of Dorothy Putnam, George Putnam, and Amelia Earhart."

The caption reads; "These were the last photos taken of Amelia by G.P.P. before her flight on June 1st, 1937, at Miami."

See page 759 here-
http://www.krizma-ebooks.com/books/%20Whistled%20Like%20a%20Bird%20.pdf

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 11, 2014, 08:02:34 AM
So Forum detectives: can incontrovertible photographic evidence be found from that cross-country hop that shows the lavatory window still in place? That’s really the important point.

Here is incontrovertible photographic proof that the window was still in place on May 21, the day AE, FN, GP and Bo McKneeley departed Burbank for Tucson.  This is one of several shots taken by a young photographer by the name of "Dusty" Carter who happened to stop by the airport that day to take some pictures and caught AE and FN loading the plane for the "sneak" beginning of the second world flight attempt.  We bought Dusty's negatives from his widow several years ago.

In the first photo below, Amelia stands near the tail talking to someone.  Fred is moving his bags from the trunk of his Terraplane roadster while his wife, Mary Bea, stands watching.
In the second photo, a Mantz Air Service truck is backed up to the cabin door and work is being done on the left engine.
In the third photo we can see the right hand side of the airplane with the window clearly visible. We can see through the window to the open cabin door. The truck is still there.

There wasn't time to replace the window during the brief overnight stops in Tucson and New Orleans, so the window had to still be present upon arrival in Miami. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 11, 2014, 08:08:07 AM
Facts can be elusive things, and facts obtained from newspaper accounts always need to be taken with a grain of salt (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1489.msg31830.html#msg31830). Even Nilla’s child Sally, born December 6, 1937, stretches things a bit by saying that her mother was 5 months pregnant with Sally (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/aug/08/unlocking-the-past-diaries-reveal-dorothy-binney/) at the time her parents joined the others at the Miami airport on Tuesday, June 1, to bid farewell to AE and FN. By my reckoning, her mother would have only been barely 3 months pregnant at that time. That’s 12-14 weeks pregnant — and in my experience, many women at that stage are able to conceal their baby bump.

Whether the woman standing beside AE in the photo that shows the window in the lavatory area of NR16020 is the pregnant Nilla Putnam is not the important thing. An essential question is whether that photo was taken in late May 1937 as AE and FN prepared to depart for San Juan, thus showing that the lavatory window was still installed during that stop in Miami. Subsidiary questions include, “Who fabricated the patch, where was it fabricated, who installed it, and when was it installed, and why was it even done?”

Woody has called into question the identification of the woman (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33662.html#msg33662), suggesting another person as being the one standing beside AE. That has led to legitimate questioning of the time and location of the photograph. As I recall, we’re told that the source of the photograph is the archives of the Miami Herald, but that does not guarantee who the woman was or the time and location of where it was taken.

But to repeat, an important thing is to nail down whether that window was in place when NR16020 arrived in Miami in late May 1937. So the challenge is to find other photographs taken as AE and friends flew across the U.S., from California to Arizona to Louisiana and on to Florida, showing that the lavatory window was in place during that trip.

They departed Oakland on May 20, 1937, and landed in Burbank about 6 p.m. The next afternoon they departed Burbank and landed in Tucson, Arizona about dusk, where the infamous backfire of the port engine occurred, causing AE to activate the engine fire extinguisher and her mechanic Bo having to replenish the extinguisher.

On May 22, leaving Tucson in the early morning they flew on to New Orleans and spent the night at a hotel near the airport. Then after a late morning breakfast on Sunday, May 23, the gang flew across the Gulf of Mexico, passing over Tampa and landing in Miami (at the wrong airport). Here began 8 days of preparations, involving Pan American personnel attending to autopilot and radio repairs. And, we believe, at some point the lavatory window was replaced with an aluminum covering, before the departure for San Juan, Puerto Rico.

So Forum detectives: can incontrovertible photographic evidence be found from that cross-country hop that shows the lavatory window still in place? That’s really the important point.

I think the ID of the woman is interesting, that's all, Bruce.  I'm touched by the human story.

It is not crucial to the process here to know that.

It is crucial how we go about discerning salient facts, of course.  I didn't realize any question remained as to the patch suddenly appearing in Miami. Perhaps crucially, the pictures of the open window could have been anywhere the craft may have been between the time of window mod and window patch installation.  The timeline of events you've shared have been the crux of our firm understanding of that as I've understood it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 11, 2014, 08:16:37 AM
Was the photo of AE and Nilla by the still-windowed Electra taken on Saturday May 29?  In this photo, AE is dressed in the same outfit she is wearing in the photos with Nilla Putnam.  The tailwheel of the Electra has been raised up to put the aircraft in flight attitude for checking the accuracy of the compass – known as swinging the compass.  Press reports establish that the compass was swung on Saturday, May 29.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 11, 2014, 08:35:03 AM
I didn't realize any question remained as to the patch suddenly appearing in Miami. Perhaps crucially, the pictures of the open window could have been anywhere the craft may have been between the time of window mod and window patch installation.

No they couldn't.  There is photographic proof (see above) that the window was on the aircraft when it left Burbank.
The woman in the photo with AE and the still-windowed Electra is Nilla Putnam. There's no doubt about that unless Sally Chapman doesn't know who her mother is (I've known Sally for almost 20 years. She is TIGHAR #1126).  The photo was definitely taken in Miami, apparently on Saturday, May 29.
Let's stop re-flogging things we know and work on what we don't know.

Let's not waste time
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 11, 2014, 10:47:55 AM
Is that "speed tape" (or the '30s equivalent) on a cracked window?  Sure looks like it!  I always assumed that it was something inside the aircraft, but, looking at the other windows and all of the recent activity tape on a broken window sure seems to fit with the current line of thinking.  I don't have a clue what type of tape was available back then.  I'm not sure when "speed tape" (aluminum foil tape) was introduced.  If "speed tape" was not yet around it could be something like duct tape.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 11, 2014, 10:50:29 AM
Let's stop re-flogging things we know and work on what we don't know.

Let's not waste time

True enough. There are still some musty old records in Miami that will be gone through in short order to see if there are any buried nuggets.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Matt Revington on September 11, 2014, 11:22:09 AM
Jay I'm pretty sure thats the view through the open cabin door on the other side of the plane
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 11, 2014, 11:23:40 AM
Is that "speed tape" (or the '30s equivalent) on a cracked window?  Sure looks like it!
Yep. Matt beat me to it. Looks like the lav door is open so you see the open cabin door. I think the small dark rectangle is the window in the cabin door
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 11, 2014, 11:31:18 AM
From the rear-quarter angle from which that photo was taken I'm not sure you could see the forward door jamb if the door was open.  Also, note that you cannot see inside of any of the other windows even on the aircraft foward of AE's Electra.  All of the windows are showing up as black.  This is even true for the cockpit windows.  Even if you could not see in the cabin windows you would think that you could see through the cockpit windows --- not with this exposure.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 11, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
I have to agree with Matt and Greg.  Note that in the other photo showing the truck, the cabin door is open.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 11, 2014, 12:33:48 PM
I didn't realize any question remained as to the patch suddenly appearing in Miami. Perhaps crucially, the pictures of the open window could have been anywhere the craft may have been between the time of window mod and window patch installation.

No they couldn't.  There is photographic proof (see above) that the window was on the aircraft when it left Burbank.
The woman in the photo with AE and the still-windowed Electra is Nilla Putnam. There's no doubt about that unless Sally Chapman doesn't know who her mother is (I've known Sally for almost 20 years. She is TIGHAR #1126).  The photo was definitely taken in Miami, apparently on Saturday, May 29.
Let's stop re-flogging things we know and work on what we don't know.

Let's not waste time

I'm well aware that the window (opening) was present from Burbank to Miami - never challenged that.

I'm not re-flogging anything that I know - but I fail to see the import of 'who's who' in the picture, other than it happens to be interesting - which is one reason I frequent this site.  I like to contribute what I can, but I have enough other production to make on any account so I surely don't need to waste time wasting other's time. 

She surely as hell looks a lot like Jackie Cochran to me, to be blunt, and Woody's got a sharp eye - so I can see why the side-bar - but she's not my mother, for sure so what do I know.  But if that kind of side bar is a fatal attraction, no more from me.

As to wasting time -

Why is there a question about whether the patch was effected in Miami or not?  I didn't question that nor did I see that implied in any of this, if that was part of your meaning.  I merely meant that the picture could have happened within that 'window' because of the presence of the 'window': it could have been in Burbank, if you didn't have other information.  Maybe I missed something on that until now - I didn't realize Sally Chapman had identified her mother in the photo as such until your last post.

But I surely don't want to waste TIGHAR's time, so consider it dropped.  If you want that to stick uniformly, I suggest that there are plenty of side-discussions running around this place to pick on...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 11, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
I just pent some quality time with the plan views.  The two photos to have been taken at about the same time (shadows are about the same and there is the stuff on the ground and the gal in the white dress, but, the truck is gone).  The mx guys are apparently still working int he cockpit and blocking the light coming through the open hatch.  The aircraft to the forward-left of "our" Electra are probably has interior covers or curtains over the windows.  The lav door would have to be "open".  The inside surfce of the open door in the prior picture is completely illuminated, hence, bright.   OK ... I give.

Sorry for the goose chase!

I'll add this to the list of failed thought experiments I've attempted since I began following this project ...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 11, 2014, 01:26:27 PM
I fail to see the import of 'who's who' in the picture

It's important because it helps pin down the date that the patch was installed.  Nilla and David visited shortly before departure.  Earhart is dressed in the same outfit when the compass was swung on May 29.  Earhart arrived in Miami on May 23 but it wasn't until sometime on either Sunday, May 30 or Monday, May 31 (Memorial Day) that the work was done.  Why?  Once the decision was made to remove the window and repair the hole someone had to design the repair, secure the materials, and perform the repair.  The lack of any mention of this work in the press or other literature about AE's time in Miami is strange. 

Here's a question for you Jeff.  Let's say you're Bo McKneeley, Earhart's mechanic (the resemblance is uncanny). For whatever reason, after you arrive in Miami, you and AE agree that the window has to go.  How long does it take you from the time that decision is made until the airplane is ready to go with the repair completed?

She surely as hell looks a lot like Jackie Cochran to me

Really? 

Why is there a question about whether the patch was effected in Miami or not?

It's vital.  If the repair was effected in Miami it explains why there is no mention of it in the Lockheed repair orders and why there is no paint on the interior surface. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 11, 2014, 04:22:02 PM
I fail to see the import of 'who's who' in the picture

It's important because it helps pin down the date that the patch was installed.  Nilla and David visited shortly before departure.  Earhart is dressed in the same outfit when the compass was swung on May 29.  Earhart arrived in Miami on May 23 but it wasn't until sometime on either Sunday, May 30 or Monday, May 31 (Memorial Day) that the work was done.  Why?  Once the decision was made to remove the window and repair the hole someone had to design the repair, secure the materials, and perform the repair.  The lack of any mention of this work in the press or other literature about AE's time in Miami is strange. 

Here's a question for you Jeff.  Let's say you're Bo McKneeley, Earhart's mechanic (the resemblance is uncanny). For whatever reason, after you arrive in Miami, you and AE agree that the window has to go.  How long does it take you from the time that decision is made until the airplane is ready to go with the repair completed?

I could (and have done similar) effect such a 'covering' overnight, literally, using materials that most airports have about.  The patch appears to be a simple 'cover' in 'scab' fashion - it was not fitted to be flush, but laid over the aperture by overlapping the edges to pick up the fasteners already existing in the window frame (some of which were original airframe fasteners).

The 'design' scheme would be simple: follow the original structure where possible, but that appears to be simplified in this case because the existing window frame, not withstanding the arguments about 'weakness' which remain unproven to me, is at least arguably a basis for continued strength.  Hence the 'simple cover' I've described (which is what 2-2-V-1 has always looked like to me, since Symposium 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.0.html)).  Once the cover is in place, the need for stiffening would be apparent (and was probably anticipated) - it would likely have more to do with avoiding oil-canning in flight than lending strength, per se, in my view.  In any case, some angle may have been on hand, or could have been bent from strips cut from the same material as the cover; in all likelihood there was a shear and brake in the area that someone was happy enough to help with, that's been the case for me even in the stix on occasion (I've made a number of temporary repairs to ferry aircraft out of some oddball places over the years). 

The one tricky piece would be the vertical stiffener because in the field, fabricating on the bench, you'd be working with a straight "L" angle that needs to rest in contour with the skin curve (fore and aft members not so noticeable; vertical more so).  That might be overcome with a shrinker on the field, easily enough.  It may also help explain why it was never fully fastened - was that detail farmed out only to arrive too late for that finishing touch?  Just a thought (caution, severe conjecture).

The engineering for such a 'patch' (I actually prefer 'cover') is 'canned' - right out of the guidance of the day (the forerunner of today's AC 43.13), there would have been no need of engineering oversight.  The formalities of preparing and submitting a major alteration form was likely overlooked in the circumstance (sorry Aris, no foul... I didn't say I'd do it that way).  I've encountered plenty of such repairs and alterations that were obviously regarded as 'minor' anyway, judging by the common dirth of attending records - mechanics by and large have tended to be more crafty with tools than paperwork, especially when trying to get someone like Earhart on her way.

Six to eight hours of effort to fabricate and install that patch, including the fore-aft stiffeners and now-known vertical member.  The only help I'd need (other than local scrounging for materials and tools) would be someone to buck the rivets.  Judging by the hob-nailed surviving rivet, that might have been someone like Fred... I'd give a lot to see what that finished work really looked like up close.

But we know the rivet lines were laid out with precision - Aris ticked them off with the calipers in Dayton, so some skill went into this thing.  That does not add to my time estimate - good craftsmanship is assumed.

She surely as hell looks a lot like Jackie Cochran to me

Really? 

Yes, really - how old was Jackie in the photo you added?  But if Sally Chapman nailed her mother in that picture, it was good of you to share that with us; I'd say she'd know.  Sally herself confounded things a bit by the "5 months pregnant" remark (no foul, of course) - that's typically an expectantly (pun not  ::)) 'showing' thing.  If it was Jackie Cochran, it would have zero effect on when / where the patch was installed because the salient fact is the cover isn't there yet - same difference, yes?  It was merely a point of interest - don't get wrapped around the axle...

Why is there a question about whether the patch was effected in Miami or not?

It's vital.  If the repair was effected in Miami it explains why there is no mention of it in the Lockheed repair orders and why there is no paint on the interior surface.

I think you're missing my point, which was - there is NO question that I can see that the patch was installed anywhere other than Miami.  I fail to see why that was ever in question.  If it WAS Cochran in the picture, and the picture WAS made in Burbank - the patch is NOT there... same as Miami, until the very last.  Once again, I am vexed that I cannot lay hands on what I read about that patch, but I do recall it had more to do with securing the plane - cutting off curiosity seekers, than anything about structural concerns (which I do not recall reading).  If I can ever find that, I'll lay it on here.

Sorry if I'm missing something in this, but I don't understand the touchiness.  "The patch was most clearly installed in MiamI" to me - always has been clear since I first became aware of it at the Symposium in D.C. in June 2012, which is where I was first struck by how much 2-2-V-1 looked like something that might have been so-purposed.  I didn't see where any of this exchange created any doubt about that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 11, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
If the patch was about 25 3/8" long [the distance between stations 293.625 and 320, less one inch,] and 2-2-V-1 is about 24 3/8" long, the scaling in the overlay photo needs to be adjusted. 

(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/weakspot.jpg)


(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/dimensionsoverlay.jpg)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on September 12, 2014, 06:49:10 AM
1. Is the somewhat straight, regular edge of the patch (at top of previous photo) supposed to be an original cut made by the patch fabricator?

2. Since the patch was found at south-west corner of the island after storm action (as read in archives), is it assumed that island inhabitants ever laid their hands on it or did it get "churned up from below the reef"?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 12, 2014, 09:35:53 AM
I too am very anxious to see a clearly defined overlay. 

I have been, as anyone who reads here regularly probably knows, and remain very enthusiastic about the potential for 2-2-V-1 as 'the patch', but realize we must have a clearly smoking-hot line-up to be convincing. 

I am looking forward to seeing this when such a report can be developed with some sort of well-defined visual model attached.

If the patch was about 25 3/8" long [the distance between stations 293.625 and 320, less one inch,] and 2-2-V-1 is about 24 3/8" long, the scaling in the overlay photo needs to be adjusted. 

(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/weakspot.jpg)


(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/dimensionsoverlay.jpg)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 12, 2014, 09:53:31 AM
Anybody have the wherewithal and resources to do a fuselage mock up? Just a small section of course.  Not sure what use it could be, but might prove informative in working out scenarios as to how the window hole was patched.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 12, 2014, 09:54:13 AM
If the patch was about 25 3/8" long [the distance between stations 293.625 and 320, less one inch,] and 2-2-V-1 is about 24 3/8" long, the scaling in the overlay photo needs to be adjusted. 

I don't think you understand what's going on here. We can't "adjust" the the scaling of the overlay to make everything fit the way we'd prefer.  Jeff Glickman scaled the photo of the aircraft-with-patch and the photo of the pressed-down artifact as best he could to the same scale.  Then he overlaid the photos.  The artifact is smaller than the full patch, as it would have to be because none of the edges on the artifact is an original finished edge. Positioning the artifact vertically within the patch was easy because of the alignment of the rivet lines but Jeff didn't know how to position the artifact fore-and-aft until I pointed out that we can anchor the lower right-hand edge because we can see that it failed from metal fatigue against a rigid underlying structure.  Once we positioned the artifact that way it became obvious that the mysterious impression of an un-riveted vertical structure aligned perfectly with Station 307.

In other words, the overlay is correct.  If anything needs to be adjusted it's the measurements for the exact size of the patch and artifact.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 12, 2014, 10:07:56 AM
1. Is the somewhat straight, regular edge of the patch (at top of previous photo) supposed to be an original cut made by the patch fabricator?

No.  That edge appears to have been chopped out with some kind of tool.

2. Since the patch was found at south-west corner of the island after storm action (as read in archives), is it assumed that island inhabitants ever laid their hands on it or did it get "churned up from below the reef"?

Good question.  There is evidence of heat damage to part of the artifact.  We have an anecdotal account from a former island resident of a sheet of metal that sounds a lot like 2-2-V-1 being used to cook fish.  The hyperspectral imaging data may be able to confirm the presence of carbon.
What I think we can say with some certainty is that whatever happened to this piece of wreckage was somehow different from what happened to the rest of the airplane.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 12, 2014, 10:46:35 AM
Anybody have the wherewithal and resources to do a fuselage mock up? Just a small section of course.  Not sure what use it could be, but might prove informative in working out scenarios as to how the window hole was patched.

I believe to accomplish that, you would have to have a bill of materials and a set of working drawings.  Neither of which I believe anyone has.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 12, 2014, 12:46:17 PM
Anybody have the wherewithal and resources to do a fuselage mock up? Just a small section of course.  Not sure what use it could be, but might prove informative in working out scenarios as to how the window hole was patched.

I believe to accomplish that, you would have to have a bill of materials and a set of working drawings.  Neither of which I believe anyone has.

That's a good point for accuracy's sake, and accuracy is of course vital.

That said, as to a reasonable representation of the original structure, it is dimensions that count the most.  That includes an accurate portrayal of the outer skin - air passage - to include an accurate placement of all rivet lines, window outline and placement of associated window framing rivets.  That means an accurate 'skin'; the underlying structure could be simplified by the accurate placement of plywood ring formers (the vertical pieces), and simple "L" sections for stiffeners.  I think it would be good to leave the window aperture uncut, but clearly drawn, such that the artifact (or a facsimile of the flat pattern of same) could be applied.

We see this in accurate mock-ups in this industry all the time, and it works well - but it has to be high-quality / held to accurate dimensions.  That takes us back to the drawings to get it right, plus, since we have no drawings that we know of for the window installation itself, we have to derive accurate dimensions from the photo evidence.  I'm sure that can be done (already has to some degree by Glickman's work, apparently): it is a matter of scaling off the evident landmarks on the visible skins - rivet lines vs. known stations, etc.

Contours could be a challenge, since the Electra was graced with compound curves - but I don't think the longitudenal axis is critical here - a 'barrel' would do for a reasonable illustration as I think the vertical contour is the more critical.

A good, long weekend project for somebody.  Getting accurate dimensions set to paper would be the biggest part of it and the drawings would surely go a long way toward making it possible.  Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 12, 2014, 01:12:35 PM

Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

True enough but who is going to let anyone strip the insides of an Electra in that area to get the true dimensions.  Measuring on the outside gets you close but no cigar.  I don't think fractions, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8  cut it in aircraft construction or maintenance.  Then again in 1937 who knows how close the tolerances were.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Matt Revington on September 12, 2014, 01:36:10 PM

Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

True enough but who is going to let anyone strip the insides of an Electra in that area to get the true dimensions.  Measuring on the outside gets you close but no cigar.  I don't think fractions, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8  cut it in aircraft construction or maintenance.  Then again in 1937 who knows how close the tolerances were.


maybe they could talk to these guys if its not too late, they were stripping off and replacing the aluminium skin
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article1311223.html

This link was posted the other day by "Jack" in another thread
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 12, 2014, 01:36:21 PM

Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

True enough but who is going to let anyone strip the insides of an Electra in that area to get the true dimensions.  Measuring on the outside gets you close but no cigar.  I don't think fractions, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8  cut it in aircraft construction or maintenance.  Then again in 1937 who knows how close the tolerances were.

In the end, it is the rivet lines that govern most of this; the location edge of the visible window forward aperture tends to govern the assumed fatigue failure line (where the sheet apparently failed by repeated bending against a stiff, straight piece of structure).  Also, true - the dimensions of the 'phantom' (now know) unfastened mid-panel vertical brace needs understanding - the original structure is probably a good guide (and seems similar).

I'd say their tolerances were good - those lines of airframes in the factory display marvelous consistency.  These planes were largely jig-built - the fixtures no doubt were quite rigid and provided a very repeatable result.  Plus or minus .030 is a generally accepted practice for most general sheetmetal areas, concerning placement of fasteners and components, and I'd guess that was well within Lockheed's grasp in the '30's by what I can observe (anecdotal observation, I confess - my eyes are not truly calipers, but one's eye 'reads' these things after some time and the work is consistently crisp in the factory photos).

Agree we're talking about some license here, but with some trouble a reasonable physical representation could be made short of tearing apart an old gem.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on September 12, 2014, 04:01:39 PM
This is going to be a really, really, REALLY long shot but has there ever been any DNA analysis done on the artifact?  It would seem, looking at those jagged edges like that, that someone could get a nasty cut from trying to pry it off, especially someone who is potenially dehydrated, starved, sunburnt, and a physical/emotional/psychological wreck, desperate for a cooking surface, weapon, tool material, or whatever it might have been used for. Just a far-fetched thought.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 12, 2014, 04:07:19 PM
This is going to be a really, really, REALLY long shot but has there ever been any DNA analysis done on the artifact?

Nice thought Krystal but no, there is no chance that contact DNA would survive.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 12, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
maybe they could talk to these guys if its not too late, they were stripping off and replacing the aluminium skin
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article1311223.html

I just talked to Dan Weatherford, CEO at Wichita Air Service. He wasn't sure whether that part of the interior had already been covered over or not but even if it has, he's willing to open it up for us. (Dan is familiar with our work. It's nice to have the reputation we have.  He's eager to help.)  I've sent him a link to the A Smoking Gun? (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html) paper.  He'll share it with the guys in the shop.  They're willing to take photos for us but they're also happy to have us come out and and do hands-on research.  After they've had a chance to familiarize themselves with the research we'll talk again and decide whether we can get what we need with photos or whether a visit is in order. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 12, 2014, 06:29:40 PM
Very cool! Wish I could be there for that!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on September 13, 2014, 07:53:16 AM
This is going to be a really, really, REALLY long shot but has there ever been any DNA analysis done on the artifact?

Nice thought Krystal but no, there is no chance that contact DNA would survive.

Actually, Krystal-we would have a better chance to find DNA traces of most of the TIGHAR members and Jeff Glickman, or anyone of the MANY persons who have handled the artifact since it was retrieved from the island, than of someone from Niku in the years it was there.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 13, 2014, 08:08:32 AM
Good article in today's on-line Philadephia Inquirer.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Amelia_Earhart_search_postponed_till_next_year.html
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 13, 2014, 08:45:37 AM
Nice to see some positive publicity that gets all of the basic facts correct. Disheartening to see some of the snarky comments under it, but, well ... that's one of the things you have to get used to and shrug off as a TIGHAR member.

Remember, the tortoise put up with a TON of crap. But he did cross the finish line!

LTM, who had turtles as pets eons ago,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 13, 2014, 01:49:52 PM
Let's think about exactly what information/photos we want to get from the Electra being restored by Wichita Air Service.
My thoughts:

• We need a straight-on photo of the interior starboard wall from Sta. 293 5/8 (the bulkhead at the front of the lavatory) to Sta. 320, the circumferential structure to which the aft edge of both the window and the patch were riveted to.  That will, of course, encompass the narrow vertical stiffener at Sta. 307 and the heavy former that goes across the top of the cabin.  The photo needs to include tape measure or yard stick held against the wall so that we can measure the interval between stringers.

• We need detail photos of all of the stringers, bulkheads, and stiffeners with a tape measure or ruler laid across to show the width of the structure.

• We need an exterior photo of that same area.

• We need the opinion of the people who have been doing the restoration about the consequences of cutting a hole for the window and how you would go about replacing the window with a patch.

Anything else?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on September 13, 2014, 03:03:23 PM
Let's think about exactly what information/photos we want to get from the Electra being restored by Wichita Air Service.
My thoughts:

• We need a straight-on photo of the interior starboard wall from Sta. 293 5/8 (the bulkhead at the front of the lavatory) to Sta. 320, the circumferential structure to which the aft edge of both the window and the patch were riveted to.  That will, of course, encompass the narrow vertical stiffener at Sta. 307 and the heavy former that goes across the top of the cabin.  The photo needs to include tape measure or yard stick held against the wall so that we can measure the interval between stringers.

• We need detail photos of all of the stringers, bulkheads, and stiffeners with a tape measure or ruler laid across to show the width of the structure.

• We need an exterior photo of that same area.

• We need the opinion of the people who have been doing the restoration about the consequences of cutting a hole for the window and how you would go about replacing the window with a patch.

Anything else?

Any pictures taken as you describe will be useful.  Blowing them up and hanging them on a board to fit check 2-2-V-1 would be tricky it that is the intent.  Here's another idea to supplement any pictures.  (Be kind, everyone - I'm making this up as I go along).

Obtain a roll of butcher paper or some other kind of heavy-weight roll stock, maybe like that paper on the table in the doctor's office.  Use masking tape and lay down enough paper on the outside skin of the aircraft to cover the area of interest.  You'll have to overlap several rows of the paper, so make index marks to match-up the sections later.  Once the paper is in place, make a rubbing or tracing if you will of the rivet patterns.  I'm thinking of a blackboard/chalkboard eraser and some graphite dust.  Put a little of the graphite dust on the eraser and with the right amount of pressure rub the paper with the eraser over the rivet lines. You should get a nice impression of the raised rivet heads.  You could try do the same thing on the inside with the ribs and stringers but getting the paper stretched properly and accurately might be a problem and would require 2 or 3 people.  You'd for sure need accurate measurements for the width and height of these pieces.  Once the paper is hung on a wall back home, you could draw the ribs and stringers using the measurements, etc.  Almost as good as a mock-up for show-and-tell, fit checks, or whatever. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on September 13, 2014, 04:48:49 PM
If the patch was about 25 3/8" long [the distance between stations 293.625 and 320, less one inch,] and 2-2-V-1 is about 24 3/8" long, the scaling in the overlay photo needs to be adjusted. 

I don't think you understand what's going on here. We can't "adjust" the the scaling of the overlay to make everything fit the way we'd prefer.  Jeff Glickman scaled the photo of the aircraft-with-patch and the photo of the pressed-down artifact as best he could to the same scale.  Then he overlaid the photos.  The artifact is smaller than the full patch, as it would have to be because none of the edges on the artifact is an original finished edge. Positioning the artifact vertically within the patch was easy because of the alignment of the rivet lines but Jeff didn't know how to position the artifact fore-and-aft until I pointed out that we can anchor the lower right-hand edge because we can see that it failed from metal fatigue against a rigid underlying structure.  Once we positioned the artifact that way it became obvious that the mysterious impression of an un-riveted vertical structure aligned perfectly with Station 307.

In other words, the overlay is correct.  If anything needs to be adjusted it's the measurements for the exact size of the patch and artifact.

I am also not understanding this, perhaps if I explain what I think is correct someone can explain where I am going wrong.

I thought the dimensions of the Miami Patch were indicated by the taped area on the side of the Electra as shown in the photo taken at the NE Aviation Museum:

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=1490.420

What are the dimensions of the Miami Patch, as determined by Jeff Glickman?

Also, I am still wondering about the irregularly spaced 5/8 inch rivet holes on 2-2-v-1.  Wouldn't this line of holes correspond to the line of staggered rivets just below the navigator's window?  If so, how do those irregularly spaced holes conform with the (presumably) regularly spaced holes on AE's Electra? Why don't we see staggered rivet holes on the 'tab'?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 13, 2014, 06:47:29 PM
I thought the dimensions of the Miami Patch were indicated by the taped area on the side of the Electra as shown in the photo taken at the NE Aviation Museum

The taped area on the side of the New England Air Museum Electra was a rough approximation I did on June 15.  A little background:
During the 2-2-V-1 Commission's visit to the Air Force Museum on March 28 we learned that, in a repair, the pitch of the rivets can't change.  That squashed our theory that the artifact fits a repaired area on the belly.  The rivet pitch where it seemed to fit is 1.5 inches.  The rivet pitch on the artifact is 1 inch.  We were back to square one.
On May 30, several members of the 2-2-V-1 Commission and I visited the New England Air Museum to try to find somewhere the artifact would fit.  No luck.  At that point I was ready to concede that whatever airplane the artifact came from, it wasn't NR16020.

Then Jeff Neville suggested it might be the Miami Patch.  It sounded like a desperate Hail Mary but I had to agree that the patch was the one part of the airplane that was not built or repaired by Lockheed so it did not have to conform to engineering drawings or repair orders. On June 15, I was back at the New England Air Museum to do two Father's Day talks in front of their Electra. During the break between talks I borrowed a roll of Scotch tape and taped off the patch as best I could eyeball it.  Then I drafted an innocent bystander and had him hold the artifact up against the airplane.  The artifact seemed to fit but this was just an initial what-the-heck experiment and should not be taken as rocket science.

What are the dimensions of the Miami Patch, as determined by Jeff Glickman?

I don't think exact measurement are possible.  There's not enough resolution in the photo to see hard, defined edges.  But it doesn't matter.  We know how big the artifact is and we know how big an Electra is. 

Also, I am still wondering about the irregularly spaced 5/8 inch rivet holes on 2-2-v-1.  Wouldn't this line of holes correspond to the line of staggered rivets just below the navigator's window?  If so, how do those irregularly spaced holes conform with the (presumably) regularly spaced holes on AE's Electra? Why don't we see staggered rivet holes on the 'tab'?

Ahh but we do.  The wave-like pattern indicates the presence of another row of rivets.   The attached photo shows the same kind of lateral tearing on wreckage from a Lockheed Electra that flew into Mt. Richmond in New Zealand. In that case the second row of rivets was not staggered.
We don't know why the pitch on the artifact is irregular. We also don't know that it wasn't irregular on the patch.  Maybe a better understanding of underlying structures will suggest a reason.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on September 13, 2014, 08:12:08 PM
I'd want to record the thicknesses of stringers and sheet metal, and rivet diameters and type(s).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lyle Gunderson on September 13, 2014, 10:32:54 PM
Can a mold of the interior surfaces be made? that would give us an accurate representation of the stiffeners, rivets and something we could measure later. Not sure how that could be done but I am sure someone has the knowledge & skill.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 13, 2014, 10:45:08 PM
Measure the curves with something like a curve template (http://www.trick-tools.com/37_inch_Curve_Template_148455_363) or a similar tool. It may help in alignment or overlays of 2-2-V-1 and photographs
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 15, 2014, 09:27:43 AM
Adhesive measuring tape  (http://toolmonger.com/2009/09/03/fill-your-shop-with-red-tape/)may be a way to get a tight fit to everything.
The yard stick can be used to get the overall dimensions and frame spacing and the tape to get the recessed parts and in between dimensions.
The thickness of a rigid ruler can throw off what you are measuring when viewed at an angle so if you want a more accurate dimension of the structure you need to have the camera or your eye 90 degrees to each piece that you want a dimension of. Even a steel tape can be off when viewed at an angle due to the curved profile of the tape.
Also sticky tape allows you to keep your hands free to photograph vertical parts in a tight space.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jim Thwaites on September 15, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
At this point it might be wise to contact FARO, who makes 3D measuring equipment. They have a portable measuring arm and a portable laser scanner, among other things. They are coordinate measuring machines, both contact and non contact,
which would measure the airframe with more accuracy than you would need. Perhaps someone in TIGHAR with a silver tongue could talk FARO into loaning one for a bit of publicity. I have no connection with the company, but have heard favorable things about their company through many years of owning a machine shop and foundry.

Jim
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 15, 2014, 12:00:41 PM
Jim,

I agree.  Scan that section of the fuselage AND scan the "patch".  A 3D model can be generated from both scans.  From the model of the "patch" a flat pattern can be generated that would conform to the curvature of the fuesalage in that area.  The "patch" is bent up, but, it does not look like there was a whole lot of material yeilding that would affect the results.  Any flat pattern that results would be fairly accurate.  Scanning and CAD modeling would harm neither the sample airacraft nor the artfiact.

A lower tech quick solution might be to use the "patch" and make silicone mold like a halloween mask.  from that make a silicone "positive".  Offer the silicone "model" up to a sample fueslage.  This may be cheaper and quicker.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 15, 2014, 01:12:25 PM

Any flat pattern that results would be fairly accurate. 

These are both great suggestions, and I think Ric is already looking into a mold of some kind based on an earlier suggestion. Why I highlighted your sentence was to call attention to the high level of proof that TIGHAR is held to by its detractors. "Fairly accurate," in our case, will be relentlessly shredded into a huge pile of "maybes" and "could have beens" by The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex, in order to completely discount whatever we come up with.

That said, I'm willing to pony up some bucks to get this done, when the need arises.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on September 15, 2014, 01:56:06 PM
 The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex = TECTIC

Good one, Monty! (and I agree).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 16, 2014, 11:35:26 AM
Monty,

The reason that I am advocating that a silicone “negative’, then a silicone “positive” be made is that the “patch” is not substantially stretched or yielded to any extent.  The edges and fastener locations are torn, but, a resulting flat pattern, whether from 3D scans or from a “splash” would essentially give the same results.

The silicone contact mold and positive would be (a) quick, (b) cheap, (c) would not damage the “patch” and (d) would not damage any of the surviving candidate aircraft it was offered up to.

Please don’t get me wrong:  I am a LONG time CAD user (circa 1984) and the biggest advocate of 3D CAD that you will ever find!  The electronic approach has the following drawbacks: (a) it must be performed by skilled technicians (the scanning, modeling, flattening and creating the flat pattern).  The scanning cost (equipment, technicians travel , …) is expensive.  The software is the same.  The patch would have to be scanned.  The resulting point cloud would have to be turned into a 3D model.  That model would have to be “flattened” manually using the old hand lofting techniques within the 3D CAD application being used or by using flat-patterning software.  The surviving Electras (one, or more) would have to be scanned.  A 3D reference model from the original design loft drawings would have to be made.  Note:  The “reference” model would be different than any of the surviving Electras and even AE’s Electra if it was sitting in front of us in pristine condition!  This is because of production and manufacturing tolerances.

Since the “patch” was field fabricated we will probably NEVER have any drawings to compare it to!  Until the aircraft is found we will never know for sure if it is THE “patch” we think it is!  What the rubber model will allow us to determine, with a reasonable amount of certainty, whether or not this could be THE “patch”.

I am only advocating the silicone mold method because it can yield essentially the same results far faster, and cheaper, than using the electronic methods.

Remember:  baby steps (Cheap baby steps! --- I’m all about conserving resources for the long haul!).  Use the cheap and quick method to see if we are barking up the wrong tree. 

If using 3D scanning and CAD is the only way to satify some people I would suggest a short-cut 3D scanning process that would involve a 3D scan of the “patch” and having an elastomeric (rubber) model 3D-printed.  The result would be essentially the same as the direct splash and positive model method.  I recently read an article where jogging shoes were being 3D printed at some sort of exotic boutique.  So, the equipment, processes and material is out there.  I’m just not sure how to go about sourcing it. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on September 16, 2014, 08:00:19 PM
Anybody have the wherewithal and resources to do a fuselage mock up? Just a small section of course.  Not sure what use it could be, but might prove informative in working out scenarios as to how the window hole was patched.

I believe to accomplish that, you would have to have a bill of materials and a set of working drawings.  Neither of which I believe anyone has.

That's a good point for accuracy's sake, and accuracy is of course vital.

That said, as to a reasonable representation of the original structure, it is dimensions that count the most.  That includes an accurate portrayal of the outer skin - air passage - to include an accurate placement of all rivet lines, window outline and placement of associated window framing rivets.  That means an accurate 'skin'; the underlying structure could be simplified by the accurate placement of plywood ring formers (the vertical pieces), and simple "L" sections for stiffeners.  I think it would be good to leave the window aperture uncut, but clearly drawn, such that the artifact (or a facsimile of the flat pattern of same) could be applied.

We see this in accurate mock-ups in this industry all the time, and it works well - but it has to be high-quality / held to accurate dimensions.  That takes us back to the drawings to get it right, plus, since we have no drawings that we know of for the window installation itself, we have to derive accurate dimensions from the photo evidence.  I'm sure that can be done (already has to some degree by Glickman's work, apparently): it is a matter of scaling off the evident landmarks on the visible skins - rivet lines vs. known stations, etc.

Contours could be a challenge, since the Electra was graced with compound curves - but I don't think the longitudenal axis is critical here - a 'barrel' would do for a reasonable illustration as I think the vertical contour is the more critical.

A good, long weekend project for somebody.  Getting accurate dimensions set to paper would be the biggest part of it and the drawings would surely go a long way toward making it possible.  Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

As discussed here http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32359.html#msg32359 earlier in the thread, the Electra skin diagrams can be used to calculate the size of the original window mount and the resulting patch.  This method gives the size along the circumference of the surface curvature.

It is then possible to overlay the flattened 2-2-V-1 over the original window mount as shown.
http://i.imgur.com/NbTwQwx.jpg
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 17, 2014, 07:45:36 AM
Jeff Carter, that is an impressive overlay and is very much along the lines of what I have been believing we need to see.

For the moment I am taking your scaling as 'correct' - you seem to have taken care to get that right.  Scaling is vital and does need to be substantiated clearly, of course.  That's not to question you - it's just to underscore exactly what we are all concerned with: accuracy of model and stack-up of 2-2-V-1 against same.

It would be ever so much easier had we a more clear picture of "the patch" itself - but that remains elusive; hats off to Glickman for working with what we have, but it seems a tough path.  What we do have are a) clear pictures of the aperture complete with frame riveting, etc., b) a means thereby to get accurate scale where the window and framing is concerned, and c) 2-2-V-1 which can easily be modeled as an overlay.

Let the chips fall where they will.  If your scaling is accurate, we have an odd fitment question in the now-remaining 'upper row' of fasteners in 2-2-V-1, even as the 'other stars' tend to align in various ways (like the bottom apparent 'double row', picking up as we might see it, the double row at the bottom of the Electra's window frame, etc.). 

If accurate by your picture, is that placement of the upper row a disqualifier?  Or was there some intervening internal member added at that point for rigidity / strength that the new patch was obligated to pick up with this odd row?

I don't know.  Just ideas - and pondering over your excellent draft model here.  This needs further pursuit IMHO.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gary Vance on September 17, 2014, 08:55:38 AM
I was re-reading all the posts in this thread and came across a story in the UK daily mail from July 1 2014.  What interested me was the photo of the Electra being built, clearly shows the window area, with the stringers installed.  With the new spectral imaging results and the discovery of an indentation for a replaced support stringer for the patch, can someone compare/overlay the two and see if they match? 

The article link is here:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677486/Did-Amelia-Earhart-perish-castaway-desert-island-Long-forgotten-picture-hints-tragic-demise-aviator-disappeared-nearly-80-years-ago-today.html#ixzz36IncUczh

I've attached the picture in question. 

Gary
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 17, 2014, 09:02:48 AM
Trouble is, that is not "THE" window, i.e. not the lavatory "special large window" we're talking about; that's the normal cabin window.

That raises two problems for a comparison where 2-2-V-1 is concerned: the patch would logically be over the known-patched lavatory window, not the smaller normal cabin window, and being at a different fuselage station you cannot get a direct comparison of structure there.

As to the now-found vertical member (non-riveted but imprinting found), I am not clear on how it was found.  Here you've cited the hyperspectral imaging effort - and I think because like many of us that was implied because it was found during Glickman's exercise at TIGHAR HQ recently while also doing hyperspectral imagery.  But it is not really clear to me that that method found the evidence of the vertical member.  Somehow I got the impression that was by direct visual examination - did I miss something?  I would appreciate a clarification as to how that evidence was found.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 17, 2014, 09:46:33 AM
Trouble is, that is not "THE" window, i.e. not the lavatory "special large window" we're talking about; that's the normal cabin window.

That raises two problems for a comparison where 2-2-V-1 is concerned: the patch would logically be over the known-patched lavatory window, not the smaller normal cabin window, and being at a different fuselage station you cannot get a direct comparison of structure there.


This image/overlay helps in comparing the 'patch' to the window frame.   

(http://i.imgur.com/Kl1wJuD.png)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on September 17, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Mark, that is very well done!  Brings everything that's been talked about in this thread into much sharper focus.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 17, 2014, 11:24:17 AM
Thanks Mark! The similar angles in the pictures does help see it better.
Does it look like the patch may have extended slightly further down than the coaming of the window did?

The approximate 1-1/2” between the 5/32" rivet row and the next projected rivet row on 2-2-V-1 still suggests an added stiffener, IMHO. (similar to when we were looking at the keel)

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 17, 2014, 11:31:14 AM
Very good detail in that - and I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother).

It's this kind of study of detail that can help us move this along, IMO.  I'm sure Glickman is looking at this and perhaps more as well.  Ultimately it has to be nudged and received positively into the minds of qualified critical reviewers to succeed, of course.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2014, 11:56:31 AM
Have you guys not read the report on the TIGHAR website? http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 17, 2014, 12:45:19 PM
I have.  Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2014, 01:08:36 PM
Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?

You said, " I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother)."

You seem to be wondering about things that have already been established.  That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.  The edge above that line is not a finished edge so there had to be additional skin above that line and it had to be riveted to something.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 17, 2014, 03:06:25 PM
Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?

You said, " I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother)."

You seem to be wondering about things that have already been established.  That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.  The edge above that line is not a finished edge so there had to be additional skin above that line and it had to be riveted to something.

Thanks for the clarification.  Somehow that didn't jump out at me before.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 17, 2014, 05:38:52 PM
Somehow that didn't jump out at me before.

My failure.  Not yours. It's an example of how damned difficult it is to clearly explain this whole line of investigation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 17, 2014, 06:20:34 PM

That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.
 

Ric, how are the rivet lines confirmed?

Earlier you said, "I don't think exact measurement are possible.  There's not enough resolution in the photo to see hard, defined edges."
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33726.html#msg33726

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 18, 2014, 01:16:18 PM
Jeff Carter,

Great work concerning your “Patch” depiction posted by you – ref. reply # 508 on  9/16/2014 and your Nb Tw Qwx.jpg

There are a couple of puzzling questions concerning the alignment technique you used.  Would you please clarify:

How did you get such a clear and detailed photo of the window frame?  Did you use Ric’s “window-offset.jpg” photo?

How did you get the tear tab detail on the patch, in the upper right hand corner, to show almost perfect alignment with the tab sticking out on the window frame?  I question if the window frame had a male tab pointing aft.  Was this tab in the original photo you used?  See above question.

Thanks,

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 18, 2014, 02:11:07 PM

That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.
 

Ric, how are the rivet lines confirmed?

By seeing them. The "tell-tale" rivet line Jeff Neville pointed out near the top edge of the patch is fairly easy to see.  The others only show up with the specialized analytical programs that Jeff Glickman has, but I saw them myself when he was here last month. So far, one rivet line on the patch still escapes us.  It should be there but it's in the dark area of the reflection on the patch and there's just not enough contrast there to tell whether there's a rivet line there or not - but four out of five ain't bad.

Earlier you said, "I don't think exact measurement are possible.  There's not enough resolution in the photo to see hard, defined edges."

You don't need to be able to see crisply defined edges to see that rivet lines on the patch line up with lines of rivets on the airplane.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 18, 2014, 05:16:35 PM
On Tuesday, October 7, Jeff Glickman, Aris Scarla and Your Obedient Servant will spend the day at Wichita Air Services.  TIGHAR video cameraman/producer Mark Smith will be there to document our research. We will have full access to Lockheed 10A c/n 1091, including the interior structure in the area where the window and later patch were installed on c/n 1055.  Unlike c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum, the area in question on c/n 1091 was not restored as a lavatory but rather as a simple baggage compartment so there is no sink riveted to the wall.  We'll have a nice clean fuselage, inside and out, to compare with 2-2-V-1. We'll also have full access to the skins that were replaced. (Wichita Air Services re-skinned 90% of the airplane, including the skins in the subject area.)

This is a unique and timely opportunity. We have decided to spend the money (money needed for other things) to make it possible to put our best experts on site to collect photographic and structural data.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this will be make-or-break for the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch.

Aris, Jeff, Mark, and the restoration staff at Wichita Air Services are donating their time. TIGHAR is covering the travel costs.  The tab is $2009.51.  We're doing this on faith that you will respond with contributions to the 1937 Fund (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=43) to help cover these costs.  Thank you.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 18, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
Ric,

Ask Wichita Air Service if I could buy the old skin in the area of the “Patch” for say $500 (or less).  Maybe we could get someone else to pick up the cost to ship the skin back to TIGHAR HQ.  All this is left up to you guys to determine if this has any value in the investigation of the “Patch”.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on September 18, 2014, 08:53:34 PM
Jeff Carter,

Great work concerning your “Patch” depiction posted by you – ref. reply # 508 on  9/16/2014 and your Nb Tw Qwx.jpg

There are a couple of puzzling questions concerning the alignment technique you used.  Would you please clarify:

How did you get such a clear and detailed photo of the window frame?  Did you use Ric’s “window-offset.jpg” photo?

How did you get the tear tab detail on the patch, in the upper right hand corner, to show almost perfect alignment with the tab sticking out on the window frame?  I question if the window frame had a male tab pointing aft.  Was this tab in the original photo you used?  See above question.

Thanks,

Ted Campbell

Took the patch from the Miami photo with Earhart and the lady and scaled to the 18" height (where the 18" height was calculated as described in the earlier post).

Not sure I understand the other question?



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 18, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
Jeff Carter,

Great work concerning your “Patch” depiction posted by you – ref. reply # 508 on  9/16/2014 and your Nb Tw Qwx.jpg

There are a couple of puzzling questions concerning the alignment technique you used.  Would you please clarify:

How did you get such a clear and detailed photo of the window frame?  Did you use Ric’s “window-offset.jpg” photo? How did you get the tear tab detail on the patch, in the upper right hand corner, to show almost perfect alignment with the tab sticking out on the window frame?  I question if the window frame had a male tab pointing aft.  Was this tab in the original photo you used?  See above question.

Thanks,

Ted Campbell

Are the images below what you are referring to?  I don't see the match feature that is depicted on the image with the artifact overlay in the raw image with the rivet detail.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 18, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
You got it Mark!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 18, 2014, 09:46:35 PM
Jeff Carter,

How did you get the tear tab detail on the patch, in the upper right hand corner, to show almost perfect alignment with the tab sticking out on the window frame? 


I think I understand the question. I beleive the answer is Jeff trimmed 2-2-V-1 out of another image and there is some extra shadow from 2-2-V-1 cut out a little offset from the edge at the upper right. The image Jeff trimmed out, with the dark offset area, is overlayed on the image of the window.  There is no negative tear tab on the coaming. The black that you think may be on the coaming(outer "window frame" ) is part of the 2-2-V-1 image Jeff cut out. Or it's some similar photoshop cutting and alignment issue.

There shouldn't be any match like that anyway. The image of the window is before the patch was installed. Also, I don't think the coaming was left on the plane. However if it was, and the rivets were left on it, then the impressions of the coaming rivets might show up on the backside of 2-2-V-1. I just  can't see them leaving the coaming rivets there because the patch would not fit tight against the coaming skin with its rivets heads sticking out.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 19, 2014, 06:23:39 AM
Re the first of the two fotos posted above: what's that whitish arc in the top of your drawn yellow circle? Does it appear in the actual metal or is it just a reflection?  Interesting how it seems to follow the arc of the corner of the window flashing. Something or probably nothing?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 19, 2014, 07:04:45 AM
Re the first of the two fotos posted above: what's that whitish arc in the top of your drawn yellow circle? Does it appear in the actual metal or is it just a reflection?  Interesting how it seems to follow the arc of the corner of the window flashing. Something or probably nothing?

Was just wondering that myself (about 'whitish arc') - and it's very important.  If that is virgin image from 2-2-V-1 then it could be another tell-tale signature item that might just thumbprint it to the Electra; if real but not from having been on the ship, hell of a coincidence.

Otherwise... ah, is it part of the original image - or a product of the reproduction effort somehow?  Curiosity...

And the answer is... it is a virgin highlight - see image Ric posted previously (which was inverted for use above, so look at bottom left appropriate corner to see it here (my stupid Mac SW keeps rotating it various ways... ghost of Jobs I guess)) -

Now question is, is that just 'light' in Ric's photo, or does the artifact bear what might actually be a contour-following impression from you-know-what?  It appears awfully close to the window aperture radius in form, if it's actually a distortion in the metal.  Ric, can you examine that detail to see why it highlighted so in the picture?  My guess is there may be a little distortion in the metal from being pressed against a previously underlying feature (like a certain window coaming?).

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2014, 07:18:32 AM
Ric,

Ask Wichita Air Service if I could buy the old skin in the area of the “Patch” for say $500 (or less).  Maybe we could get someone else to pick up the cost to ship the skin back to TIGHAR HQ.  All this is left up to you guys to determine if this has any value in the investigation of the “Patch”.

Shipping would be no problem. TIGHAR can ship anything anywhere for free thanks to sponsorship by FedEx.  The question, as you say, is whether having the old skins would be of any real value.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 19, 2014, 08:56:19 AM
Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch? Rivet line 'C' is in a very odd place considering that there is an upper stringer already within an inch or less that would have likely been utilized.  I do find it curious that 'D' window frame matching, seems to have been manipulated to match the patch.  For effect, or to Mr. Daspit's comment; "Or it's some similar photoshop cutting and alignment issue"?  I don't buy that it is a shadow since the lighting seems to be straight on or slightly to the right, which would put any shadow under the patch.  As to 'E', why would there be an imprint of the curve, if the old frame was removed and replaced with 2-2-V-1?  I also won't buy that the patch was placed over the existing aperture.  Than again, Amelia had freckles, didn't she?  :-\

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 19, 2014, 09:26:57 AM
As depicted in the fotos, I would think that the patch (2-2-V-1) would need to come down a bit and move a bit to the right to line up the arc imprint (if that's what it is) with the window flashing. I wouldn't necessarily see it as a continuation of the curve as it is seen in the foto. But that would mess with the alignment of the rivet lines along the bottom? I agree that it would be suspect to think they would have left the window flashing in place when the opening was covered over. Bit then again why not leave it in place to add a bit of re-enforcement.

Is there any idea as to what the window opening looked like underneath what seems to be the outer flashing of the opening? Rounded corners too?  Any insight as to how the window was factory-created to begin with - framed in from the start when paneling was done or cut in after the fact?  Surviving Electras with such windows give any evidence to this?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2014, 10:07:31 AM
Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 19, 2014, 10:30:36 AM
Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Well 'Hallelujah', that is a bit more scientific than what I've witnessed here lately.  :o
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 19, 2014, 11:57:09 AM
Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Not to quarrel, but the coaming removal may be a toss up - I can see it both ways (and granted all fasteners therethrough would have to be removed anyway, but leaving it might help keep some desired rigidity - an .032" think panel isn't very substantial).

To the point though, that 'deformity' probably isn't related to the coaming... but the skin behind the coaming might be radiuses very closely to what we see of the coaming.

The professional scaling does help - thanks for puttying that up to get us back on track.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 19, 2014, 11:58:37 AM
Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Well 'Hallelujah', that is a bit more scientific than what I've witnessed here lately.  :o

Well, dang it man, most of us are just sitting in armchairs whittling our fingertips off here, not too many of us have that much grey matter traction where this stuff is concerned...  :P
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 19, 2014, 12:14:42 PM

Aris, Jeff, Mark, and the restoration staff at Wichita Air Services are donating their time. TIGHAR is covering the travel costs.  The tab is $2009.51.  We're doing this on faith that you will respond with contributions to the 1937 Fund (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=43) to help cover these costs.  Thank you.
I contributed something to the fund. Thanks for the link. It took only a minute. Good luck!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 19, 2014, 12:19:05 PM
Not to quarrel, but the coaming removal may be a toss up - I can see it both ways (and granted all fasteners therethrough would have to be removed anyway, but leaving it might help keep some desired rigidity - an .032" think panel isn't very substantial).

To the point though, that 'deformity' probably isn't related to the coaming... but the skin behind the coaming might be radiuses very closely to what we see of the coaming.


Weren't you listening?!! Ric has already determined that the coaming was "almost certainly removed before the patch was installed." End of subject.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 19, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Not to quarrel, but the coaming removal may be a toss up - I can see it both ways (and granted all fasteners therethrough would have to be removed anyway, but leaving it might help keep some desired rigidity - an .032" think panel isn't very substantial).

To the point though, that 'deformity' probably isn't related to the coaming... but the skin behind the coaming might be radiuses very closely to what we see of the coaming.


Weren't you listening?!! Ric has already determined that the coaming was "almost certainly removed before the patch was installed." End of subject.

Sorry, guess I'm dense.  I, however, have not come to view that with certainty, no disrespect or disregard for other's opinions.  ;)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on September 19, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Isn't that one of those "opinions masquerading as a fact" that someone around here likes to point out?   ;)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2014, 12:53:47 PM
End of subject.

Not end of subject. Think about it. You need to drill out the rivets in the coaming to remove the window so you've already removed the coaming. If you re-install it and then install a patch on top of it, your patch stands up higher off the airplane than necessary, creating more drag. I don't see any indication in the photos that the patch is sitting up on top of the coaming. If you do, show me.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 19, 2014, 12:57:52 PM
End of subject.

Not end of subject. Think about it. You need to drill out the rivets in the coaming to remove the window so you've already removed the coaming. If you re-install it and then install a patch on top of it, your patch stands up higher off the airplane than necessary, creating more drag. I don't see any indication in the photos that the patch is sitting up on top of the coaming. If you do, show me.

Makes sense, no quarrel there.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 19, 2014, 08:05:57 PM
Ric,

The value of the skin in Wichita might be of great value if the “patch” turns out to be 99 + % unauthentic.  Let me present a viable video sequence:

Aircraft production
The process of Lockheed cutting in the window      
   The installation of the plexus glass window
   The installation of the window framing

Miami Stopover
The removal of the window and framing
         Drilling out of the existing rivets that secure the window in the side of the aircraft
         The fitting of the interior vertical rib segment
         The back drilling of the window frame into the “patch”
         The riveting of the patch in place

Landing at Niku
        Then if you’ve got the ba__s, the blows from the inside of the aircraft with an escape axe to open the patch             in such a way that is what we are seeing today.  Smoking gun my butt – it’s the real McCoy only 76 years later

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2014, 08:28:07 PM
The value of the skin in Wichita might be of great value if the “patch” turns out to be 99 + % unauthentic.  Let me present a viable video sequence:

I still don't understand how skins removed from a perfectly standard Electra would help us.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 19, 2014, 08:54:52 PM
Ric,
Then it is up to you to show me (us)  : How the "patch" fits into the story!
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2014, 07:58:50 AM
Then it is up to you to show me (us)  : How the "patch" fits into the story!

You're right.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James Champion on September 20, 2014, 08:44:18 AM
Quote
I still don't understand how skins removed from a perfectly standard Electra would help us.

As a background display prop for the 2-2-V-1 patch at a later date.

Skin from an actual Electra used to show how/where the patch fit would be good to have. Skin from this plane will be as close as anyone will ever get to the one-off c/n 1055 NR16020. Construction differences between c/n 1091 and c/n 1055 will be less important than having an actual Electra skin to put 2-2-V-1 in context.

If nothing else, something like this would be good for fundraising.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2014, 10:40:52 AM
Skin from an actual Electra used to show how/where the patch fit would be good to have. Skin from this plane will be as close as anyone will ever get to the one-off c/n 1055 NR16020. Construction differences between c/n 1091 and c/n 1055 will be less important than having an actual Electra skin to put 2-2-V-1 in context.

If nothing else, something like this would be good for fundraising.

I agree, but unfortunately it's not quite that simple.  Installing the window involved cutting two skins, 42R and 43R.

Something to note:
Skins 42R and 43R are .025" in thickness.  2-2-V-1 is .032".  If 2-2-V-1 is the patch, they used skin to make the patch that was heavier than the surrounding skins.  Would it make sense to do that?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on September 20, 2014, 11:17:15 AM
I'm probably getting waaay ahead of the game here, but in thinking about the process of verification of all of this after Jeff Glickman completes his report, are we considering a way to do blinded experiments?  Here's a thought:  Present a panel of people who routinely work with hyperspectral imaging (or one such person if in short supply as I suspect they are) with 10 or so black and white, severely cropped image files of vintage aircraft, including a crop from the Miami photo.  They, of course, wouldn't know which image was the Miami photo. Then request they identify the photo or photos that best match Jeff's hyperspectral scan of rivet patterns on 2-2-V-1.  This, to me, has the benefit of enhanced validity over the alternative idea of simply giving free access to Jeff's files and conclusions and asking other experts if Jeff's (now TIGHAR's) conclusions on the patch are right.  (It also has the benefit of reminding me of a scene from a favorite movie, The Manchurian Candidate... Anyone remember that projector slide show scene where Sinatra says, "Hold it General, please...Hold the one on the right, please...")

I trust Jeff implicitly, of course, but he's our longtime expert and recognized as such.  We need a way to allow source(s) as objective as possible to weigh in with unimpeachable credibility. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECPR
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on September 20, 2014, 11:28:39 AM
The value of the skin in Wichita might be of great value if the “patch” turns out to be 99 + % unauthentic.  Let me present a viable video sequence:

I still don't understand how skins removed from a perfectly standard Electra would help us.


I don't think we should presume that 2-2-V-1 is the only potential piece from the Earhart Electra that will turn up.  If nothing else, the markings and primer type might prove useful from the contemporaneous skin.  Care should be taken, however, to engrave or permanently identify such skin at the source so that TIGHAR is never accused of trying to pass it off as part of Earhart's Electra.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 20, 2014, 12:25:46 PM
If 2-2-V-1 is the patch, they used skin to make the patch that was heavier than the surrounding skins.  Would it make sense to do that?
The source of the aluminum to make the patch that replaced NR16020's lavatory window in Miami is still a mystery, right?

I guess one potential source could be the helpful Pan American folks on Dinner Key servicing that company's Sikorsky seaplanes. Did they have a nice stash of .032" ALCLAD on hand?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2014, 12:31:01 PM
The source of the aluminum to make the patch that replaced NR16020's lavatory window in Miami is still a mystery, right?

I guess one potential source could be the helpful Pan American folks on Dinner Key servicing that company's Sikorsky seaplanes. Did they have a nice stash of .032" ALCLAD on hand?

I would say that would depend on what kind of seaplanes they were operating out of Dinner Key at that time and weather those aircraft were skinned with .032 24ST ALCLAD.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 20, 2014, 01:05:09 PM
I would say that would depend on what kind of seaplanes they were operating out of Dinner Key at that time and weather those aircraft were skinned with .032 24ST ALCLAD.
Well, yeah. I hope some intrepid person with access to specs for the various Sikorsky types Pan American had at Dinner Key can research the thickness of aluminum on those birds. On the website of the Pan Am Historical Foundation (at www.panam.org, not www.panam.com thank goodness!) there is mention (http://www.panam.org/online-archives/chronicles/211-recollections-of-dinner-key.html) of the presence of S-38, S-40, S-41, and S-42 models at Dinner Key as early as 1934.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2014, 04:06:50 PM
Well, yeah. I hope some intrepid person with access to specs for the various Sikorsky types Pan American had at Dinner Key can research the thickness of aluminum on those birds.

Gonna be tough. That's not the kind of information usually included in specs, but I would be surprised if those airplanes did not use .032" ST24 ALCLAD.  .025" is lighter stuff and might be less common on a flying boat.  Maybe they used .032 for the patch because that's what they could get.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 20, 2014, 08:41:26 PM
...Here's a thought:  Present a panel of people who routinely work with hyperspectral imaging (or one such person if in short supply as I suspect they are) with 10 or so black and white, severely cropped image files of vintage aircraft, including a crop from the Miami photo.  They, of course, wouldn't know which image was the Miami photo. Then request they identify the photo or photos that best match Jeff's hyperspectral scan of rivet patterns on 2-2-V-1.  This, to me, has the benefit of enhanced validity over the alternative idea of simply giving free access to Jeff's files and conclusions and asking other experts if Jeff's (now TIGHAR's) conclusions on the patch are right...
I trust Jeff implicitly, of course, but he's our longtime expert and recognized as such.  We need a way to allow source(s) as objective as possible to weigh in with unimpeachable credibility. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECPR

Sounds like a plan to me.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 20, 2014, 08:51:15 PM
Well, yeah. I hope some intrepid person with access to specs for the various Sikorsky types Pan American had at Dinner Key can research the thickness of aluminum on those birds.

Gonna be tough. That's not the kind of information usually included in specs, but I would be surprised if those airplanes did not use .032" ST24 ALCLAD.  .025" is lighter stuff and might be less common on a flying boat.  Maybe they used .032 for the patch because that's what they could get.

It should be among the bill of material details for those ships.  .032" is a common gage and I believe some of our earlier review of flying boats revealed some surprisingly thin material in the aft hull areas.

Per the published guidance of Earhart's day and today (which actually uses much of the sheet metal data developed in the '30's) it is commonly advisable to increase the gage of a repair skin by one thickness - in this case .025" to .032" would not be surprising to find.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on September 20, 2014, 09:47:56 PM
Don't the following images (which others have posted before) suggest the patch was raised above the skin of the Electra.  Notice how the light hits the front edge and a shadow is visible along the lower edge.
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=284
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=787





Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 20, 2014, 10:13:46 PM
I don't believe there has been a question that the patch was raised above the skin of the aircraft.  Conventional wisdom is that the coaming/frame was laid over the skin but was removed for the patch to be installed in its place.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on September 21, 2014, 03:17:06 PM
Don't the following images (which others have posted before) suggest the patch was raised above the skin of the Electra.  Notice how the light hits the front edge and a shadow is visible along the lower edge.
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=284
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=787

The Darwin photo Jeff Carter linked to (1st link above--see attachment) shows very nicely where the patch is located on the Electra, but unless I'm mistaken this photo has not yet been utilized for that purpose.  I can see that the bottom edge of the Patch lines up with a rivet line that extends a considerable distance aftward of the patch.  It looks to me that this photo could be used to determine conclusive whether the bottom edge of the patch corresponds with the bottom of the Navigator's window 'coaming'.  Does anyone else agree? Ric?


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 21, 2014, 03:33:15 PM
The Darwin photo Jeff Carter linked to (1st link above--see attachment) shows very nicely where the patch is located on the Electra, but unless I'm mistaken this photo has not yet been utilized for that purpose.  I can see that the bottom edge of the Patch lines up with a rivet line that extends a considerable distance aftward of the patch.  It looks to me that the bottom edge of the patch corresponds with the bottom of the Navigator's window 'coaming'.  Does anyone else agree? Ric?

It has been referenced for quite some time (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg14267.html#msg14267) as to that purpose.

The bottom edge most definitely does correspond to the bottom of the navigator's window (lavatory window) coaming - and that rivet line is a staggered row that does extend as you note, as has been studied for some time (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg14284.html#msg14284) as well.

Which has also been pointed out up string here with other illustrations, of course.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on September 21, 2014, 06:12:25 PM
Don't the following images (which others have posted before) suggest the patch was raised above the skin of the Electra.  Notice how the light hits the front edge and a shadow is visible along the lower edge.
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=284
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=501
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=787

The Darwin photo Jeff Carter linked to (1st link above--see attachment) shows very nicely where the patch is located on the Electra, but unless I'm mistaken this photo has not yet been utilized for that purpose.  I can see that the bottom edge of the Patch lines up with a rivet line that extends a considerable distance aftward of the patch.  It looks to me that the bottom edge of the patch corresponds with the bottom of the Navigator's window 'coaming'.  Does anyone else agree? Ric?

It has been referenced for quite some time (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg14267.html#msg14267) as to that purpose.

The bottom edge most definitely does correspond to the bottom of the navigator's window (lavatory window) coaming - and that rivet line is a staggered row that does extend as you note, as has been studied for some time (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg14284.html#msg14284) as well.

Which has also been pointed out up string here with other illustrations, of course.

Sorry, Jeff, I didn't mean to slight your earlier posts.

So then, where on Ric's professionally scaled overlay:

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33775.html#msg33775

is the bottom edge of the Patch— is it close to the rivet hole on the ‘tab’, or is it where Ric’s arm is cut off, or somewhere in between? 

And, where is the top edge of the Patch? 

I think it would be very helpful if the professionally scaled overlay could be re-posted with the upper and lower borders indicated.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 21, 2014, 06:24:47 PM
I think it would be very helpful if the professionally scaled overlay could be re-posted with the upper and lower borders indicated.

Yes, that would be nice to have, but as I think I explained earlier, there is insufficient resolution in the patch photo to see precisely where the borders of the patch are.  All we can do is make assumptions about what underlying structures the borders were riveted to.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 21, 2014, 06:35:53 PM

So then, where on Ric's professionally scaled overlay:

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33775.html#msg33775

is the bottom edge of the Patch— is it close to the rivet hole on the ‘tab’, or is it where Ric’s arm is cut off, or somewhere in between? 

And, where is the top edge of the Patch? 

I think it would be very helpful if the professionally scaled overlay could be re-posted with the upper and lower borders indicated.

Mr. Thacker,

It might be worth your time to study the attached image.  The margins of the patch are, I believe, up for interpretation.  I don't believe that anything is cast in concrete as to how the fit is, as of yet.

Edited to add:  Apparently I was too slow in composing this post.  Sorry Mr. G.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 21, 2014, 09:23:38 PM
Sorry, Jeff, I didn't mean to slight your earlier posts.

...


No slight, just thought you might not have been aware - I closed that string a long time ago.  But site exploration is encouraged - tons of stuff lying about on this and so much else  ;)

As Mark and Ric have pointed out, we have some fair estimates - but it's darn hard to get to brass tacks without the bird or without a crystal clear picture of the patch.

Somehow I get the idea Earhart didn't care much for good pictures to be made of the patch - and then again, it was only installed just before she left Miami.  For whatever reason it didn't get much detailed public attention - which makes it all the harder for us now.
Title: Fun with Darwin & the Galápagos Electras
Post by: Jeff Carter on September 21, 2014, 09:24:59 PM
In honor of Darwin's finches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches), a bit of a plumage diagram for the Electra at Darwin.
http://i.imgur.com/O9oWrcx.jpg
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 22, 2014, 11:07:13 AM
Just studying the evidence of an unriveted vertical member on 2-2-V-1 and question arose -

Isn't that evidence on the outside of the patch, not inside, where one would think?  Or have I somehow gotten disoriented in viewing this?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 22, 2014, 11:27:26 AM
Isn't that evidence on the outside of the patch, not inside, where one would think?

That's correct. It's easiest to see on the outside and even so it's very subtle.  It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 22, 2014, 11:58:32 AM
Isn't that evidence on the outside of the patch, not inside, where one would think?

That's correct. It's easiest to see on the outside and even so it's very subtle.  It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

That could be because the vertical member was a channel with the legs notched with the flat part continuous over the top of the horizontal members.  Since the flat part of the narrow vertical channel stuck out more than the horizontal channel, it could be that it dented more if an outside force hit it (or just with the sheet being pressed down by adjacent rivets). Also since its area is more narrow(3/8”), it may be more likely to make a dent than a wider ¾” member. Then, if the piece is dragged and moved around on the reef, it could get worn on the protruding dent's edges. If it protrudes on the outside and not the inside, wear may be more evident on the outside than the inside.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 22, 2014, 12:08:16 PM
That's correct. It's easiest to see on the outside and even so it's very subtle.  It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

Really odd - one more dang mystery here.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 22, 2014, 12:12:12 PM
Isn't that evidence on the outside of the patch, not inside, where one would think?

That's correct. It's easiest to see on the outside and even so it's very subtle.  It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

Not as subtle as one might think.  Can you point me to a pic of the inside of the patch?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 22, 2014, 08:33:44 PM

It's much harder to see on the inside.  Doesn't make sense to me either.

Yes sir, it is harder to see on the inside, from the attached posted in 'The Question of 2-2-V-1 post 204.  Is it possible that it is only on the exterior of the patch for whatever reason?  I am taken by the different coloration on many pictures of 2-2-V-1 throughout the different threads.

You have the advantage of seeing both sides with the naked eye.  Is it possible to get a high resolution image of both sides of the artifact with the same camera, lighting and settings?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 23, 2014, 06:41:10 AM
Is the vertical marking an actual indentation or merely superficial suggesting something layed across the metal effecting the corrosion/encrustation in that spot and in that pattern?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on September 23, 2014, 01:19:50 PM
The clad in alclad is very soft, just pure aluminum.  I might guess the indentation is in the clad.  The clad should only be roughly 5% if I recall correctly.  I forget if its 5% on each side or 2.5% on each side.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 01:27:33 PM
If it protrudes on the outside and not the inside, wear may be more evident on the outside than the inside.

Mr. Daspit, I don't think you can have it both ways unfortunately.  If there is a 'protrusion' on the outside of an .032 sheet or patch of aluminum, there should be a corresponding visual 'depression' on the inside.  Short of there not being one on the inside, it seems more likely that the vertical lines on the outside are the result from a different source.  That in itself will not rule out the provenance of the artifact, nor prove it.  Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 01:42:37 PM
Is it possible to get a high resolution image of both sides of the artifact with the same camera, lighting and settings?

Here are two sets of photos showing the exterior and interior surfaces of the artifact. Each set was taken with the same camera, lighting and settings.  The first set was taken aboard R/V Acania in 1991 immediately after the artifact was first brought aboard.  The second set was taken in 2002.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.

As best I can tell, what we see on the exterior surface are two parallel rows of shallow bumps that have been made more apparent because, being on the convex side of the artifact,  they get scuffed and dirty when the artifact lies on a flat surface.  The bumps are dents on the concave side but they are much harder to see because, being on the concave side and being dents instead of bumps, when the artifact lies on a flat surface they don't touch the surface and don't get scuffed or dirty.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 01:56:45 PM
The clad in alclad is very soft, just pure aluminum.  I might guess the indentation is in the clad.  The clad should only be roughly 5% if I recall correctly.  I forget if its 5% on each side or 2.5% on each side.

Alclad T4 aluminum core material is copper, manganese, magnesium alloy, all non ferrous metals.  If there is an indentation in the material,  it is usually throughout not just in the aluminum clad.  An indentation on the inside most generally causes a protrusion on the outside surface.  A scrape, scratch or wear from rubbing on the outside is a different issue.  Alclad T4 is also heat treated and the aluminum clad is substantially tougher than "very soft" since it is used in aircraft construction.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 23, 2014, 02:09:29 PM
At least now we can say, with a certain degree of safety, that the Great Font Debate of 2014 tends to support 2-2-V-1 as being The Patch as opposed to a part of the factory-built aircraft. So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

LTM, who has never tried to stack stocked stockings in his life,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP


corrected catalog name of this artifact
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 02:13:03 PM
So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

The whole issue of the labeling remnants visible on the surface of the artifact remains unresolved.


corrected catalog name of artifact in the quote
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 02:45:41 PM
Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.

As best I can tell, what we see on the exterior surface are two parallel rows of shallow bumps that have been made more apparent because, being on the convex side of the artifact,  they get scuffed and dirty when the artifact lies on a flat surface.  The bumps are dents on the concave side but they are much harder to see because, being on the concave side and being dents instead of bumps, when the artifact lies on a flat surface they don't touch the surface and don't get scuffed or dirty.

Thank you for the images.  Can I assume, (damn I hate that word) that the discoloration is due to time and being out of the elements?  The vertical lines do not appear to be prominent or at all on the lighter images.  Do you and Mr. Glickman find that as well?  The darker images appear to show the vertical lines on the outside surface.  After a cursory examination using hue, saturation and color balance as I did in my overlay down thread I could not identify it on the inside of the artifact.  I'll burn out more of my corneas trying to bring it up if it is there, at least from what I now have to work with.  Thanks again and back to the regularly scheduled programming whilst I go find my eye drops.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 03:25:28 PM
At least now we can say, with a certain degree of safety, that the Great Font Debate of 2014 tends to support 2-2-V-1 as being The Patch as opposed to a part of the factory-built aircraft. So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

LTM, who has never tried to stack stocked stockings in his life,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Maybe, maybe not!  In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

Scroll down to 'Earhart's Electra'.

http://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/1930s-alcoa-markings/

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/344
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 04:18:19 PM
Can I assume, (damn I hate that word) that the discoloration is due to time and being out of the elements?

I don't think the color has changed much, if any. The difference you see is due to bright outdoor intense Pacific light versus indoor fluorescent light and a flash.

  The vertical lines do not appear to be prominent or at all on the lighter images.  Do you and Mr. Glickman find that as well?

I don't see them on the lighter images.  I can't speak for Glickman.  I don't think he has looked for them on the lighter images.  Here is another set of photos, These were taken under low angle lighting to accentuate bends, dents and bumps.

  The darker images appear to show the vertical lines on the outside surface.

I agree.  There is no question that the lines are there.

  After a cursory examination using hue, saturation and color balance as I did in my overlay down thread I could not identify it on the inside of the artifact.

Okay.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 04:25:16 PM

Here is another set of photos, These were taken under low angle lighting to accentuate bends, dents and bumps.

Did you have 'senior moment' and forget to attach the other set of photos?  ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 04:27:44 PM
In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

The font on the aluminum labeling was determined by ALCOA not Lockheed.  If you have proof that all ALCOA labeling prior to 1935 was Sans Serif, and if the letters on the artifact are Sans Serif as you say, then the artifact aluminum dates from before 1935.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 04:29:14 PM
Did you have 'senior moment' and forget to attach the other set of photos?  ;D

Yep.  Sorry.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 04:45:58 PM
In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

The font on the aluminum labeling was determined by ALCOA not Lockheed.  If you have proof that all ALCOA labeling prior to 1935 was Sans Serif, and if the letters on the artifact are Sans Serif as you say, then the artifact aluminum dates from before 1935.

My bad, fingers engaged, brain in neutral.  Alcoa changed sometime in 1935.  In any event, the patch is not serif and therefore it is not likely from 1936 when the Electra was built.

Edited to add:  The image of the artifact posted on the forum somewhere showed an A or D or both as I recall which were Sans Serif.  I can't seem to find it now.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 05:03:53 PM
Alcoa changed sometime in 1935.

That's a nice flat statement of fact.  Is there some ALCOA document that I have missed or is this a conclusion you have reached by looking at pictures? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on September 23, 2014, 05:27:04 PM
Ive never seen any photos of any discernable print on the artifact. Did I miss it?  Could someone kindly shove me in the right direction?


Krystal "Needs a compass to find her way out of her living room" McGinty
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 23, 2014, 06:28:35 PM
If it protrudes on the outside and not the inside, wear may be more evident on the outside than the inside.

Mr. Daspit, I don't think you can have it both ways unfortunately.  If there is a 'protrusion' on the outside of an .032 sheet or patch of aluminum, there should be a corresponding visual 'depression' on the inside.  Short of there not being one on the inside, it seems more likely that the vertical lines on the outside are the result from a different source.  That in itself will not rule out the provenance of the artifact, nor prove it.  Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.
Mr. Samuels, Sorry if I did not explain that well but I don't see where you got the idea that there wasn't a recess on the inside from my post.  What I understood (maybe assumed) from the previous post on the subject, was that is was less visible on the inside. The point of my post was to explain why I thought it was less visible. Less wear on a recess/ concave shape versus a bump/ convex shape. The worn surface corroding or collecting stuff more than a smooth surface. I think it is a simple concept but I probably did not explain it well. I think Ric cleared it up (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33860.html#msg33860) and added the overall shape shape of the artifact reasoning which I agree with. Same concept, but better explained.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 06:32:54 PM
Ive never seen any photos of any discernable print on the artifact. Did I miss it?  Could someone kindly shove me in the right direction?

Krystal, go to The Riddle of 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html) and scroll down to the section titled Established Facts.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 06:56:19 PM
Alcoa changed sometime in 1935.

That's a nice flat statement of fact.  Is there some ALCOA document that I have missed or is this a conclusion you have reached by looking at pictures?

Working on finding where I found the Alcoa document.  It was not a conclusion by looking at pictures, that I am sure of.  I switched computers since I found it and I may not have copied the bookmark over.  Stay tuned on that.

On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life.  :o ;D

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on September 23, 2014, 07:00:56 PM
Thank you.  I know Ive read that report before but Ive either developed an acute case of amnesia or Im really just that blind.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2014, 07:12:15 PM
On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life.  :o ;D

You ran me around the barn for THAT???  I'll know better next time.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 23, 2014, 07:36:39 PM
On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life.  :o ;D

You ran me around the barn for THAT???  I'll know better next time.

I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been run around the barn.  Now you will really hate me.  After consideration and a bit of testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is, in my opinion, a Serif like a (Times New Roman A D) font.  So it is like the font on the Electra I posted down thread.  You be the judge.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 24, 2014, 12:02:17 AM
I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been run around the barn.  Now you will really hate me.  After consideration and a bit of testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is, in my opinion, a Serif like a (Times New Roman A D) font.  So it is like the font on the Electra I posted down thread.  You be the judge.

Whoaaa....

I always wondered if there was a hint of 'serif' in this thing - just couldn't see it clearly enough to shout about it - now it starts to jump out.

Ric - don't we have an image of the other 'new found' print that Michelle found on 2-2-V-1 in Dayton?  Maybe it can be compared to reveal more?  I wonder what Mark and Michelle can make of this in their experience.

Can it be that we've been looking at serifed fonts all along, just well worn by time and exposure?  I see the hint of what Mark has pointed out - and been tempted to say it before: the "D" always seemed to carry a hint of serif to my eye, but I couldn't define it so well.

That's a high-quality 'blow-up' that seems to tell a lot to my admittedly amateur eye.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 24, 2014, 07:58:27 AM
OK, now I hate myself for letting the horse back out of the barn. And will stick with what I said some time ago - At the end of the day, the font question is going to be immaterial or of very low value in the scale of proof.

Nice piece of tail in that picture, though. Is that your research assistant?

LTM, who has a few well-tailed research assistants of his own,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 24, 2014, 08:05:13 AM
OK, now I hate myself for letting the horse back out of the barn. And will stick with what I said some time ago - At the end of the day, the font question is going to be immaterial or of very low value in the scale of proof.

Nice piece of tail in that picture, though. Is that your research assistant?

LTM, who has a few well-tailed research assistants of his own,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

Maybe it's a trick of the eye, but I think Mark's onto something here.  In the eye of the beholder - take it in and take it for what it's worth, but I can see this now as serifed characters that are badly worn, finer features having disappeared except for a few traces.  Fascinating.

I wish I had a few well-tailed research assistants of my own...  ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on September 24, 2014, 09:12:08 AM
Ric

Out of curiosity, did Jeff image some of the other artifacts with the Hyper-spectral imager?  Things like the compact mirror?

Anything to say about those?

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 24, 2014, 10:18:24 AM
Out of curiosity, did Jeff image some of the other artifacts with the Hyper-spectral imager?  Things like the compact mirror?

Yes, he imaged dozens of artifacts including the compact mirror. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on September 24, 2014, 11:29:20 AM
At least now we can say, with a certain degree of safety, that the Great Font Debate of 2014 tends to support 2-2-V-1 as being The Patch as opposed to a part of the factory-built aircraft. So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

LTM, who has never tried to stack stocked stockings in his life,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Maybe, maybe not!  In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

Whoa! Lockheed changed from sans serif to serif in 1935? Say what??!! Unless I missed something big, it appears that aircraft aluminum font labeling style migrated from serif to sans serif over time. And it is not clear the font on the artifact is sans serif. The font on the artifact appears to have light or reduced serifs. It also appears to be slightly slanted or italicized.

Bottom line: IMHO we can say nothing definitive about the style of the font or its relationship to many variables: time period, type of stock, labeling standards (and variances associated with them) plant origins etc and a bunch of others I'm sure we haven't identified yet:) And of course, the one king hell variable is the working conjecture that this artifact is a patch, the source of which is obscure to say the least. My gut feeling is that the font style on the artifact does in a general way support the idea the artifact could be a patch on Earhart's aircraft.

But the vague abdominal rumblings of a rank amateur is not going to move the investigation forward. Or it shouldn't at any rate.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 24, 2014, 11:42:28 AM
At least now we can say, with a certain degree of safety, that the Great Font Debate of 2014 tends to support 2-2-V-1 as being The Patch as opposed to a part of the factory-built aircraft. So does Alcoa's assertion that the marking we can make out on 2-2-V-1 indicate that it was from reserve or spare stock.

LTM, who has never tried to stack stocked stockings in his life,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Maybe, maybe not!  In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

Whoa! Lockheed changed from sans serif to serif in 1935? Say what??!! Unless I missed something big, it appears that aircraft aluminum font labeling style migrated from serif to sans serif over time. And it is not clear the font on the artifact is sans serif. The font on the artifact appears to have light or reduced serifs. It also appears to be slightly slanted or italicized.

Bottom line: IMHO we can say nothing definitive about the style of the font or its relationship to many variables: time period, type of stock, labeling standards (and variances associated with them) plant origins etc and a bunch of others I'm sure we haven't identified yet:) And of course, the one king hell variable is the working conjecture that this artifact is a patch, the source of which is obscure to say the least. My gut feeling is that the font style on the artifact does in a general way support the idea the artifact could be a patch on Earhart's aircraft.

But the vague abdominal rumblings of a rank amateur is not going to move the investigation forward. Or it shouldn't at any rate.

Glad to have your insight on what we're seeing, Mark.  It looks like a well worn serif font to me, too, and as you note, italicized.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on September 24, 2014, 11:44:35 AM
On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life.  :o ;D

You ran me around the barn for THAT???  I'll know better next time.

I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been run around the barn.  Now you will really hate me.  After consideration and a bit of testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is, in my opinion, a Serif like a (Times New Roman A D) font.  So it is like the font on the Electra I posted down thread.  You be the judge.

Well here I go. Right after I say nothing definitive can be stated about the font on the artifact, I am going to be the judge and say it's not Times New Roman. Or any flavor of Times... unless it's a really poor rendering of Times--which is possible but not likely.

I've seen a lot of font styles in my day and lots of variations on a font theme. And the font on the artifact strikes me as quite individual in character. It's a "Vaguely Serif" font... There. How's that for an expert opinion?:)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 24, 2014, 12:33:26 PM
On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life.  :o ;D

You ran me around the barn for THAT???  I'll know better next time.

I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been run around the barn.  Now you will really hate me.  After consideration and a bit of testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is, in my opinion, a Serif like a (Times New Roman A D) font.  So it is like the font on the Electra I posted down thread.  You be the judge.

Well here I go. Right after I say nothing definitive can be stated about the font on the artifact, I am going to be the judge and say it's not Times New Roman. Or any flavor of Times... unless it's a really poor rendering of Times--which is possible but not likely.

I've seen a lot of font styles in my day and lots of variations on a font theme. And the font on the artifact strikes me as quite individual in character. It's a "Vaguely Serif" font... There. How's that for an expert opinion?:)

"Poor rendering" might lie within the bounds of variations seen in the printing rollers used - if you look at these kinds of figures up close that can be seen.  I'm no expert, but it appears close - within the bounds of what I speak of, to the Times example that Samuels put up.

Now, that's just the gut-rumblings of this armchair amateur!  ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 24, 2014, 01:02:02 PM
I have a couple of questions regarding the previously posted photo titled: “alc24st-earhart-mechanics3[1].jpg

That access does not look like a standard feature that would be found on any of the surviving Electras.  In those photos I don’t see a hinged panel that is swung out of the way.  It must be laying on the ground someplace.  On the blow-up I can see what appears to be the receptacles for Dzus-type fasteners, but, because of the lighting I cannot see the actual holes for the quarter-turn fasteners.  The receptacles themselves appear to be attached with protruding head rivets.

I would guess Lockheed installed the tanks, the picture-frame structure around these openings and whatever panels that covered them.  The bottom of the forward-most cabin tanks can be seen (Those absurdly large fastener heads are a dead give-away!).

The panel in the photo shows the left-hand side.  There would be an opposite-hand  panel for the right-hand side.

My questions are these:

1.  Does Tighar have access to the drawings that modified this area and those that would have detailed these panels?

2.  Have these removable panels been considered as the source of the 2-2-V-1?

I don’t recall access to the cabin tanks through the belly, or the cover panels, being discussed before.  If this topic has been covered, please point me to the right place to look!

Thanks!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jennifer Hubbard on September 24, 2014, 05:56:35 PM
I'm almost starting to wonder if 2-2-V-1 needs subthreads for its various subtopics: font, rivet pattern, edges, paint (or lack thereof), marks and indentations, molds/models/diagrams, photos and imaging, etc. ... Or maybe just a chart or checklist demonstrating which of these show evidence of consistency with the patch, and to what degree?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 24, 2014, 08:13:51 PM
I have a couple of questions regarding the previously posted photo titled: “alc24st-earhart-mechanics3[1].jpg

That access does not look like a standard feature that would be found on any of the surviving Electras.  In those photos I don’t see a hinged panel that is swung out of the way.  It must be laying on the ground someplace.  On the blow-up I can see what appears to be the receptacles for Dzus-type fasteners, but, because of the lighting I cannot see the actual holes for the quarter-turn fasteners.  The receptacles themselves appear to be attached with protruding head rivets.

I would guess Lockheed installed the tanks, the picture-frame structure around these openings and whatever panels that covered them.  The bottom of the forward-most cabin tanks can be seen (Those absurdly large fastener heads are a dead give-away!).

The panel in the photo shows the left-hand side.  There would be an opposite-hand  panel for the right-hand side.

My questions are these:

1.  Does Tighar have access to the drawings that modified this area and those that would have detailed these panels?

2.  Have these removable panels been considered as the source of the 2-2-V-1?

I don’t recall access to the cabin tanks through the belly, or the cover panels, being discussed before.  If this topic has been covered, please point me to the right place to look!

Thanks!

This is where I cropped that image from.  You can enlarge it to where you want to look and you can grab the picture with your cursor and move it around the frame.  I am not sure if this has been discussed before.  I am fairly sure that the cabin tanks were jockeyed through the cabin door and put in place.  Don't believe that the cabin tanks were accessible through the belly.

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/344

Diagram of fuel system in this bulletin.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/61_FuelSystem/61_FuelSystem.htm
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 04:02:30 AM
I believe the open bays seen under the wings are standard for wing tanks in the Electra - those look like the stock wing tanks suspended by typical strapping and the panels were likely screwed into place.  It would be a means of access not just for the tanks, but for other plumbing and rigging through the wing root / nacelle area, I believe.

As Mark Samuels points out, the cabin tanks may have been designed to go in through the cabin door - a close but likely fit.  That's been a bit of a mystery to me, but makes sense.  I've always wondered about a large skin on the right side of the fuselage visible in some photos - looks shinier than surrounding material - could have been another means of access for the large tanks - but makes more sense that Lockheed would have simply designed to use the door.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 25, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
I agree that those tanks came in through the cabin door.  No question.  They do, however, require connection to the fuel system AFTER they are structurally installed.  This would require access from underneath.

The thought I was kicking around was whether or not the panels that cover those openings could be the source of the 2-2-V-1 Patch.

Just like most general aviation aircraft that are delivered by flying them over the Atlantic to destination in Europe, Africa and beyond "commercial" Electras probably would have had to use temporary auxillary tanks for the trip.  This access may have been a standard feature on the Electra.  It would have made the task of designing and installing larger and more tanks on AE's aircraft far easier.

If these access panels are "standard" for the Electra then this has probably already been checked.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 11:39:44 AM
I agree that those tanks came in through the cabin door.  No question.  They do, however, require connection to the fuel system AFTER they are structurally installed.  This would require access from underneath.

The thought I was kicking around was whether or not the panels that cover those openings could be the source of the 2-2-V-1 Patch.

Just like most general aviation aircraft that are delivered by flying them over the Atlantic to destination in Europe, Africa and beyond "commercial" Electras probably would have had to use temporary auxillary tanks for the trip.  This access may have been a standard feature on the Electra.  It would have made the task of designing and installing larger and more tanks on AE's aircraft far easier.

If these access panels are "standard" for the Electra then this has probably already been checked.

Seems to have been thoroughly checked - this bulletin outlines an early fitment review (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/squareone.pdf), and others have followed.  The belly was long suspected as a logical source - I think mainly for two reasons: 1) 2-2-V-1 strongly resembles patterns in that area, and 2) we know that extensive repairs were made to the belly following the Luke Field ground loop event.  The reasons you suggest are also possibilities - possible modifications for various reasons have been part of the review.

If 2-2-V-1 did not come from NR16020, then the mystery is even deeper because in fact a very in depth review of potential origins has been conducted along a number of fronts - including perusal of what we can know today of the L10E's construction facts -

Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin' (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.0.html)

The Question of 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.0.html)

Commission effort (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html)

I personally have not had the privilege of examining an L10 belly up close and personal, but TIGHAR has done so via a number of representatives at various times.  The pictures we have of Earhart's plane's own belly after repairs are not super revealing, but seem to have been given good review as per above.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jon Romig on September 25, 2014, 11:51:44 AM
Hi All

I was looking through photo's and upon looking at following image, i noticed faint lines either side of rivet line obviously the edges of stringer or structure this skin was attached, Do we know the width of the stringers/structure of Electra and do they match these faint lines ?

Thanks Richie

Into the Waves

We now see that the aircraft's skin had been distorted by a force acting from the exterior, so that the skin "registers" the stringers in a way that is still visible.

I have two questions for those more knowledgeable about aircraft construction and maintenance than I:

1. Is it normal for .032 aluminum skin to become distorted like this over time simply due to the action of air passing over the skin?

2. Does a skin get visibly distorted like this during the normal process of assembly and riveting?

For the rest of this post I will assume the answers are no.

If simply flying or assembly won't do this, then there must have been some force acting upon the exterior of the patch while the patch was attached to the stringers, and the stringers were attached to some larger body to resist the force. This is entirely consistent with the aircraft being battered by waves before the patch was removed. In fact it is hard to imagine any other situation that would cause this.

Note that this requires the patch to still be in place when the aircraft was in the waves. Short of a truly calamitous landing which is not well supported by the post-loss signals, the patch was in place for some time after the landing and most likely until at least July 8 (I assume, reasonably I think, that the height of waves required to batter the patch would disable the radio).

Thus the speculation that FN or AE kicked out the patch, either immediately after landing to escape or later for ventilation, is not supported by this logic. The surf had to distort the patch before it was removed from the aircraft.

Jon

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 12:36:46 PM
Hi All

I was looking through photo's and upon looking at following image, i noticed faint lines either side of rivet line obviously the edges of stringer or structure this skin was attached, Do we know the width of the stringers/structure of Electra and do they match these faint lines ?

Thanks Richie

Into the Waves

We now see that the aircraft's skin had been distorted by a force acting from the exterior, so that the skin "registers" the stringers in a way that is still visible.

I have two questions for those more knowledgeable about aircraft construction and maintenance than I:

1. Is it normal for .032 aluminum skin to become distorted like this over time simply due to the action of air passing over the skin?

2. Does a skin get visibly distorted like this during the normal process of assembly and riveting?

For the rest of this post I will assume the answers are no.

If simply flying or assembly won't do this, then there must have been some force acting upon the exterior of the patch while the patch was attached to the stringers, and the stringers were attached to some larger body to resist the force. This is entirely consistent with the aircraft being battered by waves before the patch was removed. In fact it is hard to imagine any other situation that would cause this.

Note that this requires the patch to still be in place when the aircraft was in the waves. Short of a truly calamitous landing which is not well supported by the post-loss signals, the patch was in place for some time after the landing and most likely until at least July 8 (I assume, reasonably I think, that the height of waves required to batter the patch would disable the radio).

Thus the speculation that FN or AE kicked out the patch, either immediately after landing to escape or later for ventilation, is not supported by this logic. The surf had to distort the patch before it was removed from the aircraft.

Jon

What you describe, Jon, is the evidence that Richie saw where stiffeners were riveted to the skin, not the unfastened vertical 'mystery member' that left traces, mostly on the exterior.

It is not unusual for traces of stringer or stiffener contact to be evident where so-fastened; likewise, minor distortions can easily happen during ordinary ground handling just by people leaning their bodies against the contour of the airplane, etc.  Ordinary vibrations and repetitive air loads can also create such evidence where contact is firm within a structure, yes.  Then, if assembled for any reasonable length of time in an outdoor environment - especially the tropics, there may corrosive effects - even if minor, that leave traces.

I've seen the artifact in person and my impression is that all such marks are very subtle - there is no major 'distortion' from stiffener contact (nor from the veritcal member as I understand it) that I've been able to discern. 

What I've also understood is that some unknown 'hydraulic' force, i.e. by wind, waves, explosive gasses, tootsies or other blunt object(s), seem to have worked from the inside surface, not outside, to lend the characteristic convex shape the part generally displays.  It lacks the micro-porosity, pitting and pocking that would indicate the application of conventional explosives.

It could have been worried-loose by AE and Fred in some attempt for whatever reason, removed by another opportunistic harvester, or by mother nature - by any combination of these over time, or in one swift event by some singular effort.  The failures on the part appear chaotic to me - as if there was a partial failure imparted by mishap or mother nature, and a finishing off by additional force(s) being applied. 

Possibililities that come to mind include perhaps, considering for a moment that this IS a part from NR16020, an initial tearing away of the bottom seam from the double row of fasteners where the angular 'saw tooth' failure pattern exhibits: that appears to be a failure in tension by a singular event; it seems consistent with diagonally-applied forces that could impart enough tension to the skin to cause a failure roughly along that staggered line of rivets.  Later might follow some 'worrying' failure elsewhere by repetitive wind or tidal forces - or someone seeing the partially-failed skin as an easy grab and cutting at it with something as crude as a machete along the aft and upper lap joints.  Then the prize might have been taken by bending inward and outward until the rather neat cyclic fatigue failure occurred along the surviving lower leading edge of the part.  All conjecture, but I'm trying to give a reasonable illustration of how the things I see in 2-2-V-1 might have occurred - IMHO.

I don't believe that the overall gross distortions that we see are inconsistent with what I've described.

At some point the rivets attaching the stiffeners, later I think, must have been removed with considerable care; the holes don't bear evidence of failure by force - unless failure in fastener tension: there is some slight dimpling effect around some rivet holes, as I recall.  That might not be too mean a task with reasonable tools once in a modest shop environment.  I don't know what tools there were at Gardner, but if combs and ornaments were being crafted from aircraft skins, then they had some capability.

Just thoughts, hope this helps answer some of your own.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 25, 2014, 01:03:44 PM
...

What I've also understood is that some unknown 'hydraulic' force, i.e. by wind, waves, explosive gasses, tootsies or other blunt object(s), seem to have worked from the inside surface, not outside, to lend the characteristic convex shape the part generally displays.  ...
...

I find it interesting that, in that the pictures (see the Darwin pic esp - reply 560) which show the putative patch in place, the skin doesn't seem to be as taught as other areas of skin. the Darwin photo shows what I see to be a distinct half-moon shaped sagging or wrinkling. Perhaps this has already been discussed?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 01:09:34 PM
...

What I've also understood is that some unknown 'hydraulic' force, i.e. by wind, waves, explosive gasses, tootsies or other blunt object(s), seem to have worked from the inside surface, not outside, to lend the characteristic convex shape the part generally displays.  ...
...

I find it interesting that, in that the pictures (see the Darwin pic esp - reply 560) which show the putative patch in place, the skin doesn't seem to be as taught as other areas of skin. the Darwin photo shows what I see to be a distinct half-moon shaped sagging or wrinkling. Perhaps this has already been discussed?

I wouldn't expect an expediently installed skin from scratch to be as neat as the pre-formed skins on the original bird.  The installer was likely working with a flat sheet without means of hydro-pressing the compound curvature at that section into the 'patch'.

What you observe (and that's a good catch) could be consistent with that - a bit of residual bulging, etc. where the major curve was met, the the fore-and-aft curvature had little place 'to go'.  That could also be all the more reason why so many stiffeners may have been installed - to reduce buckling tendencies or more likely oil canning from such an installation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 25, 2014, 01:14:16 PM
How many times have I heard in the back of a hangar, "Bend to match. Beat to fit."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 01:16:04 PM
LOL!!!

What a "BFH" (Big Freakin' Hammer) is for...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 25, 2014, 01:34:14 PM
...
What you observe (and that's a good catch) could be consistent with that - a bit of residual bulging, etc. where the major curve was met, the the fore-and-aft curvature had little place 'to go'.  That could also be all the more reason why so many stiffeners may have been installed - to reduce buckling tendencies or more likely oil canning from such an installation.

Thank you.  I can only wonder how does that bulge jive with the rivet patterns, both on the artifact and forensically seen in the pictures? One would think that underlying stringers would create more longitudinally linear patterns mitigating any such bulge. The stringers wouldn't have been that far apart.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 25, 2014, 01:39:34 PM
Here's a closer picture taken in Darwin.  Is there a bulge?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 25, 2014, 01:44:54 PM
The old-timers I started to work with always said it was: "Beat to fit.  Paint to match."  (They were, of course, referring to the standard workmanship note included on any repair order or work instruction.)

Ric,

You may know:  Are those openable bays and removeable panels "standard" on the Electra?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 25, 2014, 01:47:50 PM
Here's a closer picture taken in Darwin.  Is there a bulge?

Not that I can see in that picture, but it sure can be seen in this picture:
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=284
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 01:50:02 PM
...
What you observe (and that's a good catch) could be consistent with that - a bit of residual bulging, etc. where the major curve was met, the the fore-and-aft curvature had little place 'to go'.  That could also be all the more reason why so many stiffeners may have been installed - to reduce buckling tendencies or more likely oil canning from such an installation.

Thank you.  I can only wonder how does that bulge jive with the rivet patterns, both on the artifact and forensically seen in the pictures? One would think that underlying stringers would create more longitudinally linear patterns mitigating any such bulge. The stringers wouldn't have been that far apart.

First, as to 'that bulge', how real / prominent is it?  Granted there well may be such a feature, but is is visually exaggerated by the light perhaps?  See Ric's post above.

Second, if it is considerable - the stiffeners might brace that well, good point.  Or they might not.  Depends on how beefy they were and how they may have been conformed to the skin when shot in.  They may have been shot in as an afterthought.  The surviving rivet suggests an aggregate stack-up of .060 according to the NTSB report on 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html).  That is, where that rivet was - and we don't know that all the stiffeners (or whatever was behind this piece) was that thick, others might have been lighter.

.060, if so, is fairly substantial, but again - how big is the 'bulge', truly (not so evident to me, seems to depend on photo angle / light), and how were the underlying pieces laid in?  We don't really know.  I tend to think the bulge may not have been so significant.  See downstring -
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 01:59:57 PM
Here's a closer picture taken in Darwin.  Is there a bulge?

Not that I can see in that picture, but it sure can be seen in this picture:
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=284

That?  (What I've circled in attachment.)

I regard that as a minor pucker that is brought out by the oblique light - small stuff, easily existing even with stiffeners behind the panel.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 25, 2014, 02:04:35 PM
First, as to 'that bulge', how real / prominent is it?  Granted there well may be such a feature, but is is visually exaggerated by the light perhaps?  See Ric's post above.

Could be, I don't know. I doubt its merely superficial coloring - what would be the coincidence? worthy of a Hollywood effect's artist for sure. It certainly looks like a bulge in the skin to me

Second, if it is considerable - the stiffeners might brace that well, good point.  Or they might not.  Depends on how beefy they were and how they may have been conformed to the skin when shot in.  They may have been shot in as an afterthought.  The surviving rivet suggests an aggregate stack-up of .060 according to the NTSB report on 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html). 

That's fairly substantial, but again - how big is the 'bulge', truly (not so evident to me, seems to depend on photo angle / light), and how were the underlying pieces laid in?  We don't really know.  I tend to think the bulge may not have been so significant.

But still, a bulge pulled into and riveted would show evidence of it wouldn't it? Maybe the added bracing wasn't done in Miami after all but post Darwin?  - arrived in Darwin and noticed patch done in Miami was bulging so added reenforcing stringers? Any evidence of work don on the skins post Miami? Just how strong is the rivet lines forensics for Miami pictures?  Don't know, just observing and guessing at scenarios. I see a bulge and would be interested to know how it fits in the scenerio for the patch. 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 25, 2014, 02:08:26 PM

That?  (What I've circled in attachment.)

I regard that as a minor pucker that is brought out by the oblique light - small stuff, easily existing even with stiffeners behind the panel.

You circled but a tree, step back and see the forest. Easily twice as wide as you circle and again taller, taking up much of the panel. A very broad and shallow U shape.

Gotta go, hopefully you can see what I'm talking about. will rejoin tomorrow.

t
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 02:09:04 PM
First, as to 'that bulge', how real / prominent is it?  Granted there well may be such a feature, but is is visually exaggerated by the light perhaps?  See Ric's post above.

Could be, I don't know. I doubt its merely superficial coloring - what would be the coincidence? worthy of a Hollywood effect's artist for sure. It certainly looks like a bulge in the skin to me

Second, if it is considerable - the stiffeners might brace that well, good point.  Or they might not.  Depends on how beefy they were and how they may have been conformed to the skin when shot in.  They may have been shot in as an afterthought.  The surviving rivet suggests an aggregate stack-up of .060 according to the NTSB report on 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html). 

That's fairly substantial, but again - how big is the 'bulge', truly (not so evident to me, seems to depend on photo angle / light), and how were the underlying pieces laid in?  We don't really know.  I tend to think the bulge may not have been so significant.

But still, a bulge pulled into and riveted would show evidence of it wouldn't it? Maybe the added bracing wasn't done in Miami after all but post Darwin?  - arrived in Darwin and noticed patch done in Miami was bulging so added reenforcing stringers? Any evidence of work don on the skins post Miami? Just how strong is the rivet lines forensics for Miami pictures?  Don't know, just observing and guessing at scenarios. I see a bulge and would be interested to know how it fits in the scenerio for the patch.

I've worked a lot of stubborn metal and it looks like a superficial 'pucker' to me - just enough 'hump' to create a minor shadow in oblique light.  I don't see it as being of any particular consequence to the supposition of skin and stringers installed in Miami, personally, just MHO of course.  YMMV, no sweat.

In fact, it may actually be the result of 'chasing' a distortation down to the smallest area possible trying to get a flat skin to conform - by the installation of stiffeners.  Seen that effect enough times to recognize it too.

Make your own judgment, of course.  That's mine, given my own experience.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 02:10:29 PM

That?  (What I've circled in attachment.)

I regard that as a minor pucker that is brought out by the oblique light - small stuff, easily existing even with stiffeners behind the panel.

You circled but a tree, step back and see the forest. Easily twice as wide as you circle and again taller, taking up much of the panel. A very broad and shallow U shape.

Gotta go, hopefully you can see what I'm talking about. will rejoin tomorrow.

t

Then please by all means circle what you are talking about (and don't imply selectivity on my part) - I don't see anything more than minor, expected variances for such a panel.  Much ado over nothing that I can see, Tim. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jon Romig on September 25, 2014, 02:14:57 PM
Thanks, Jeff for your detailed and thoughtful explanation (and refutation!).

1. I confused the exterior markings from the vertical frame 307 strut with the interior marks from the stringers. So my question is minimized, but still of some interest: how would the replacement member at frame 307 come to read on the exterior of the patch? I can imagine a makeshift frame member that did not fit the curve of the skin very well but was too strong to bend further once in place (and thus did not contact the skin much and could not be riveted), but some part of it bulged too far, distorting the skin enough to read on the exterior along a part of its length. The stringers could have been discontinuous and fastened in place after the 307 frame element.

2. Many of our scenarios for how the patch became detached bear upon how firmly the new stringers and strut at 307 were attached to the "original" airframe. If the motivation for the patch was to improve the rigidity of the airframe, we should expect these connections to be quite strong. How difficult would it have been, using just hand tools or even sheer muscle power (kicking?), to break these connections? It seems to me that one would have to both break these connections AND tear a hole in the .032 skin of the patch to create an escape route. Can one simply kick a hole in the skin of an Electra? Can you then kick the stringers out by breaking their connections to the rest of the frame?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on September 25, 2014, 02:33:16 PM

That?  (What I've circled in attachment.)

I regard that as a minor pucker that is brought out by the oblique light - small stuff, easily existing even with stiffeners behind the panel.

You circled but a tree, step back and see the forest. Easily twice as wide as you circle and again taller, taking up much of the panel. A very broad and shallow U shape.

Gotta go, hopefully you can see what I'm talking about. will rejoin tomorrow.

t

Then please by all means circle what you are talking about (and don't imply selectivity on my part) - I don't see anything more than minor, expected variances for such a panel.  Much ado over nothing that I can see, Tim.

I believe Tim is referring to this:

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 25, 2014, 02:40:08 PM
It's either just the way the light is reflecting off the patch or it's a map of the 18th Congressional District in Kansas.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 25, 2014, 03:58:27 PM
Here's a closer picture taken in Darwin.  Is there a bulge?

Not that I can see in that picture, but it sure can be seen in this picture:
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=284

And we're looking at the same area, so it must not be much of a 'feature', but just enough of one to show up if light is just right?  Looks like reasonably smooth skin to me.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on September 25, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
A really good metal worker could have rolled that patch well enough so that the "pucker" that is visible would not be there.  From experience I can tell you that is hard to do.  He would have to use an English Wheel and a good bit of time.  It could be that it fit fairly well when the fastening began and the "pucker" showed up when he was fairly well along --- far enough along that he could not do anything about it.  The only good way to get a piece of metal to match the fuselage contour perfectly is to stretch-form the material over a form-block that matches the contour where the material will eventually be installed.  The "pucker" in the material would support the theory of a field fabricated part and installation. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on September 26, 2014, 06:36:10 AM

I believe Tim is referring to this:

Yes that's it exactly. I'll see if I can find it in another picture. If it is indeed a slight bulge, however minor, then why don't the supposed rivet lines effect it?  It's not as though you can't see other rivet lines on the fuselage.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 26, 2014, 07:51:50 AM
I believe Tim is referring to this:

That's nothing but generalized who-knows-what - it is not distinctively deformed metal at all, as I see it.  Were there such a large area of deformation of any significance I believe it would show clearly in other photos of the area.  It does not, that I've seen.

It also appears to fit within the background of other 'irregularities' in the structure here and there - this is probably mostly due to lighting and a somewhat flight-dingy airplane skin in need of a wash IMO.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 26, 2014, 11:22:09 AM
Can one simply kick a hole in the skin of an Electra? Can you then kick the stringers out by breaking their connections to the rest of the frame?

Why would anyone have to kick out the patch when there was a cabin door and a forward overhead hatch to escape from?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Friend Weller on September 26, 2014, 11:37:00 AM
Can one simply kick a hole in the skin of an Electra? Can you then kick the stringers out by breaking their connections to the rest of the frame?

Why would anyone have to kick out the patch when there was a cabin door and a forward overhead hatch to escape from?

Distortion of the fuselage from a possible rough landing might render the cabin door inoperable.  Ventilation and access to the rear cabin without crawling over the fuel tanks to access the cockpit hatch come to mind.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 26, 2014, 12:48:36 PM
Can one simply kick a hole in the skin of an Electra? Can you then kick the stringers out by breaking their connections to the rest of the frame?

Why would anyone have to kick out the patch when there was a cabin door and a forward overhead hatch to escape from?

Distortion of the fuselage from a possible rough landing might render the cabin door inoperable.  Ventilation and access to the rear cabin without crawling over the fuel tanks to access the cockpit hatch come to mind.

"Possible" - "might" - good operative words there, Friend.

Not to deny those possibilities, but what is the simplest equation?  Personally, I find it unlikely that someone 'kicked' out this panel because of how it was attached.

I've already described a "possible" failure scenario, but one glaring part of the failure that resulted in separation of this part from it's host structure is that ragged, diagonal rip line where we believe the double row of fasteners was: the part had to be substantially attached elsewhere for that kind of tension failure to have occurred.  "Kicking" the panel out doesn't fit that; a fire-ax doesn't fit it either - that tearing is the result of high enough diagonal stresses to initiate a ripping at that double seam.

Why would the failure start at the double seam, with larger fasteners instead of where the smaller fasteners were?  Because of the number of holes per inch and size of the holes (more and larger) - less sheet material in cross section to withstand the forces - that can be the downside of oversized fasteners in light sheet. 

In this case, the sheet failed before the fasteners did; the perilous forces also may have been concentrated in one corner of the sheet at first, sparing the rest of the sheet from causing failure of the smaller fasteners (which were small enough that they might have failed, if subjected to the same concentrated stress).

Just my thoughts.  Maybe there's a structures guy among us who can do the yellow sheet on it and give a better opinion.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Friend Weller on September 26, 2014, 03:16:55 PM
"Possible" - "might" - good operative words there, Friend.

Just trying to avoid the dreaded W-word!   ;D

I agree with you, the likelihood of kicking or chopping out the patch seems low but worthy of investigation (Betty's notes about an irrational male presence in the cabin/cockpit lends some credence to this possibility).  However, structural weakness of the fuselage from the bi-sected FS 307 stiffeners coupled with hydraulic & mechanical forces/fatiguing appear to be a simpler, less convoluted explanation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Samuels on September 26, 2014, 03:49:36 PM
Can one simply kick a hole in the skin of an Electra? Can you then kick the stringers out by breaking their connections to the rest of the frame?

Why would anyone have to kick out the patch when there was a cabin door and a forward overhead hatch to escape from?

Distortion of the fuselage from a possible rough landing might render the cabin door inoperable.  Ventilation and access to the rear cabin without crawling over the fuel tanks to access the cockpit hatch come to mind.

I believe I would opt for trying to kick a stuck cabin door open than a part of the aircraft with a hundred or so rivets holding a patch in.  As far as crawling over the tanks, Amelia didn't seem to have a problem and nor would Fred have if capable.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on September 26, 2014, 05:06:49 PM
Would the two Plexiglas windows in the fuselage be easier to break out to provide an exit ?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 26, 2014, 07:23:50 PM
Yes.  Said to be small, but I think I could squirt through those.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on September 27, 2014, 01:14:28 AM
Im no mechanic so Im only offering this in speculation.

You've just landed on an island. You've, theoretically, have spent several days crying out to thin air, growing more and more desperate each day. Each sunset, your hope of quick rescue slips further and further away. Hypothetically, you dumped most, if not all, of your emergency equipment for the sake of weight back in New Guinea or before that.  Now you are on an uninhabited island, without readily available food, water, shelter, etc, with little more than a makeup case, the clothes on your back, and whatever you can salvage from the airplane.

So the tide is threatening to take the plane over the edge. You know that a patch was placed over a window. Its riveted but unlike the rest of the airplane, it is installed after the fact and possibly weaker than the surrounding structure. You have no cooking surface/water collection device/ material for weapons against mutant crabs etc.  You're terrified, hungry, thirsty, frightened, desperate, hurting, regretful and all feelings in between. You arent likely to have much luck disassembling an Electra, teetering on a reef, without an impressive array of tools....but there is that patch.  Now, it is a long shot and this is purely speculation, but if someone is desperate enough, the body can achieve superhuman feats.  We have documented accounts of it.  I can even offer my own.

When I was 14, we had a gas explosion that trapped my brother in our garage (It was walled off inside for use as my dads work shop) . My brother was burned 70% of his body.  After my dad literally ripped the side door off its hinges to rescue him, I realized that his work truck was parked in the driveway, practically against a house that was burning down. Without it, my dad couldnt work.  Without help or anyone telling me to, I jumped in, put it in neutral and pushed it up our driveway from the drivers side door, to get it away from the house.  A scrawny 14 year old pushed a 1 1/2 ton flatbed truck up an incline, 20 feet.  I barely remember it. I was 5'9 and weighed all of maybe 125 lbs at the time. But I had just seen my brother covered in 3rd degree burns, my mom screaming, my home on fire, and my dad dragging a garden hose around to put my little brother out....I was helpless, terrified, and saw something, ANYTHING I could do.  Its a true story and printed in the December 13th, 1996 St. Louis Post dispatch if you care to look it up.

The point Im making is that it may seem impossible to "kick out the patch"...but if desperation is getting the better of you, you'd be surprised what you are capable of. So maybe she/he/both of them knew that they needed to salvage what they could of the Electra and did whatever they had to. We still cant be certain what, if any, tools they had on board but it offers just one more theory.

Or maybe its just a random piece of aircraft aluminum that washed ashore from an offshore wreck. We wont know until we know.


Krystal "Still sleeps with a fire extinguisher in her bedroom" McGinty
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2014, 07:58:15 AM
You raise an interesting point, Krystal - and I'm sorry about your family's tragedy and hope your brother has recovered well.

The patch could well be removed with some basic tools - maybe with enough raw human force, but I have doubts.

What I point to now is the failure mode that we see along the bottom of the patch - where the double row is: that suggests a different mode of failure.  Because of the direction of the tearing it appears from a diagonal stress dealt in a harsh, singe event - and the failure is in tension.  Beating the panel out would not do that, nor would going after it with an ax, etc.

But it is possible that there was some singular event that partially detached the patch in that area, leaving other areas to be removed by human means, perhaps.  Unfortunately we don't have the actual edges of the part as they existed then - it seems to have been trimmed from its original size - perhaps in the process of removal (which may support your idea, actually).

Very interesting.  All these things may help us to understand what happened in more detail should we ever finally tie all the pieces together to solve this for good.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 27, 2014, 08:55:25 AM
You've just landed on an island. You've, theoretically, have spent several days crying out to thin air, growing more and more desperate each day. Each sunset, your hope of quick rescue slips further and further away. Hypothetically, you dumped most, if not all, of your emergency equipment for the sake of weight back in New Guinea or before that.  Now you are on an uninhabited island, without readily available food, water, shelter, etc, with little more than a makeup case, the clothes on your back, and whatever you can salvage from the airplane.

So the tide is threatening to take the plane over the edge. You know that a patch was placed over a window. Its riveted but unlike the rest of the airplane, it is installed after the fact and possibly weaker than the surrounding structure. You have no cooking surface/water collection device/ material for weapons against mutant crabs etc.  You're terrified, hungry, thirsty, frightened, desperate, hurting, regretful and all feelings in between. You arent likely to have much luck disassembling an Electra, teetering on a reef, without an impressive array of tools....but there is that patch.  Now, it is a long shot and this is purely speculation, but if someone is desperate enough, the body can achieve superhuman feats.

How, and by what or whom, the patch got knocked out is a mystery.  The scenario you describe seems plausible.  Other scenarios also seem possible.  The edge failures and the dents, cuts, and scratches on the surface are good clues as to what happened but we need expert help in interpreting them.  How much of the damage could have been caused by human action and how much had too have been caused by some greater force?  The answer to that question should be quantifiable. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2014, 08:57:35 AM
Agreed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 27, 2014, 09:00:34 AM
All of this is fascinating, and can keep you up wayyyyyyyyyyyy to late at night, mapping scenarios in your mind.

But ...

We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If the rear door is jammed for some reason, why whack away at aluminum when you have two Plexiglas windows right there? Granted, Plexi is still very tough stuff, but not as tough as aluminum riveted to more aluminum. Although as Krystal notes so elegantly, human beings are capable of doing amazing things while under stress. And I can think of few things more stressful than being trapped in an aircraft as the ocean waves pull it over the reef edge into the abyss.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

P.S. - I agree with Ric that an expert may be able to give us some guidance on the story that the various kinds of failures tell. The key is finding that expert. I see another internet quest for whoever is willing.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on September 27, 2014, 09:09:17 AM
I know its not Lockheed, but St. Louis is big Boeing (Formerly Douglas aircraft) hub. I literally live down the street from the local metal workers union office.  They might be able to recommend someone or at least point us in the right direction..
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 27, 2014, 09:22:10 AM
I'm going to call NTSB and ask them to recommend a forensic metallurgist with experience in aircraft crash investigation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 27, 2014, 09:30:25 AM
We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Newer Forumites may benefit from knowing about what Monty refers to as "the razor." There's an entry about Occam's Razor in TIGHAR's FAQ (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/razor.htm), and a deeper explanation can be studied on Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor). But in the spirit of The Razor, the good old short explanation summarizes it nicely: K.I.S.S. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2014, 09:52:58 AM
K.I.S.S. is key, agreed; 'what if' is fun and might lead to some considerations when the time comes to further sort details out, but the start has to be 'the thing got removed somehow; gee, look at this rip line...'

Which supports Ric's suggestion - and that would be a great thing.  Hopefully they'll help or point us well - after all, they helped with 2-2-V-1 before; may give them some cause to wish to help a bit further.

I believe a good metallurgical exam can reveal a great deal about the two modes of failure that are evident - the tension failure where the 'shark teeth' are along the double rivet row, and the cyclic fatigue failure near FS 293; the latter almost certainly had to occur after the former, IMO.  The rest seems up for grabs since it looks like the part was hacked-out of the host structure somehow.  Which is of course only MHO.

The razor should prevail.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on September 27, 2014, 09:58:55 AM
We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Newer Forumites may benefit from knowing about what Monty refers to as "the razor." There's an entry about Occam's Razor in TIGHAR's FAQ (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/razor.htm), and a deeper explanation can be studied on Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor). But in the spirit of The Razor, the good old short explanation summarizes it nicely: K.I.S.S. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle)

Great explanation Bruce ;) One of the best I have seen. I even understand it ;D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on September 27, 2014, 10:21:14 AM
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses no zebras.

Im familiar with the "razor" reference. I'm not trying to present any kind of "new theory."  Im a flight dispatcher not a metallurgist or mechanic so I cant tell you if its truly plausible or not. The question was presented "Why would someone kick/cut/rip out a metal plate from the airplane when they had a cabin door/cockpit hatch/ plexiglass wind screen etc."  I just stated one scenario...maybe it wasnt a "Get out of the airplane" thing so much as it was a "Get whatever we can from the airplane" thing.  Im sure we could come up with a million and a half uses for a big scrap of metal if we were marooned on a God-forsaken island in the middle of the oblivion that is the south Pacific.   Then it was presented that it might be "impossible" to remove the patch without tools, weapons, a priest etc.  I provided a scenario where a woman of similar height, weight and build to Earhart did the "impossible" out of sheer desperation.  Not saying that it's fact or fiction.


Krystal "Will never be that skinny again" McGinty
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 27, 2014, 05:42:22 PM
We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Newer Forumites may benefit from knowing about what Monty refers to as "the razor." There's an entry about Occam's Razor in TIGHAR's FAQ (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/razor.htm), and a deeper explanation can be studied on Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor). But in the spirit of The Razor, the good old short explanation summarizes it nicely: K.I.S.S. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle)

K.I.S.S. links 2-2-V-1 to sources like the 1943 C-47A crash on Sydney Island, or the wrecks on Canton Island, before AE's Electra.  It's not a popular view here I know, but that's the way I see it.  Both the Sydney Island crash and Canton Island are mentioned in the 2012 book "Guano and the Opening of the Pacific World,"  By Gregory T. Cushman;
Page 236....

"Islanders throughout the central and western Pacific were intensely dissatisfied by their treatment by both sides during the war.  On occasion, brief prosperity rained down from the skies.  An airplane fell to earth on Sydney Island, presenting a valuable source of sheet aluminum. American warplanes dropped Hershey chocolate bars, Wrigley's gum, bars of soap, and cigarettes over the  Phoenix Island settlements.  Colonists were mostly indifferent to North American consumer goods, although they greatly valued the opportunity work at the bustling new airport on Canton Island and to supply its souvenir shops with handicrafts.  On their home islands, many Gilbertese protested against the reimposition of British rule after the departure of the Americans at the end of the war, especially when they dumped vast numbers of vehicles and other military "surplus" out at sea, based on the supposition the Gilbert Islanders were not ready for the machine age."

----------------------

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html

"The crash on Sydney Island is of special interest to us because the Gilbertese settlers there were said to have used the wartime wreck as a source of aluminum. In the years after the war some of the Sydney residents came to live on Nikumaroro and it seems likely that they may have brought pieces of wreckage with them as raw material. Understanding just what happened on Sydney might help us better understand what we’ve found on “Niku” and either eliminate or further substantiate the artifacts suspected of being from the Earhart aircraft."

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on September 27, 2014, 08:01:08 PM
It might seem so, but that aircraft was significantly destroyed in a post crash fire which is not evident in 2-2-V-1.  In addition, as a late 1943 constructed aircraft headed to the Pacific, the Sydney C-47 should have had the zinc chromate anti corrosion treatment that is not evident on the artifact.  No, I don't know for a fact that all C-47s built in 1943 had zinc chromate, so that is a question yet to be answered definitively.

My understanding is that despite trying, matching 2-2-V-1 to a C-47 has proven as elusive as matching it to any other aircraft.  Ric could expound further, but I don't think there are many (any?) areas on a C-47 that used the #3 rivets on the 0.032" aluminum.  The only un-burnt parts of the Sydney C-47 seem to be the wings outboard of the engines.  Was there 0.32" skin used in the wings outboard of the engines?

Then there is the matter of the Alcoa guys indicating that 2-2-V-1 came from repair stock, not new construction stock.  Did the wing repair to 43-30739 on Canton use that thickness skin?  Was there any 0.032" aluminum used in the wing structure?  If not, it becomes hard to get 0.032" repair stock aluminum on an aircraft that was only 2 months and 12 days old at the time of the crash.

K.I.S.S begins to point in other directions when you consider the Sydney crash details.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on September 27, 2014, 09:14:06 PM
Then there is the matter of the Alcoa guys indicating that 2-2-V-1 came from repair stock, not new construction stock.  Did the wing repair to 43-30739 on Canton use that thickness skin?  Was there any 0.032" aluminum used in the wing structure?  If not, it becomes hard to get 0.032" repair stock aluminum on an aircraft that was only 2 months and 12 days old at the time of the crash.

A minor point, but offered for consideration, from"The Riddle of 2-2-V-1" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html), Findings #2, (05/02/2014)

"In 1993, .... Matching the lettering style to labeling found on three aircraft – two Lockheed Electras and a C-47 – we concluded that the letters were probably part of a sequence that originally read 'ALCOA R. T. .032″ ALCLAD 24S-T3 AN-A-13.'  In 1996, .... The “13,” they [ALCOA engineers] said, signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction. No documentation was offered to support their explanation.
"Recent research by members of the on-line TIGHAR Forum suggests that the Alcoa engineers may have been mistaken in some respects. The AN-A-13 specification appears to have been introduced some time between 1941 and 1943 and has to do with the physical properties of the sheet rather than 'reserve stock.'  The actual specification has not been found, nor do we know whether AN-A-13 was ever on the artifact or when Alcoa started using the lettering style seen on 2-2-V-1
." [emphasis added]

To me this suggests that there is no reason to think that 2-2-V-1 came from reserve stock, but I welcome interpretation from others.  It is also interesting to see that the actual lettering style that was found on 2-2-V-1 was matched to a C-47 as well as an Electra.


Diego


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2014, 09:14:47 PM
We have thoroughly K.I.S.S.ed the C-47 and found nothing close, despite promising looking areas.

One might argue that a war time C-47 could have had non-standard repairs here and there, but if I have the right C-47, it was new, having had one repair of record where a wing was dinged in transit.  That might be a possibility except one encounters the same problem with fitment to any known structure on the C-47 that we did with the belly and other areas of the L10.  Which is largely how we came to focus on the lavatory custom window cover as a possibility (there would be no underlying structure to govern what may have been an improvised installation).

Lots of things are still possible and 2-2-V-1 could go either way - toward or away from, NR16020 as a source at some point.

But rest assured - K.I.S.S. was alive and well when the C-47 and many other possible sources were examined; 2-2-V-1 could be a wild card yet from another type, but what a number of 'coincidental' ties it suggests with NR16020.  Kind of neat, we'll see in time.

ADDED: As to the mysterious 'font' scheme -

I recognize that the font style question could be a disqualifier, but as yet I don't see it as such: no one has provided a definitive history of font style usage in the aluminum industry that would rule out what we think we see on 2-2-V-1 as era-correct.  The examples on the C-47 and L10 could have come from anywhere, anytime - that is realized.  I believe we already debunked the 'reserve stock' as an erroneous statement given by the aluminum maker; it is merely a 'different font' - origin and time unknown, except we of course find latter-day examples (duh).  Was aluminum stocked in Miami marked differently than that stocked in Burbank?  How many plants did Alcoa have, how many runs, how many methods of marking, when did they change / were multiple methods in use / different locations?  Who ordered what / when?  Have we seen examples of fonts from the Pan Am flying boats?  They were a big customer in the Miami area, in all likelihood.  No doubt there were others with stock there.

We have had examples provided that suggest that sans-serif is a later device, but those are not conclusively proving - and we have seen a surprising number of variables from various eras.  We also seem to think that what we see on 2-2-V-1 is an italicized sans-serif, but have some reason to question that as well: what is left of the image is not so clear, and bears some suggestion of serif presence to some eyes.

We continue to have an arguable fit for 2-2-V-1, as well - still being investigated; to the degree 'a fit' is not proven, it remains that a 'non-fit' is also not proven.  How likely is it?  I'm a big fan - but have always held it to be a long-shot.  Now we're closer than ever to finding out - I must know, and that means sticking it out beyond the fluff of too much argument: press on for the hard-headed answer as best we can get it, up or down.

Want to believe? 

Then you have to take a chance and examine sans-bias the best that you can; but you have to have some bias toward believing that a given prospect has a good degree of success, or you merely question, question, question while others dig, dig, dig.  Grab a shovel and believe in the prospect, if you'd like to take the chance. 

If you don't want to take the chance, well, most people don't I guess.  And oddly, many of those can't seem to stand others of us laboring that way and would dissuade  ::).  For me that's that world Earhart herself didn't care for - the one where nothing ever happens.  She was flawed, but she did a lot - how wise may be questionable - the object of our search screams that loud and clear.  But we still care and look, don't we?  "Something happened".  Something can yet happen as well.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 28, 2014, 12:31:07 AM
Then there is the matter of the Alcoa guys indicating that 2-2-V-1 came from repair stock, not new construction stock.  Did the wing repair to 43-30739 on Canton use that thickness skin?  Was there any 0.032" aluminum used in the wing structure?  If not, it becomes hard to get 0.032" repair stock aluminum on an aircraft that was only 2 months and 12 days old at the time of the crash.

A minor point, but offered for consideration, from"The Riddle of 2-2-V-1" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html), Findings #2, (05/02/2014)

"In 1993, .... Matching the lettering style to labeling found on three aircraft – two Lockheed Electras and a C-47 – we concluded that the letters were probably part of a sequence that originally read 'ALCOA R. T. .032″ ALCLAD 24S-T3 AN-A-13.'  In 1996, .... The “13,” they [ALCOA engineers] said, signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction. No documentation was offered to support their explanation.
"Recent research by members of the on-line TIGHAR Forum suggests that the Alcoa engineers may have been mistaken in some respects. The AN-A-13 specification appears to have been introduced some time between 1941 and 1943 and has to do with the physical properties of the sheet rather than 'reserve stock.'  The actual specification has not been found, nor do we know whether AN-A-13 was ever on the artifact or when Alcoa started using the lettering style seen on 2-2-V-1
." [emphasis added]

To me this suggests that there is no reason to think that 2-2-V-1 came from reserve stock, but I welcome interpretation from others.  It is also interesting to see that the actual lettering style that was found on 2-2-V-1 was matched to a C-47 as well as an Electra.


Diego

Diego, here is the "AD" from 2-2-V-1 set near "Labeling on fuselage modifications, Lockheed Electra cn 1015"

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1993Vol_9/Markings.pdf]

(http://i.imgur.com/yfWrMi4.png)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2014, 09:21:19 AM
Thanks for posting that image.  Contrary to our earlier impression, it's clear that the font on the artifact is different from the font used on the AN-A-13 designation.  The font on the artifact is serifed and the shape of the space within the D entirely different.

In earlier discussions you made a compelling case that the AN-A-13 specification appeared circa 1942. If the AD on 2-2-V-1 is part of "ALCAD 24ST T3 AN-A-13" as we once thought, it would disqualify the artifact as dating from 1937.  That has been worrying me, even as the evidence snowballs that 2-2-V-1 is from the Miami Patch. Now we can see that our earlier impression was wrong.   Yes, AN-A-13 came along later and metal marked AN-A-13 ended up on repairs made to a C-47 and a Lockheed 10 but that is all irrelevant.  The fonts are different.  We still don't have a match for the font seen on 2-2-V-1 but at least we know it has nothing to do with AN-A-13.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on September 28, 2014, 09:54:07 AM
Ric

Did the hyper spectral imaging of the ALCLAD lettering on 2-2-V-1 reveal any clearer rendition of the fonts?  Not knowing the capabilities and nuances of hyper spectral imaging, I can only imagine that it would enhance the lettering, but that may only be in my mind.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2014, 10:06:10 AM
Did the hyper spectral imaging of the ALCLAD lettering on 2-2-V-1 reveal any clearer rendition of the fonts?  Not knowing the capabilities and nuances of hyper spectral imaging, I can only imagine that it would enhance the lettering, but that may only be in my mind.

We don't know yet whether the hyperspectral data will give us any more information about the lettering.  It's not like taking a photograph. The data have to be processed and then interpreted.  Jeff said it would take several weeks (he has a day job). If there are remnants of lettering there that are outside the visual spectrum, the hyperspectral imaging should pick that up. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 28, 2014, 10:43:11 AM
Really cool if that happens.  What's left of the characters is in poor condition, and by the late-find of an additional character (Michelle in Dayton) we can reasonably expect there could be more.

I have to admit that I came to wonder just what the hyper-spectral imaging might really tell us about 2-2-V-1 after all this time, but can see that this may be one example and I hope it pans out well.  There must be traces of those characters that we simply cannot see with the human eye under normal magnification, etc.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 28, 2014, 10:53:35 AM
Thanks for posting that image.  Contrary to our earlier impression, it's clear that the font on the artifact is different from the font used on the AN-A-13 designation.  The font on the artifact is serifed and the shape of the space within the D entirely different.

In earlier discussions you made a compelling case that the AN-A-13 specification appeared circa 1942. If the AD on 2-2-V-1 is part of "ALCAD 24ST T3 AN-A-13" as we once thought, it would disqualify the artifact as dating from 1937.  That has been worrying me, even as the evidence snowballs that 2-2-V-1 is from the Miami Patch. Now we can see that our earlier impression was wrong.   Yes, AN-A-13 came along later and metal marked AN-A-13 ended up on repairs made to a C-47 and a Lockheed 10 but that is all irrelevant.  The fonts are different.  We still don't have a match for the font seen on 2-2-V-1 but at least we know it has nothing to do with AN-A-13.

Here is an example of Alclad marked with Italics, Serifs, and... AN-A-13.

(http://www.questmasters.us/sitebuilder/images/B-24_Bomb_Racks_5-532x489.jpg)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 28, 2014, 11:09:30 AM
Cool, another variant!  Shows that serifs were still around in the 'modern era' I guess.

Can you get some more examples?  The more the better.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2014, 11:20:57 AM
That's interesting.  The top piece has what appears to be two separate but different labels stamped on it.  The D in ALCLAD 24 S-T seems to be fairly close to the D we see on 2-2-V-1 and the AN-A-13 specification does not appear as part of that stamp.
The lower stamp is unlike what we see on the artifact and seems to be specifically an AN-A-13 stamp.

 This would seem to confirm that there was an ALCLAD 24 S-T stamp in a font resembling that seen on the artifact that existed separate from stamps containing the AN-A-13 designation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 28, 2014, 11:38:00 AM
That's interesting.  The top piece has what appears to be two separate but different labels stamped on it.  The D in ALCLAD 24 S-T seems to be fairly close to the D we see on 2-2-V-1 and the AN-A-13 specification does not appear as part of that stamp.
The lower stamp is unlike what we see on the artifact and seems to be specifically an AN-A-13 stamp.

 This would seem to confirm that there was an ALCLAD 24 S-T stamp in a font resembling that seen on the artifact that existed separate from stamps containing the AN-A-13 designation.

...and THAT makes me wonder if stock that was lying around got re-identified later after the spec emerged.

If I recall correctly, the spec simply identified a manufacturing feature that was already in existence - it merely validated a certain attribute.  Now if I can remember what that was...  ???

Real point here, I think - TONS of combinations and possibilities as to how sheet stock was marked are out there, from all eras.  The more examples we can see, the more likely we are to clear up what is on 2-2-V-1 - and perhaps clear up any doubt about 'era' as well.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on September 28, 2014, 12:07:41 PM
That's interesting.  The top piece has what appears to be two separate but different labels stamped on it.  The D in ALCLAD 24 S-T seems to be fairly close to the D we see on 2-2-V-1 and the AN-A-13 specification does not appear as part of that stamp.
The lower stamp is unlike what we see on the artifact and seems to be specifically an AN-A-13 stamp.

 This would seem to confirm that there was an ALCLAD 24 S-T stamp in a font resembling that seen on the artifact that existed separate from stamps containing the AN-A-13 designation.

...and THAT makes me wonder if stock that was lying around got re-identified later after the spec emerged.

Real point here, I think - TONS of combinations and possibilities as to how sheet stock was marked are out there, from all eras.  The more examples we can see, the more likely we are to clear up what is on 2-2-V-1 - and perhaps clear up any doubt about 'era' as well.

Jeff, as sketched out below by Jeff Carter in April, there appears to be NO variation in Alclad markings in the pre-war era.  The font appears to have followed a single pattern. 

I now tend to see the italics found on 2-2-V-1 as more of a 'disqualifier' than anything else.  Alclad labels appear to have used italic fonts only during the war, and post-war eras.

http://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/   

----------------------------------------------------------

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg31293.html#msg31293

The question I wrestle with is that the forum has discovered numerous examples (over 20) of labelled 1930s aluminum from books, research reports, and factory photographs.
- All show labels of "ALC24ST" or "24SO" or "24ST"
- No examples show the word "ALCLAD" in any way.
- All show serif font (similar in many ways to a typewriter-style font)
- No examples show a san-serif font.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2014, 02:03:32 PM
I now tend to see the italics found on 2-2-V-1 as more of a 'disqualifier' than anything else.

Why does that not surprise me?  I tend to see the remnants of labeling on the artifact as one piece of an extremely complex jigsaw puzzle.  All of the other pieces we've found fit together and seem to be showing us a clear picture of the Miami Patch.  At present, we don't understand how the labeling fits but it seems like somehow it must.  More research is needed. You seem eager to jump to the conclusion that the labeling disqualifies the artifact without addressing the rest of the puzzle. 
I'm not much interested in what you tend to see.  Let me know when you've found proof of your assertions but I won't be posting any more of your opinions.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 28, 2014, 02:51:17 PM
I blame myself. Should have left that dead groundhog in the roadside ditch, where it was unobtrusively residing.

LTM, who occasionally speaks in non-riddles,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 28, 2014, 03:05:23 PM
I blame myself. Should have left that dead groundhog in the roadside ditch, where it was unobtrusively residing.

LTM, who occasionally speaks in non-riddles,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Can't blame you, Monty - who would pass up K.I.S.S.ing a dead groundhog?

LTM, who is known to have fetched road-waffled 'possum to the house for 'pizza'...  ;)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on September 28, 2014, 04:26:26 PM
Ref the fonts or markings on the Aluminium, rather than go around the houses shouldn't we be looking for documentary evidence as to the standards used? i.e a document that tells employees that this is the stamp that is to be used.  Then if you have s piece with divergent markings you may have a piece that has been labelled twice or am I just being simple.  Surley there was a set procedure for this kind of thing.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2014, 05:12:39 PM
Ref the fonts or markings on the Aluminium, rather than go around the houses shouldn't we be looking for documentary evidence as to the standards used?
Absolutely.  Trouble is, information that obscure does not seem to be on line and that means doing boots-on-the-ground research. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on September 28, 2014, 10:14:45 PM
Ref the fonts or markings on the Aluminium, rather than go around the houses shouldn't we be looking for documentary evidence as to the standards used? i.e a document that tells employees that this is the stamp that is to be used.  Then if you have s piece with divergent markings you may have a piece that has been labelled twice or am I just being simple.  Surley there was a set procedure for this kind of thing.

Well, it's a tricky problem.  The available texts are limited, and many needed references are not available on Google Books or Hathitrust.org due to copyright.  Alcoa documents would obviously be ideal. 

However, the general history of aluminum markings can be deduced from the available reference materials:

Phase 1: Proprietary Markings -- Prior to the massive increases in aircraft production in the early 1940s, the markings were defined by the aluminum manufacturer.  Numerous books and manuals state "AL" and "ALC" were the standard abbreviations for Alclad.

Photographs show Alclad aluminum was marked with the prefix "ALC", e.g., "ALC 24ST".

Phase 2: QQ Specification, 1941 -- In the early 1940s, Federal government QQ specifications are issued for major metal types.  Specifically in 1941, specification "QQ-A-362" is issued covering Alclad 24 Aluminum.  ( Ref: National Directory of Commodity Specifications: Classified and ..., Issue 178.   By United States. National Bureau of Standards, Paul A. Cooley, Ann Elizabeth Rapuzzi.  http://books.google.com/books?id=h6iOBWpe0ogC or hathitrust.org.)  Although the QQ-A-362 specification is not available, the above source states the specification included marking and labeling requirements of the Alclad aluminum ("packaging, packing, and marking for shipment").  [See Attachment 1 below.]

At this time, photographs start to show aluminum marked with more extensive labeling including the word "ALCLAD". 

War Department Technical Manual TM 1-424, "Aircraft Hardware and Materials", June 1942 describes the markings expected to be found on aluminum.
( http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3241791;view=2up;seq=16 )  [See Attachment 2 below.]

Phase 3: AN-A-13 Specification, 1943 -- The AN-A-13 (Army Navy Aeronautical Specification) is issued in 1943 covering Alclad 24.  A second version AN-A-13-2 is released in 1944.  ( Ref: National Directory of Commodity Specifications listed above.)  [See Attachment 3 below.] 

Photographs of aluminum sheet begin to show "AN-A-13" markings. 

Phase 4: Post-WW2 -- Equally fascinating, but does not concern us here.



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on September 28, 2014, 10:47:46 PM
Looks like a good start, Jeff - that's fine research, you've surely dug out a good bit of rare material.  Informative, thanks!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 29, 2014, 09:39:31 AM
Phase 1: Proprietary Markings -- Prior to the massive increases in aircraft production in the early 1940s, the markings were defined by the aluminum manufacturer.  Numerous books and manuals state "AL" and "ALC" were the standard abbreviations for Alclad.

Photographs show Alclad aluminum was marked with the prefix "ALC", e.g., "ALC 24ST".

Dividing the history of aluminum markings into "phases" implies hard boundaries. That can be misleading.  There seems to have been a period before the federal government got into the act (circa 1941) when markings were the prerogative of the manufacturer.  During that time, ALCOA was the only manufacturer of 24 ST ALCLAD.  There is abundant evidence that, during this pre-war period, ALCOA routinely abbreviated ALCLAD to ALC in labeling 24 ST sheet.  We don't know whether they ever deviated from that protocol or when they shifted to using the word ALCLAD but, at some point, the word ALCLAD starts showing up.  That could be because it was mandated by QQ-A-362 circa 1941 but it could also be that the new government spec merely formalized what ALCOA was already doing.  Pinning down exactly when the word ALCLAD started appearing on aluminum sheet is really tough.  For example, you can find photos of aluminum labeled ALC being used to build a Boeing 314 (first flight June 1938) but who can say when that aluminum was rolled and labeled?

 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Brad Beeching on September 29, 2014, 04:21:13 PM
Since we are discussing an era when pretty nearly anyone with the means could build an airplane and fly it, do you think that maybe the air racers or homebuilders of the day may have kept records? Do you think it's worthwhile to try to find out if maybe they could have photos of other documentation of what and when they purchased the materials? Where do you even begin a search like that?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 29, 2014, 04:41:27 PM
Since we are discussing an era when pretty nearly anyone with the means could build an airplane and fly it, do you think that maybe the air racers or homebuilders of the day may have kept records?

Why would they keep records of how the aluminum they bought was labeled?  There was only one source - ALCOA.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Brad Beeching on September 29, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
I was just thinking that maybe folks that dabbled in home aircraft construction or air racers may have kept records of when they bought materials, and in a fit of pride, may have taken photo's. I realize that its prob'ly a long shot to end all long shots, but who would have thought a cropped photo would lead to where it lead to? Howard built several air racers, "Mike" and "Ike", "Mr Mulligan" among them. "Mr. Mulligan" won the 1935 Thompson Trophy. "Mr Mulligan" was destroyed but I saw somewhere that 'Mike" and "Ike" still exist. Maybe looking at those aircraft or simular could lead to another example of the lettering found on 2-2-V-1, and just possibly, the records of WHEN it was purchased. IF that happened, you would have an example of the material, a time frame and maybe a supplier.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on October 04, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
I think it would be very helpful if the professionally scaled overlay could be re-posted with the upper and lower borders indicated.

Yes, that would be nice to have, but as I think I explained earlier, there is insufficient resolution in the patch photo to see precisely where the borders of the patch are.  All we can do is make assumptions about what underlying structures the borders were riveted to.

I guess my point is that the resolution of the Darwin Patch photo looks to be better than the Miami photo, so assumptions may not be necessary.  Ric thinks, based on the Miami photo, that there was no gap between the aft edge of the patch and the skin border at Sta. 320 (see:http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.210.html); but I think I see a gap in that photo, and in the Darwin photo I think that gap is easier to see.  In the post I cited, Ric estimates that, if there was a gap between the border of the pathc and Sta 320, then the patch was 24 and 3/8th inches, fore-to-aft :

"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."

The Darwin photo indicates that the same situation appears to exist on the aft side of the patch.  I think what Ric says above is a good summary of why the 'width' of the Patch is 24 and 23/8ths inches 'wide', and since 2-2-v-1 is 24 and 3/8ths inches wide, the Darwin photo appears to be telling us that 2-2-v-1 isn't the Patch, because the 'parent' that 2-2-v-1 was separated from have been a wider piece of aluminum.

I'd be curious whether other forum members think about this, and I definitely think we need photo experts like Jeff Glickman to interpret the dimensions of the patch to be based on this photo.  Various skin boundaries and rivet lines are quite clear in the Darwin photo, so it seems to be an underutilized piece of evidence regarding the dimensions of the Patch and its location on the Electra.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Pearce on October 04, 2014, 04:07:27 PM


Various skin boundaries and rivet lines are quite clear in the Darwin photo, so it seems to be an underutilized piece of evidence regarding the dimensions of the Patch and its location on the Electra.


A high resolution scan of the Darwin photo may be available from Purdue.

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/spcol/digital-reproduction-requests
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 04, 2014, 05:36:19 PM
The Darwin photo indicates that the same situation appears to exist on the aft side of the patch.  I think what Ric says above is a good summary of why the 'width' of the Patch is 24 and 23/8ths inches 'wide', and since 2-2-v-1 is 24 and 3/8ths inches wide, the Darwin photo appears to be telling us that 2-2-v-1 isn't the Patch, because the 'parent' that 2-2-v-1 was separated from have been a wider piece of aluminum.

I think we'll know more after we've had a chance to compare 2-2-V-1 to the interior structure of an actual Lockheed 10.  That will happen Tuesday.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 05, 2014, 08:53:07 AM
The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me - which means it would be "shy" of the adjacent principal stations 293 5/8 and 320 5/8; MHO, of course.  That footprint also makes sense to me - I wouldn't see a reason to reach beyond the coaming to tie a simple cover (which is what I still believe "the patch" was) to the formers at those stations - too complex for a quick field fix to go into all that framing for little to no gain.

The Purdue picture in better resolution might be a great thing.  Perhaps they still have the negatives, or original print to work with?

Also remain interested in what will be found in Wichita; it will be good to see the artifact 'tried on' against real L10 structure.  IMO it might be good to also develop and have on hand a Mylar of the window coaming arrangement along as a guide to fit up to the actual L10 to get a frame (pun not intended) of reference.  Maybe that's been done or considered - if not, great timing to think of it now, I realize...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 05, 2014, 09:13:05 AM
The Purdue picture in better resolution might be a great thing.  Perhaps they still have the negatives, or original print to work with?

I'll go over this with Jeff Glickman on Tuesday. 

Also remain interested in what will be found in Wichita; it will be good to see the artifact 'tried on' against real L10 structure.  IMO it might be good to also develop and have on hand a Mylar of the window coaming arrangement along as a guide to fit up to the actual L10 to get a frame (pun not intended) of reference.
[/quote]

I don't see how we could do that accurately without having the window coaming to trace.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 05, 2014, 09:30:33 AM
My thought was to scale it from some of the pictures we have of the coaming, which are in some cases much better than any we have so far of the patch itself.  Not talking about a 'rubbing', which is impossible without the coaming (which was likely scrapped in Miami 77 years ago), but a well-drafted lofting of what we can take from the photos.  Not easy, obviously, and then only with a limited degree of confidence as to fit.

I went back to the Purdue picture of the Darwin photo (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/2), and try as I might I cannot seem to copy it with the same degree of integrity as I can view it.  But copy I did, after zooming in (but not to max) on the original Purdue picture, and I have put a few notes and pointers to things I see in the actual Purdue-sourced blow-up that are unfortunately not so clear in my copy, attached.  If interested, one might enjoy studying my pointers against the Purdue source to see if you can see what I see, with my untrained eye: a pair of faint rivet lines are strongly 'suggested'.  One will need to play with zooming levels a bit to see it most clearly.  These two lines do not appear as anomalies on the film, etc. to me - there are flaws there like fingerprints and lint, clearly as such; the suggested rivet lines appear faintly, but very similar to other faint rivet lines under similar lighting on the side of the plane in adjacent areas (also pointed out).  What I see seems to coincide with what was pointed out after Jeff Glickman's work with Ric on the Miami photo.

I also have pointed out where the patch fore and aft edges are in relation to the 293 5/8 and 320 5/8 stations - the Patch did not overlie those two stations that I can see, but lay within the two.

Eye of the beholder - as I said, I'm no expert, and of course I'd love to see 2-2-V-1 pan out as "the Patch"; but I suggest a look with comparison to the Purdue source for those who want to sleuth this a bit - enjoy.


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 05, 2014, 10:04:12 AM
That's good Jeff.  I generally agree with your layout but I think the aft edge of the patch is tighter to the 320 5/8 line (green).  You have the rivet line at 320 5/8 and the patch edge on almost the same line at the top left corner of the patch but further apart at the bottom.  That doesn't seem likely. The edge of the patch should be the same distance from 320 5/8 all the way down.
The rivet line at Sta. 307 is visible above the patch.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 05, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me
On 2-2-V-1, the distance between the staggered 5/32" rows is about 1 1/2" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30159.html#msg30159). In the Miami photo (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32224.html#msg32224), the distance between the lower rows appears much closer. If 2-2-V-1 was just this simple cover, why would the distance increase? Could the distance between the lower staggered rows have increased because a stiffener was added? Possibly required due to the hard landing?

If just a simple overlay of the previous coaming, wouldn't the same holes be re used so as not to add any additional holes in the stringers and weaken them? And if that was the case, couldn't we compare the visible rivet spacing on the Miami photo(at least more visible in that photo than others) with the remaining 5/32" rivet row on 2-2-V-1?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 05, 2014, 11:32:36 AM
That's good Jeff.  I generally agree with your layout but I think the aft edge of the patch is tighter to the 320 5/8 line (green).  You have the rivet line at 320 5/8 and the patch edge on almost the same line at the top left corner of the patch but further apart at the bottom.  That doesn't seem likely. The edge of the patch should be the same distance from 320 5/8 all the way down.
The rivet line at Sta. 307 is visible above the patch.

I think we had the same view of it, I just didn't get my 'art' done too well in that corner it seems.  :)

What was really significant to me was that I can now see what I believe to be lines of rivets on the Patch.  I can't know that and defer to more professional eyes and techniques, but the picture appears to yield some information that I had not seen before.  Perhaps because I was working with copies I'd made from the Purdue pictures - which are noticeably better quality when viewed on their site - at least with my limited graphics capabilities.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 05, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me
On 2-2-V-1, the distance between the staggered 5/32" rows is about 1 1/2" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30159.html#msg30159). In the Miami photo (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32224.html#msg32224), the distance between the lower rows appears much closer. If 2-2-V-1 was just this simple cover, why would the distance increase? Could the distance between the lower staggered rows have increased because a stiffener was added? Possibly required due to the hard landing?

If just a simple overlay of the previous coaming, wouldn't the same holes be re used so as not to add any additional holes in the stringers and weaken them? And if that was the case, couldn't we compare the visible rivet spacing on the Miami photo(at least more visible in that photo than others) with the remaining 5/32" rivet row on 2-2-V-1?

I have questioned the 'hard landing' and whether it had any impact on what was done with the patch, but maybe my thoughts have been way off base.

Normally I'd expect to see a 'simple cover' (which I've personally taken 2-2-V-1 to be) re-use existing holes, yes; but there can easily be an argument for an altered / beefed-up structure where the rivet pitch (distance between fasteners) is reduced for strength (more rivets x inch, etc.).  I cannot say 'it is the case', but can say 'it well could be the case'.

As to the hard landing, my tendency has been to take the simple view - and I recall something about simply covering the window to limit access to the interior of the plane more effectively.  I still cannot lay my hands on what it was that gave me that notion, so I cannot show it true.  Even if that had been recorded somewhere as to 'why the patch', it might mean nothing: this was Earhart, after all, to whom the public image was all - if Fred had some problem delaying things, the report might be 'delay due to personnel issues', so I've read; had she a hard landing (I believe the source on that) and any form of a structural issue or question arising from it requiring such a 'repair', she would not have been eager to advertise it.  With NR1020 sitting in front of photographers with some shiny new metal on the side, what sounds better? 

"We pranged it coming in and found some popped rivet heads and bending around the window and thought it would be good to beef it up before I drop it in somewhere else with a heavy load of fuel or something...", or -

"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."

Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to... and no way Earhart was going to make the confession in the first statement above.

So, another mystery perhaps.  I don't know about changing rivet pitch, but it wouldn't be a disqualifier to me at this point - just something to try to resolve, if that is what we have.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on October 06, 2014, 10:56:41 AM
Jeff,

My take on this is that this might have been a recurring problem.  "Gee, that darn window broke again ..." type of event.  I don't recall this being recorded in the available records, but, it would not suprise me if someone eventually runs across something like that.  This would have been consistent with weakness in the aft fuselage in a section taken through the window opening.  The resulting "patch" does not look "structural" to me, but, rather an aluminum replacement for a formed piece of Plexiglas ® that was unavaialble once the trip began.  They may not have equated the broken window to weakness in the fuselage or the result of a hard landing.  I, too, believe that any mechanic worth his salt would have tried to pick up existing fasterner locations.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 06, 2014, 11:08:36 AM
or -

"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."

Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to...

I would respectfully disagree with that statement. This was pre-9/11 and Earhart was all about the spectacle and theater of the whole trip. A number of photos at different stops show all manner of people around the Electra, and even the Lae takeoff movie shows a considerable number of spectator types.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 06, 2014, 12:33:41 PM
or -

"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."

Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to...

I would respectfully disagree with that statement. This was pre-9/11 and Earhart was all about the spectacle and theater of the whole trip. A number of photos at different stops show all manner of people around the Electra, and even the Lae takeoff movie shows a considerable number of spectator types.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Not sure I follow - the whole shebang, or the last part about 'not everybody could walk up to', and if so, do you feel it WAS more about security?

My point was I'm now seeing a bit better the logic of the patch due to some wacky event like a hard landing.  Maybe, as Jay points out, it was a mere nuisance level thing; maybe it was more serious.  I don't know that we'll ever find anything recorded about it.

But your point about access / media event does underscore another point I was making - she was all about 'appearances', and if there were structural concerns after the Miami landing that led to this, she would have downplayed the 'repair' and might easily have used the 'security' angle as an answer to any curiosity (rather like 'peronnel issues' might have been used).

Better die than look bad... and damned if she didn't.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on October 06, 2014, 11:37:28 PM
.... Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch....

Ric - Forgive me for asking what I believe to be a question whose answer is obvious, but I just want to make sure that I am interpreting this overlay correctly.  In this overlay, has 22V1 been lined up so that its known rivet lines are lined up with the putative rivet lines that Mr. Glickman sees on the Miami patch photo?  I assume this must be the case because I can't figure out any other way to overlay the photos that would make sense, but I just wanted to confirm that I am getting it right.  Thank you.

Diego V.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 08, 2014, 06:25:01 PM
Ric - Forgive me for asking what I believe to be a question whose answer is obvious, but I just want to make sure that I am interpreting this overlay correctly.  In this overlay, has 22V1 been lined up so that its known rivet lines are lined up with the putative rivet lines that Mr. Glickman sees on the Miami patch photo?  I assume this must be the case because I can't figure out any other way to overlay the photos that would make sense, but I just wanted to confirm that I am getting it right.  Thank you.

No Diego.  The overlay has been lined up so that the bottom row of staggered rivet holes lines up with the staggered row of rivets on the aircraft and the lower right edge of the artifact that we know failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a rigid underlying structure lines up with the underlying structure to which the patch was riveted.  When you place the artifact that way the lines of rivet holes on the artifact happen to align with the discernible rivet lines on the patch. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 08, 2014, 07:54:43 PM
On Tuesday, Jeff Glickman, Aris Scarla and I spent a marvelous morning at Wichita Air Services getting up close and personal with Lockheed 10A c/n 1091.  Being able to see both the exterior and interior surfaces in the area where the window, and later patch, were installed on c/n 1055 it became obvious where the edges had to be. With the outline carefully taped off we could hold up the artifact and see how it fit.  The answer is - perfectly.  We were able to answer many, but not all, of the questions that have been bugging us. It will take a day or two to put together a summary of what we learned but I know that everybody is eager to know so I'll get on that right away.

Here's a photo of me briefing the guys who have been working on this airplane for two years.  You can see more photos on the Wichita Air Services Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/WichitaWarbirds).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on October 08, 2014, 08:45:33 PM
This is so exciting!!!

Im assuming lots of photos were taken?  Cant wait for the full report!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 08, 2014, 10:02:51 PM
It's really enjoyable to watch the progress of the effort to ID this artifact move through distinct phases of investigation, from "what the hell is that?" to "probably nothing" to "maybe it is something" to "perplexing and intriguing" to "kinda hard not to get excited..."

Great work. Quite the 'A' Team in Wichita.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on October 08, 2014, 10:28:02 PM
Loved the pictures Ric!!!! Glad you guys made the trip!!! This is starting to get really exciting now! Anyway, wanted to touch base on one of the photos that the Wichita Air Service had on their Facebook page. I'm really baffled to find out exactly what this thing is. Anyway, it shows an accordian style device that looks like it could open up wide and used for some type of supporting device. But not sure! Let me know...Thanks!!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 08, 2014, 10:55:24 PM
I'm really baffled to find out exactly what this thing is. Anyway, it shows an accordian style device that looks like it could open up wide and used for some type of supporting device. But not sure! Let me know...Thanks!!!!
rivet spacer (http://www.skygeek.com/ats-fs02.html?utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_content=ats-fs02&utm_campaign=froogle&gclid=CjwKEAjwwdOhBRCG0fPrlfO1gGUSJAC1FmHXolF_iN-I-hvPXtsl9GCgMCaAfA6dHcmBqFaLTnlmwRoCt6rw_wcB)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 08, 2014, 11:18:09 PM
Those are great pictures on the Wichita Air Services Facebook page. Nice to see the different stages of their work.  Hats off to them in helping test 2-2-V-1.
I'm looking forward to reading the summary.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gus Rubio on October 09, 2014, 11:07:15 AM
With the outline carefully taped off we could hold up the artifact and see how it fit.  The answer is - perfectly.

This gave me chills, I exaggerate not.  Wonderful to hear, looking forward to more. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 09, 2014, 11:41:49 AM
I am very glad to hear of a productive trip to Wichita by Ric, Jeff G and Aris, and am looking forward to the report. 

Short of having c/n 1055 with actual window, etc. to work with, I don't know how you could find a better working model or better support than the folks at WASI.  Many thanks to them for working with TIGHAR.

Here's hoping for great results!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 09, 2014, 11:49:51 AM
I don't know how you could find a better working model or better support than the folks at WASI.  Many thanks to them for working with TIGHAR.

Amen to that.  We ended up "unrestoring" a good bit of their airplane to get at what we needed to see.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 09, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
And Aris lending his expertise to the trip ... wow. It shows that TIGHAR's scientific and deliberate approach attracts the best possible minds to devote to this mystery.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on October 09, 2014, 10:59:39 PM
No Diego.  The overlay has been lined up so that the bottom row of staggered rivet holes lines up with the staggered row of rivets on the aircraft and the lower right edge of the artifact that we know failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a rigid underlying structure lines up with the underlying structure to which the patch was riveted.  When you place the artifact that way the lines of rivet holes on the artifact happen to align with the discernible rivet lines on the patch.

Ric - Thank you for the info.

Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lee on October 10, 2014, 08:29:01 AM
Ric, 

What book is this photo taken from?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33955.html#msg33955
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 10, 2014, 10:19:05 AM

What book is this photo taken from?


Elgen Long's "Amelia Earhart - The Mystery Solved". 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 10, 2014, 04:38:36 PM
And Aris lending his expertise to the trip ... wow. It shows that TIGHAR's scientific and deliberate approach attracts the best possible minds to devote to this mystery.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP

That was great that he could make the trip....will he be giving a report on his opinion/opinions concerning artifact 2-2-V-1 , the patch ,....and the examined electra?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 11, 2014, 07:29:21 AM
And Aris lending his expertise to the trip ... wow. It shows that TIGHAR's scientific and deliberate approach attracts the best possible minds to devote to this mystery.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP

That was great that he could make the trip....will he be giving a report on his opinion/opinions concerning artifact 2-2-V-1 , the patch ,....and the examined electra?

I'm writing the report. When it's finished I'll send it to Jeff Glickman and Aris Scarla for comment and/or correction.  When they've both signed off on the report we'll publish it on the TIGHAR website.  What I can tell you right now is that, at the end of the day, all of us were in agreement that the artifact is the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 11, 2014, 12:03:21 PM

"What I can tell you right now is that, at the end of the day, all of us were in agreement that the artifact is the patch."

This is momentous. Historic. And BIG news.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 11, 2014, 12:24:08 PM
This is momentous. Historic. And BIG news.

I agree. The trick will be getting it recognized as BIG news.  This is not an Indiana Jones style discovery.  This is 23 years of plodding, painstaking, frustrating research that finally paid off. We need to figure out how to get that recognized. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on October 11, 2014, 12:40:46 PM
I think it's cool that this artifact is something you've had in your possession for years, and it's just now giving up it's secrets.  That's how investigations and archeology often works!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on October 11, 2014, 12:43:05 PM
I should add that most of the public probably won't accept your findings until a major recognizable piece of the airplane is found (the "any idiot" artifact).  That is ALSO how investigations and archeology often work.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 11, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
Ric,

Would/could Wichita Air Services be interested in shooting a video that would show how the patch was fabricated and fitted to the L10E?

What I have in mind would be a mockup of AE bird, using old skins taken of the bird their working on.
   Cut a window hole and put in the plastic window – as it would have arrived in Miami
   Remove the window frame (if you all think that is what happened) or fit and back drill for the installation of the patch over the frame and window, etc.
   Fit a patch over the window opening – include the stringers, ribs, etc. in order to explain the rivet rows, the stress from the rib, etc.

Then as a final shot (no pun intended) use a tool that we have an idea was aboard AE’s plane e.g. the fire ax and rip the window out of the mockup.  This should show the saw tooth rivet failure, the zip line rivet failure and perhaps the blow marks that penetrate the skin of the patch.

All of this could be a visual depiction of the patch and its removal hypothesis along with a verbal dialog explaining each step of the process.

If not Wichita Air, we could stage the thing in your barn.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 11, 2014, 01:54:38 PM
Would/could Wichita Air Services be interested in shooting a video that would show how the patch was fabricated and fitted to the L10E?

What you're talking about is a way to explain how the window was installed,how the patch replaced it, and how 2-2-V-1 matches the patch.  That's what I'm trying to do in the report I'm writing.  Step by step. Lots of photos.  Mark Smith shot video of the work we did in Wichita.  We'll use it in a video we'll put together explaining why 2-2-V-1 is the patch.

We don't have enough information yet to talk about how the patch got busted out.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on October 11, 2014, 09:02:40 PM
Hey Ric...Was looking at this particular photo tonight of the Electra after landing in Miami. Wandering if you guys have seen this photo? Plus, tell me if that is a patch or piece of metal directly under the window or just a reflection from the plane? Thanks!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 11, 2014, 09:19:40 PM
Was looking at this particular photo tonight of the Electra after landing in Miami. Wandering if you guys have seen this photo? Plus, tell me if that is a patch or piece of metal directly under the window or just a reflection from the plane? Thanks!!!
I think this wrongly captioned photo has come up before.That is not Miami. Look at the coats. It's probably Oakland before 1st attempt.
It looks like a light spot between shadows of people and the plane to me.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on October 11, 2014, 09:52:09 PM
Looking for details on the lettering found on the artifact ("AD" and the more recently found separate "D") in terms of their positional relationship to each other.

Meaning are they lined up as in:
a)

D                       AD

or more like:

b)

D

                         AD

If a) do we have the distance between the D's?
If b) do we have the distance between and offset?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 11, 2014, 11:10:21 PM
Ric,

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear of how we (TIGHAR) have been able to pinpoint that the patch came from AE’s plane. Nor how we are to convince the general public of same.

The proposed Wichita video I suggested will show the method of the window/patch installation/replacement but more importantly what I want TIGHAR to show is the methodology of how we reached that conclusion. 

   We find a piece of aluminum on the island that appears to come from an aircraft but initially can’t find a source from wince it came.

   Poring over numerous photographs we find that there was a subtle modification to AE’ s plane while in Miami, it was the installation of a “patch” over an existing fuselage window.

   TIGHAR has visited numerous aircraft museums, manufacturing facilities, crash sites, etc. looking for a rivet/sheet metal pattern that would match the artifact to no avail.

   Then we hear of a L10 E restoration going on in Wichita, solicit supporting funds to go there and what we find is the patch matches the original aircraft design.

The video/narrative/written report that follows this discovery should be aimed at soliciting funding for next years expedition and nothing short of this objective.   I don’t think we have many more years left in the volunteer funding cycle for AE.

Ric, I think we (TIGHAR) are at the point where we are about to solve this 70 + year mystery and we have got to pull out all the stops.  We have got to put our personal pride/objectives aside and enlist the aid of professional PR people to take it from here.

I vote to support a PR firm to take the data we have uncovered and turn it over to them to perpetuate an ongoing funding program to get to the bottom of this major historic mystery.  Ric, you know how much I have confidence in your ability to led the TIGHAR Team on this issue but you must also admit that you are a little hesitant in turning over control to others when it comes to the coup de  grace.
 It’s time to step back my friend and let people that do this for a living to step in and help us put the final touches on the search.  Remember the objective:  Get the funds necessary to go and find the plane!

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 12, 2014, 07:37:46 AM

"If b) do we have the distance between and offset?"

They are offset and the distance between is about 5 inches which conforms to standard ALCOA practice.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 12, 2014, 12:49:28 PM
This is momentous. Historic. And BIG news.

I agree. The trick will be getting it recognized as BIG news.  This is not an Indiana Jones style discovery.  This is 23 years of plodding, painstaking, frustrating research that finally paid off. We need to figure out how to get that recognized.

And I concur back. My rule is that if the press gets 70% right, you're doing pretty well. Even the most high-powered Big 10 agencies can't guarantee anything by the time the ink dries. In this case, however, the lack of ability to control or reliably influence the press may work in the favor of big news. Hell, if they want to characterize your 20-year "pick, shovel, grind, sift, start over," effort as an Indiana Jones Eureka moment, well hell, we can build on and back fill the resulting interest.

I'm thrilled for you, your wife and the longtime, loyal TIGHARs.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 12, 2014, 02:42:31 PM
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear of how we (TIGHAR) have been able to pinpoint that the patch came from AE’s plane.

You were clear but your description of how we identified the artifact is inaccurate. I respectfully suggest that you wait until the report is posted on the TIGHAR website. Read the report and ask questions about anything that is not clear.
   
   I don’t think we have many more years left in the volunteer funding cycle ....

What volunteer funding cycle?  I didn't know there was one.

It's best if I don't respond to the rest of your posting.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 12, 2014, 04:14:37 PM
Quote
What volunteer funding cycle?  I didn't know there was one.

I would hazard a guess that this is a "cycle" of giving and taking that a non profit organisation may or may not go through during its life time.  Simply said are funds from members up or down or just the same?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 12, 2014, 04:57:00 PM
Quote
What volunteer funding cycle?  I didn't know there was one.

I would hazard a guess that this is a "cycle" of giving and taking that a non profit organisation may or may not go through during its life time.  Simply said are funds from members up or down or just the same?


I can't speak for other nonprofits but TIGHAR's total membership and level of giving by the members has been steadily increasing over the past several years.  In our nearly 30 years of operation we have not experienced cycles of up and down. Growth has not been steady.  There have been plateaus, but growth has always resumed.  Over the course of ten expeditions, nothing has been more common than predictions of disaster "if you don't find it this time."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 12, 2014, 04:58:25 PM
That's good to know!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on October 12, 2014, 08:18:16 PM
2-2-V-1 photos showing "D" posted on page 44 of this thread by Mark/Ric appear to show a smaller font "M" to the right of the D

Looks to be right where we see the "M" in the Reg. TM stamp on the Alclad in the Atka Island B-24D for example.

Does this tell us anything assuming I'm not seeing things?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 12, 2014, 09:38:43 PM
I'm writing the report. When it's finished I'll send it to Jeff Glickman and Aris Scarla for comment and/or correction.  When they've both signed off on the report we'll publish it on the TIGHAR website.  What I can tell you right now is that, at the end of the day, all of us were in agreement that the artifact is the patch.

Heady stuff, can't wait to see it -

Can understand how difficult it is to convey to the public what you guys could discern in Wichita, not like dragging a soggy wreck up with "NR16020" emblazoned on the wings.

Hats off to Wichita Air Services for stepping in to provide this opportunity too - great timing!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 13, 2014, 10:29:02 AM
2-2-V-1 photos showing "D" posted on page 44 of this thread by Mark/Ric appear to show a smaller font "M" to the right of the D

The artifact is still on its way home from Kansas so I can't check it but I have to say I don't see the M that you see in the photos.  The font on the B-24D is definitely different from the font on the artifact.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on October 13, 2014, 11:27:40 AM
Thanks Ric, that's appreciated.

Boxed the possible "M" on attached photo, helps to be medicated to see it (just kidding)

Tried another computer and still see it but both are lcd screens if that makes any difference.

[Edited by J. Neville to remove objectionable content.]

p.s. I couldn't open the bmp file on the forum for some reason so added a jpg version of same photo

p.s. 2 added a zoomed version of jpg

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 13, 2014, 01:31:40 PM
*points to part of his tag line* Beware of apophenia.

But then, I have been told that I don't have a very good imagination, either. At least for stuff like that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on October 13, 2014, 02:18:50 PM
I think Monty has a good point especially with photos of limited resolution...a few beers later and I'm seeing the entire works of Shakespeare in the photo.

But seriously there just seems to be an odd squiggle shape right where some examples of Alclad labelling have a trademark label ie "Reg. TM" so worth pointing out and Ric has agreed to check up close and personal so its all good.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 13, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
I had a good point??? Cool ... And anytime you want to talk to my supervisor, I can pass along the number  ;D

One thing about the pending announcement, whatever it may be, that has been bugging me all day. Whatever we do end up saying, the one thing I don't think we want to say is, "The mystery is solved."

I understand and embrace the scientific approach in this journey. I totally get the preponderance of evidence and trying to heap absurd coincidences into far too high a tottering heap of bull in an attempt to debunk whatever announcement is made.

I also know that anyone who says they have Found Amelia has a very high bar to cross with the general public, not to mention TIGHAR's legions of detractors. We've already been down that road once, and have the skinned noses to show it. Better to let the detractors make the case for us with their increasingly unlikely assertions. At the end of the day, the facts will win our case for us.

LTM, who will go back to thinking only good thoughts,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jennifer Hubbard on October 13, 2014, 07:10:15 PM
Doug Ledlie:

I see the "M" you are talking about, in the photos where you have drawn arrows.
Doesn't look like there's a "T" or "REG," though. I can't even tell if there is room for a T there, or if the M is properly aligned with the bottom of the D.

It may or may not be there, but I wanted to let you know you're not alone in seeing that it might be there!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on October 13, 2014, 07:21:18 PM
Thanks for posting Jennifer, I'm glad its not just me... :)
(of course it might just mean were both a few sandwiches short of a picnic)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on October 14, 2014, 04:29:36 AM
I'm with you too, Doug......I think I see the same thing, with room for the "T" as well.
could it just be "the power of suggestion" ??
 :o
pd
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on October 14, 2014, 06:38:47 AM

I vote to support a PR firm to take the data we have uncovered and turn it over to them to perpetuate an ongoing funding program to get to the bottom of this major historic mystery.  Ric, you know how much I have confidence in your ability to led the TIGHAR Team on this issue but you must also admit that you are a little hesitant in turning over control to others when it comes to the coup de  grace.
 It’s time to step back my friend and let people that do this for a living to step in and help us put the final touches on the search.  Remember the objective:  Get the funds necessary to go and find the plane!

Ted Campbell


Uh oh, sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 14, 2014, 06:49:36 AM
I had a good point??? Cool ... And anytime you want to talk to my supervisor, I can pass along the number  ;D

One thing about the pending announcement, whatever it may be, that has been bugging me all day. Whatever we do end up saying, the one thing I don't think we want to say is, "The mystery is solved."

I understand and embrace the scientific approach in this journey. I totally get the preponderance of evidence and trying to heap absurd coincidences into far too high a tottering heap of bull in an attempt to debunk whatever announcement is made.

I also know that anyone who says they have Found Amelia has a very high bar to cross with the general public, not to mention TIGHAR's legions of detractors. We've already been down that road once, and have the skinned noses to show it. Better to let the detractors make the case for us with their increasingly unlikely assertions. At the end of the day, the facts will win our case for us.

LTM, who will go back to thinking only good thoughts,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Exactly right.

2-2-V-1 is an exciting possibility as the window covering installed in Miami, as I've seen it for some time.  I readily admit I would like to see it proven as such.  I recognize the perils to that possibility - and the tantalizing potential.

As we await the announcement of this next bulletin, I am full of anticipation.  Every one of us will have to make our own judgments.  The detractors will always be among us - for this, and so many other things in this world: it is simply their nature to debunk anything from shaving cream to King Tut's treasure; likewise we will always have alien abduction proponents among us...

But what you just said is the crux of the burden for anyone who would proclaim the end of a mystery like Earhart to the world.  It seems to me that Ric and TIGHAR learned something about that a long time ago, and I suspect what we'll see will fit within that very sane vein of thought: read it for what it is and make your own judgment.

Don't expect die-hard detractors to ever be happy that individual choice might be respected in that way, however: they will no doubt continue to feel that only their individual insight and wisdom can save this world full of fools from itself.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 14, 2014, 07:06:41 AM

I vote to support a PR firm to take the data we have uncovered and turn it over to them to perpetuate an ongoing funding program to get to the bottom of this major historic mystery.  Ric, you know how much I have confidence in your ability to led the TIGHAR Team on this issue but you must also admit that you are a little hesitant in turning over control to others when it comes to the coup de  grace.
 It’s time to step back my friend and let people that do this for a living to step in and help us put the final touches on the search.  Remember the objective:  Get the funds necessary to go and find the plane!

Ted Campbell


Uh oh, sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me...

Could not agree more.  I am excited about what will be released, but full of respect that it has to cross a very high bar.  The one way to destroy our credibility in this thing is to demand an outcome instead of letting what research has found to simply speak for itself.  Our job, as I see it, is to try to investigate with integrity and let the results be seen for what they are: it is worth nothing beyond our pages if the public cannot see what Ric, Aris and Jeff G. saw and find the same conclusion, if and as they will.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 14, 2014, 08:06:06 AM
Experts built the Titanic. Amateurs built The Ark.

Maybe that's simplistic, but I agree that the facts, whatever they are, will be the facts, and they are more than capable of speaking for themselves.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Banks on October 14, 2014, 08:29:02 AM
I've always wondered what happened to the plexiglass piece that was replaced by the patch.  Doesn't it seem likely that someone would have saved it as a souvenir, a valuable collectible from AE's plane?  If it could be found, would there be any value as a comparison piece to our artifact?

Just killing time waiting for the report  :)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 14, 2014, 09:18:33 AM
Doesn't it seem likely that someone would have saved it as a souvenir, a valuable collectible from AE's plane?

To save it as a souvenir, somebody would have to
A. know about it
and
B. have access to it

The installation appears to have been done privately and quietly. Nobody in the public or the press seems to have even noticed that the window was gone and replaced with a patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Banks on October 14, 2014, 09:42:54 AM
I was specifically thinking the mechanic(s) that actually handled the replacement, not the general public.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on October 14, 2014, 09:48:19 AM

I vote to support a PR firm to take the data we have uncovered and turn it over to them to perpetuate an ongoing funding program to get to the bottom of this major historic mystery.  Ric, you know how much I have confidence in your ability to led the TIGHAR Team on this issue but you must also admit that you are a little hesitant in turning over control to others when it comes to the coup de  grace.
 It’s time to step back my friend and let people that do this for a living to step in and help us put the final touches on the search.  Remember the objective:  Get the funds necessary to go and find the plane!

Ted Campbell


Uh oh, sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me...

Could not agree more.  I am excited about what will be released, but full of respect that it has to cross a very high bar.  The one way to destroy our credibility in this thing is to demand an outcome instead of letting what research has found to simply speak for itself.  Our job, as I see it, is to try to investigate with integrity and let the results be seen for what they are: it is worth nothing beyond our pages if the public cannot see what Ric, Aris and Jeff G. saw and find the same conclusion, if and as they will.

If the public cannot see what Ric, Aris and Jeff saw (and if they are RIGHT), it's no problem. Only a few persons have to see it, those persons who will donate enough money to find the Electra! (It MUST be there, if Ric is RIGHT!)
Oskar, 4421A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 14, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
Hal - at first the thinking was that maybe Pan Am mechanics did the patch because they had a large facility in the Miami area. The Pan Am archives were checked out, and other than newspaper clipping-type memorabilia, nothing was found. There was some indication that a large amount of the archived materials were purged after WW II.

Then the thinking was that perhaps the man who had the FBO at the airport where Earhart had parked the Electra would have saved something having to do with work on said Electra. Those archives were also checked out, and other than newspaper clipping-type memorabilia, nothing was found.

I agree, not being able to nail down the exact, specific, obviously-had-to-be-Amelian's-plane documents with regards to The Patch is a potential hole that TIGHAR's legions of detractors will be more than happy to try and drive a Mack truck through. We have to stick with the known facts, the preponderance of evidence, and the simplest explanation for what we have found in order to make our case.

Or so it seems to me.

LTM, who sneezes a lot from dusty file boxes,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 14, 2014, 09:50:00 AM
I was specifically thinking the mechanic(s) that actually handled the replacement, not the general public.

Of course we don't know for sure, but the mechanic who most probably handled the replacement was Earhart's own mechanic Bo McKneely.  Not much reason for him to keep souvenirs.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lee on October 14, 2014, 10:05:57 AM
The Tighar Bulletin titled ‘A Smoking Gun?’ shows the photo Jeff Glickman derived from the Miami photo, with the camera-induced distortion removed. Superimposed on this photo is the photo of Ric pressing 22v1 against the New England Electra; this makes it hard to see where the lines of rivets are in Mr. Glickman’s distortion-corrected version of the original photo.

I suggest that the new 2-2-v-1 bulletin show Jeff Glickman’s improved photo, sans markings that would make it hard to see those confirmed rivet lines for ourselves?  Skeptic that I am, still wonder if what are taken to be rivet lines might actually be reflections of clouds in the scene behind the photographer.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lee on October 14, 2014, 05:30:40 PM

According to the Tighar Bulletin titled ‘The Riddle of Artifact #2-2-V-1’ the opinion of the experts who examined 2-2-v-1 was

The pitch (interval between rivets) of the #3 rivets is precisely and consistently 1 inch. This level of precision suggests factory-quality work. By contrast, the pitch of the staggered double row of #5 rivets is irregular and was probably dictated by features in the underlying structure that had to be avoided.

At the time, the 2-2-V-1 Commission was pondering 2-2-V-1, these opinions were arguments against 2-2-v-1 being a repair to a WW2 airplane by USAAF personnel; as 2-2-V-1 Commission member Monty Fowler stated:

"To me, the most relevant new fact that developed as a result of this field trip was the unanimous conclusion that 2-2-V-1 is NOT a USAAF field-applied or field-depot level repair. It was created under controlled conditions in a factory. That narrows down the point of origin possibilities considerably.”

So, was the 2-2-V-1 Commission wrong in unanimously concluding that 2-2-v-1 was fabricated in a factory?

If it is reasonable to think that the 2-2-v-1 was a repair to the Electra done in Miami, isn’t it also reasonable to think that 2-2-V-1 could have been a repair to a WW2 era plane done by USAAF personnel?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 14, 2014, 06:11:58 PM
So, was the 2-2-V-1 Commission wrong in unanimously concluding that 2-2-v-1 was fabricated in a factory?

Apparently.  We've been wrong before.

If it is reasonable to think that the 2-2-v-1 was a repair to the Electra done in Miami, isn’t it also reasonable to think that 2-2-V-1 could have been a repair to a WW2 era plane done by USAAF personnel?

Yes, if the accuracy of the rivet pitch was the only factor to be considered.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 14, 2014, 08:53:44 PM

According to the Tighar Bulletin titled ‘The Riddle of Artifact #2-2-V-1’ the opinion of the experts who examined 2-2-v-1 was

The pitch (interval between rivets) of the #3 rivets is precisely and consistently 1 inch. This level of precision suggests factory-quality work. By contrast, the pitch of the staggered double row of #5 rivets is irregular and was probably dictated by features in the underlying structure that had to be avoided.

At the time, the 2-2-V-1 Commission was pondering 2-2-V-1, these opinions were arguments against 2-2-v-1 being a repair to a WW2 airplane by USAAF personnel; as 2-2-V-1 Commission member Monty Fowler stated:

"To me, the most relevant new fact that developed as a result of this field trip was the unanimous conclusion that 2-2-V-1 is NOT a USAAF field-applied or field-depot level repair. It was created under controlled conditions in a factory. That narrows down the point of origin possibilities considerably.”

So, was the 2-2-V-1 Commission wrong in unanimously concluding that 2-2-v-1 was fabricated in a factory?

If it is reasonable to think that the 2-2-v-1 was a repair to the Electra done in Miami, isn’t it also reasonable to think that 2-2-V-1 could have been a repair to a WW2 era plane done by USAAF personnel?

With all due respect to you, Steve, and Monty's statement, and with regard to Ric's reply - as I see it "It was created under controlled conditions in a factory" was purely Monty's statement, not the commission's unanimous statement.  If I've erred in that understanding until now, the record may be corrected henceforth.

The commission's position as I understood it was that we did not see 2-2-V-1 as consistent with any of the USAAF repairs we saw in Dayton, examples of which there were many.  Personally, I've never believed that 2-2-V-1 was fabricated in a factory, although it bears evidence of both expediency (slightly irregular line spacing, hobbed rivet tail) and good craftsmanship (neatly spaced holes, straight fastener lines), IMO. 

To suggest that the neatness of the fastener rows (straight, well spaced) leans toward USAAF exclusivity would be a miscarriage: while much of the war era work displayed something approaching that level of attention, other examples were clearly a bit more improvised and displayed more expedient patterns.  Those who worked metal in the 30's were hardly primitives - many could easily match USAAF efforts IMO, so this approach to the matter can hardly be conclusive as to disclaiming a Miami-effected patch.

What is most vital in my mind is that after an extensive hands-on, eyeballs up close review of probably hundreds of repairs and skin sections on dozens of ships of various types - including a painstaking review of the types known to have been in the area of the Phoenix group, not a single one provided a truly apparent nesting site for a piece like 2-2-V-1 once the scale came out.  Same for underlying structures - even the 'lightly built' B-24 exhibited a heavier construction methodology than 2-2-V-1 suggests. 

It remains remarkable to me that the unique lav window of NR16020 just happens to provide a 'nest' of great potential, whatever one chooses to make of that in their own reading.  People will no doubt again point to B-17 outer wing panels, and here and there on the B-24, etc.  Knock yourselves out - I've already climbed, poked, shone light and laid scale and camera to these and others, and 2-2-V-1 does not come close.  If it came from such a beast, there had to have been a bastardized structure there for it to nest to - rather like the bastard window in Earhart's plane that gave us an idea of just where such an oddball as 2-2-V-1 may have originated.

All just MHO, of course.  At the crux here I seem to have needed to correct the now-emerging labored assumption that we unanimously agreed 2-2-V-1 came from a factory setting: no, 'we' did not; we did agree it did not appear to be the work that produced the war time repairs we were able to study.  I respect Monty's belief, but suggest that his impression as given in that sentence is his own; it certainly was not and is not mine.  If I've somehow erred until now in what the commission believed I ascribed to, the record is now corrected.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 14, 2014, 09:12:27 PM
As per the image/ images Jeff Glickman is studying...... is the shiny Miami patch photo the main/ sole image that is under study to see if it's characteristics match the artifact? The final takeoff video , that Jeff studied to determine antenna separation, contains several frames at around 30 , 31 , 48, 49, 50 seconds into it, that show a glimpse....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaMp5SibXRk
Has this source been mentioned as of yet?
Any Help?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 15, 2014, 10:58:12 AM
At the crux here I seem to have needed to correct the now-emerging labored assumption that we unanimously agreed 2-2-V-1 came from a factory setting: no, 'we' did not; we did agree it did not appear to be the work that produced the war time repairs we were able to study.  I respect Monty's belief, but suggest that his impression as given in that sentence is his own; it certainly was not and is not mine.  If I've somehow erred until now in what the commission believed I ascribed to, the record is now corrected.

Thank you for that Jeff.  As you'll recall, it was FAA Flight Standards District Manager Aris Scarla who, in Dayton, noted the precision of the rivet pitch and likened it to factory-quality work.   Aris was with us in Wichita. We now have a much better understanding of what was done to install the window and later the patch.  The rivet pitch on the longitudinal stiffeners is, indeed, precise work but not beyond the capabilities of a skilled mechanic. Aris is of the opinion that the artifact is the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 15, 2014, 11:09:38 AM
As per the image/ images Jeff Glickman is studying...... is the shiny Miami patch photo the main/ sole image that is under study to see if it's characteristics match the artifact?

The print of the Miami Herald photo that we obtained years and years ago is, by far, the best image of the patch we've found.  All of the other images are digital scans.  Scanning alters the image. The Lae takeoff video is a digital dub of a copy of the original 16mm film.  The original film and the copy are apparently both lost.  It would be great if we could find prints from the original negatives of the two Darwin photos (the one on the ramp and the one in the hangar).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 15, 2014, 11:48:33 AM
At the crux here I seem to have needed to correct the now-emerging labored assumption that we unanimously agreed 2-2-V-1 came from a factory setting: no, 'we' did not; we did agree it did not appear to be the work that produced the war time repairs we were able to study.  I respect Monty's belief, but suggest that his impression as given in that sentence is his own; it certainly was not and is not mine.  If I've somehow erred until now in what the commission believed I ascribed to, the record is now corrected.

Thank you for that Jeff.  As you'll recall, it was FAA Flight Standards District Manager Aris Scarla who, in Dayton, noted the precision of the rivet pitch and likened it to factory-quality work.   Aris was with us in Wichita. We now have a much better understanding of what was done to install the window and later the patch.  The rivet pitch on the longitudinal stiffeners is, indeed, precise work but not beyond the capabilities of a skilled mechanic.  Aris is of the opinion that the artifact is the patch.

No problem - and I hope I didn't create any ambiguity.  That was to me a unique and great team experience in Dayton, well worth the time and travel. 

Scarla is a keen and very precise man in his observations and analysis.  I noticed he is also not one to become easily excited about an idea without strong supportive evidence, and that he is frank where any doubt may exist.  That equals tremendous and objective credibility in my view, a credit to your Wichita effort. 

Aris did clearly demonstrate the precision work in the fastener rows that I had not noticed before - very evenly spaced rivets along very straight lines.  That portion of the work - as you've pointed out, if taken alone might easily point to USAAF discipline.  I merely needed to make the distinction that we do have oddly (but slightly) divergent / convergent (depending on observed vector) fastener lines (relative to each other) - which strongly suggests a 'Miami patch' scenario to me.  We also have the one 'surviving' rivet that happened to be rather hobnailed instead of a clean buck, which suggests 'field work' that may have been a bit damped due to lack of an experienced helper (been there and coped with that too, you work with whom you have to get the bird moved).

Apparently now having observed this in the context of a real, very accessible L10, you all were similarly impressed.  I don't know what the public reading will be - and that's always the long pole in these things.  But I remain very excited about the prospects and very much look forward to the report.  You guys are much appreciated for going to earth in Wichita to do this, as Wichita Air Service remains so as well, of course.

I'd like to add that I realize I throw a fair number of abstract observations in at times - like the oddity of the rivet row placements and the mal-bucked rivet, but these are to me tell-tale signs that underscore my suspicions about 2-2-V-1 as potentially being just what I have hoped it to be (openly admitted here more than once).  Those things alone are not 'proof', but if one can add up enough 'coinkydinks' a story gets underlined; add more convincing finds and the story might go to bold print.  Now we have your first-hand observations - looking forward to that. 

In noticing these things, I am reminded of hands on experiences and real outcomes due to circumstances.  As such, 2-2-V-1 has emerged to look to me like a 'patch' that was executed primarily by a skilled mechanic, but one who had to deal with a) hand-fitted realities in making a flat sheet lie well along a slightly compound-curved surface, b) without excessive oil-canning and puckering as a result, and c) verly likely a less-than fully skilled helper to buck rivets, etc.  Been there more than once... and not a bad job in the least, just 'signed' by the above process IMO.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 15, 2014, 12:23:58 PM
If it is reasonable to think that the 2-2-v-1 was a repair to the Electra done in Miami, isn’t it also reasonable to think that 2-2-V-1 could have been a repair to a WW2 era plane done by USAAF personnel?

In and of itself, that seems a reasonable conjecture. But, other technical aspects aside, it should be pointed out that we have not yet seen a WWII aircraft that could be a donor for 2-2-V-1. One of the big surprises (to me at any rate) was the aircraft inspections at Dayton didn't reveal anything even close...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on October 15, 2014, 02:55:19 PM
2-2-V-1 photos showing "D" posted on page 44 of this thread by Mark/Ric appear to show a smaller font "M" to the right of the D

Looks to be right where we see the "M" in the Reg. TM stamp on the Alclad in the Atka Island B-24D for example.

Does this tell us anything assuming I'm not seeing things?

I want to bring up a point no one has mentioned regarding the possible "M" etc.  Have we seen any examples of stencils that show the trademark registered signs/letters? If not, then I don't think you will find them on the artifact. More likely just random marks or scratches. Input anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I will also agree with Mark that in all the examples we examined in Dayton, we found that the spacing of the rows on 2-2-V-1 were closer together than any examples we checked. The 1 inch pitch of the rivets was also different than the aircraft we checked. It was really amazing that none of those craft were even close.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 15, 2014, 04:28:46 PM
I will also agree with Mark that in all the examples we examined in Dayton, we found that the spacing of the rows on 2-2-V-1 were closer together than any examples we checked. The 1 inch pitch of the rivets was also different than the aircraft we checked. It was really amazing that none of those craft were even close.


As Aris Scarla explained to us, each aircraft type has a fingerprint. An aircraft fingerprint is the unique combination of requirements and configuration which results in a combination of aluminum skin type and thickness, circumferential and stringer spacing, rivet spacing, and rivet type and size that are unique to a specific aircraft type. 2-2-V-1 is a fingerprint.  We couldn't find a match to its fingerprint in Dayton. We found a match in Wichita, not just to a particular aircraft type but to a unique, one-off component of an individual example of that type.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 15, 2014, 04:35:13 PM
2-2-V-1 photos showing "D" posted on page 44 of this thread by Mark/Ric appear to show a smaller font "M" to the right of the D

Looks to be right where we see the "M" in the Reg. TM stamp on the Alclad in the Atka Island B-24D for example.

Does this tell us anything assuming I'm not seeing things?

I want to bring up a point no one has mentioned regarding the possible "M" etc.  Have we seen any examples of stencils that show the trademark registered signs/letters? If not, then I don't think you will find them on the artifact. More likely just random marks or scratches. Input anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I will also agree with Mark that in all the examples we examined in Dayton, we found that the spacing of the rows on 2-2-V-1 were closer together than any examples we checked. The 1 inch pitch of the rivets was also different than the aircraft we checked. It was really amazing that none of those craft were even close.

Odd thing is, while it probably is not on 2-2-V-1 (but maybe I'm wrong), it was a real feature somewhere along the line because Doug Ledlie is not seeing things, his post shows pictures with the "Registered TM" clearly there on the piece of metal he cited.

What I believe we have seen is about a gazillion (ok, a bit of exaggeration...) variations in font / print 'standards' - IF there was much of a 'standard' at that.  I have gotten the notion that what we've often taken as 'standard' was really a limited number of 'lot' examples that for whatever reason have been photographed a lot.  For instance, the old Lockheeds were photographed in fair detail a good bit on the line; I found one example of a Boeing 314 Clipper wing interior (circa 1938) with fonts like I'd not seen before on a box structure, but nothing on other wing structures, which appeared painted over, perhaps.  I've found precisely zip on the old Sikorsky's of the era, so far.  Nothing on Martins either.

Which is all certainly far from conclusive, but I am convinced that there was more variety in print styling on metal than I ever would have guessed a year ago.

Just goes to show ya, studyin' counts... knowwhutahmean?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Carter on October 15, 2014, 08:11:53 PM
Which is all certainly far from conclusive, but I am convinced that there was more variety in print styling on metal than I ever would have guessed a year ago.

During WWII, aluminum stencil markings seem to have a number of variations. 

However, during the 1930s, the markings were very consistent in terms of font and size.  During the 1930s, ALCLAD was labelled "ALC" followed by the alloy identification (for example, ALC24ST, ALC24SRT, etc.)  See http://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/1930s-alcoa-markings/
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 15, 2014, 08:31:44 PM
During WWII, aluminum stencil markings seem to have a number of variations. 

However, during the 1930s, the markings were very consistent in terms of font and size.  During the 1930s, ALCLAD was labelled "ALC" followed by the alloy identification (for example, ALC24ST, ALC24SRT, etc.)  See http://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/1930s-alcoa-markings/

Is the basis for your categorical statement the handful of photos shown on that website?  Whose website is that anyway?  Yours?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 16, 2014, 07:06:18 AM
At the crux here I seem to have needed to correct the now-emerging labored assumption that we unanimously agreed 2-2-V-1 came from a factory setting: no, 'we' did not; we did agree it did not appear to be the work that produced the war time repairs we were able to study.  I respect Monty's belief, but suggest that his impression as given in that sentence is his own; it certainly was not and is not mine.  If I've somehow erred until now in what the commission believed I ascribed to, the record is now corrected.

Thank you for that Jeff.  As you'll recall, it was FAA Flight Standards District Manager Aris Scarla who, in Dayton, noted the precision of the rivet pitch and likened it to factory-quality work.   Aris was with us in Wichita. We now have a much better understanding of what was done to install the window and later the patch.  The rivet pitch on the longitudinal stiffeners is, indeed, precise work but not beyond the capabilities of a skilled mechanic. Aris is of the opinion that the artifact is the patch.

Just to clarify - or further muddy the waters  ;D - At Dayton, I was repeating and emphasizing Aris' observation on the quality of the work on The Patch. Since there had been so much debate on whether The Patch could have been a wartime field repair from Canton or a similar place, the conclusion by Aris and the USAF museum experts that The Patch did not fit that criteria was, to me, very important. And I stand by my elaboration on Aris' statement that The Patch "was created under controlled conditions." The metal shop, or even the basic shop, of either of the airports in Miami where The Patch might have been made qualifies as "controlled conditions" to me. Not a factory, to be sure, but still, conditions vastly different from some guy trying to rivet a piece of metal over a very large hole while the aircraft is out in the open somewhere in the Pacific, so it will be ready for the next combat mission.

LTM, who knows that an expert is someone who knows when to call in the experts,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 16, 2014, 08:06:05 AM
I favor the website - and its continued development - IF enough examples can be added to lift us beyond what we've already seen and provide a much greater variety of examples, and IF conclusions are to be implied, definitive sources are quoted.  Most if not all of these photos in the site have already appeared here. 

But to their credit, whomever developed what we see so far has apparently left the door open for refinement

Jeff Neville is the very soul of congeniality and empathy.  If someone snuck up behind him and hit him on the head with a hammer his reaction (after he came to) would likely be to compliment his attacker on his stealth and skill at blunt trauma.  As most here have probably noticed, I am less forgiving, perhaps because I have the responsibility of maintaining the integrity and credibility of TIGHAR's investigations.

Jeff Carter makes a categorical statement of fact - "During the 1930s, ALCLAD was labelled "ALC" followed by the alloy identification (for example, ALC24ST, ALC24SRT, etc.)" and cites a source which turns out to be nothing but a collection of images assembled by an anonymous someone specifically for the purpose of attacking TIGHAR. His argument comes down to a fundamental logical fallacy:  "Some X are Y.  Therefore, all X are Y."   His posting is, at best, uneducated and, at worst, intentionally disingenuous.   Either way, making unsupportable statements of "fact" on the this Forum has long been grounds for monitoring to insure that such misleading postings do not recur.

We continue to encourage research into the significance of the markings visible on 2-2-V-1.  Trolls need not apply.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 16, 2014, 10:26:36 AM
Which is all certainly far from conclusive, but I am convinced that there was more variety in print styling on metal than I ever would have guessed a year ago.

During WWII, aluminum stencil markings seem to have a number of variations. 

However, during the 1930s, the markings were very consistent in terms of font and size.  During the 1930s, ALCLAD was labelled "ALC" followed by the alloy identification (for example, ALC24ST, ALC24SRT, etc.)  See http://aluminummarkings.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/1930s-alcoa-markings/

It's vexing to me there are as yet uncounted variables that HAVE to be characterized before we can say anything definitive about aircraft aluminum labeling and associated font and font substyles in the 30s.

Here's just some of what we don't know:

1) Variability in corporate brand standards for aluminum manufacturers and how they evolved or devolved over the decade--and the directives for labeling associated with them.
2) Variability associated with transitions in brand standards--transition times, disposition of old stock etc
3) Variability in application of labeling from plant-to-plant, run-to-run, and changes over time
4) Variability associated with product -- manufacturing product vs replacement product
5) Variability associated with changes in federal trademark law impacting marks (TM etc)
6) Variability associated with prototyping and trial runs
7) Variability in equipment maintenance and failure
8) Variability we haven't even identified yet

My point is this: We can observe and document. We can make broad and general statements based on those observations. We can guess. We can argue. But when it comes to the voodoo of aircraft aluminum product labeling, it is well-nigh impossible for anyone to make definitive statements about the practice. Not yet anyway.

If anyone can produce original source documentation such as published contemporary brand standards, application instructions, legal directives (not just random photographs) that will be a good start. I ain't seen none of that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Buttke on October 16, 2014, 12:29:08 PM
Jeff Carter makes a categorical statement of fact - "During the 1930s, ALCLAD was labelled "ALC" followed by the alloy identification (for example, ALC24ST, ALC24SRT, etc.)" and cites a source which turns out to be nothing but a collection of images assembled by an anonymous someone specifically for the purpose of attacking TIGHAR. His argument comes down to a fundamental logical fallacy:  "Some X are Y.  Therefore, all X are Y."   His posting is, at best, uneducated and, at worst, intentionally disingenuous. 

Not to mention several of the images date from the 40's.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 16, 2014, 01:13:34 PM

It's vexing to me there are as yet uncounted variables that HAVE to be characterized before we can say anything definitive about aircraft aluminum labeling and associated font and font substyles in the 30s.

Here's just some of what we don't know:

8) Variability we haven't even identified yet

Rest assured, Mark, TECTIC, The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex, will enthusiastically inject more variables than anyone here could possibly imagine into whatever TIGHAR asserts about The Patch. Doesn't matter if they make even a shred of sense. Doesn't matter if some are so implausible as to be ridiculous. Doesn't matter if they are directly contraindicated of known and verifiable facts. The only thing that matters is throwin'  'em up against the wall. Regardless of whether they stick or not.

Which is going to make the next few months interesting, to put it mildly. Oh well, more discussion fodder for around the holiday dinner tables!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 16, 2014, 01:28:47 PM
The only thing that matters is throwin'  'em up against the wall. Regardless of whether they stick or not.

Well, they're going to have to find some other wall to throw them against because we're not going to tolerate them here. As we always have, we'll welcome skepticism, we'll encourage honest questions, and we'll do our best to answer legitimate challenges to our conclusions. What we will not do is accommodate trolls and the droppings they throw.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 16, 2014, 03:21:55 PM

It's vexing to me there are as yet uncounted variables that HAVE to be characterized before we can say anything definitive about aircraft aluminum labeling and associated font and font substyles in the 30s.

Here's just some of what we don't know:

8) Variability we haven't even identified yet

Rest assured, Mark, TECTIC, The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex, will enthusiastically inject more variables than anyone here could possibly imagine into whatever TIGHAR asserts about The Patch. Doesn't matter if they make even a shred of sense. Doesn't matter if some are so implausible as to be ridiculous. Doesn't matter if they are directly contraindicated of known and verifiable facts. The only thing that matters is throwin'  'em up against the wall. Regardless of whether they stick or not.

Which is going to make the next few months interesting, to put it mildly. Oh well, more discussion fodder for around the holiday dinner tables!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Right you are, Monty!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Roger London on October 16, 2014, 04:20:38 PM
2-2-V-1 PROVEN at last, a HUGE well done all round.

Now our respects to Amelia and Fred, not least here in TIGHAR, and then by way of a suitable and substantial epitaph on Niku to their tragic demise. Amen


What a fantastic project, Roger
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 16, 2014, 04:32:07 PM
2-2-V-1 PROVEN at last, a HUGE well done all round.

Now our respects to Amelia and Fred, not least here in TIGHAR, and then by way of a suitable and substantial epitaph on Niku to their tragic demise. Amen


What a fantastic project, Roger

Thanks Roger, but PROVEN is a very high standard and we still have many unanswered questions.  The 2-2-V-1 Commission is now reviewing the report and we're making a number of additions and clarifications to make sure it's as accurate and understandable as we can make it. .
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 16, 2014, 07:38:43 PM
2-2-V-1 PROVEN at last, a HUGE well done all round.

Now our respects to Amelia and Fred, not least here in TIGHAR, and then by way of a suitable and substantial epitaph on Niku to their tragic demise. Amen


What a fantastic project, Roger

We did? Darn, I always miss the exciting stuff ... comes from having your nose stuck in a computer and lots and lots of files all day long. 2-V-1-1 is not the Any Idiot Artifact. My money for that one is on the Conroy Anomaly, due to be checked out by Niku VIII.

But - The Patch is an awfully important piece of the puzzle in this seven-decade old mystery.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on October 17, 2014, 12:01:01 AM
Does anyone know if Lockeed Martin had a certain repair manual or troubleshooting manual in case of certain unforseen events would take place? Say in this case a broken or cracked window. Also, not an expert at this, but curious to know how the windows on the Electra were installed...between the metal, in the inside of the plane, or etc? Woud be neat to know!!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on October 21, 2014, 05:52:57 AM

...

I'm writing the report. When it's finished I'll send it to Jeff Glickman and Aris Scarla for comment and/or correction.  When they've both signed off on the report we'll publish it on the TIGHAR website.  What I can tell you right now is that, at the end of the day, all of us were in agreement that the artifact is the patch.

Seems awfully quiet on the forum of late...

Ric, any ETA on the report getting published?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 21, 2014, 06:25:31 AM

...

I'm writing the report. When it's finished I'll send it to Jeff Glickman and Aris Scarla for comment and/or correction.  When they've both signed off on the report we'll publish it on the TIGHAR website.  What I can tell you right now is that, at the end of the day, all of us were in agreement that the artifact is the patch.

Seems awfully quiet on the forum of late...

Ric, any ETA on the report getting published?

Anticipa-a-a-tion...

A lot of work seems to be going into this one.  Should be good.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 21, 2014, 06:36:41 AM
They say that, "Good things come to those who wait."

But, yeah, sometimes I would like to pound "them" senseless. I know, my bad.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 21, 2014, 07:15:21 AM
Ric, any ETA on the report getting published?

We're shooting for Friday.  Vetting the initial draft has been an interesting and informative process. 
Everyone will have plenty to chew on.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lee on October 22, 2014, 11:21:48 AM
There has been some discussion on this thread about how the Miami Patch was fabricated, whether Pan Am was involved, etc.  In this light I find an article titled ‘Found Objects’ in an old issue of Tighar Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/objects.pdf) to be of interest.  It describes a piece of aluminum designated ‘artifact 2-2’ that was found during NIKU I.  In discussing how this artifact might be linked to the Electra, it is stated that

“It is worth noting that an inventory of the Earhart aircraft taken after the
March 20, 1937 crash in Hawaii lists “2 Pcs. Sheet metal Alcoa” (Item #66) as being among
the spare parts carried.”


Of course, we don’t know for sure that spare aluminum was carried on the Electra on the second world flight, but it certainly is worth keeping in mind the fact that Earhart did do so on her first circumnavigation attempt.



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gary Vance on October 22, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
Maybe I missed it somewhere in forum, but did the stringer  pictured  in the 2-2-V-I commission analysis match the new found stringer indentation Jeff Glickman found?  I realize there may be many sizes and widths of stringers.  Just curious if they were fitted together to see if they matched.

Gary

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2014, 02:00:18 PM
There has been some discussion on this thread about how the Miami Patch was fabricated, whether Pan Am was involved, etc.  In this light I find an article titled ‘Found Objects’ in an old issue of Tighar Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/objects.pdf) to be of interest.  It describes a piece of aluminum designated ‘artifact 2-2’ that was found during NIKU I.  In discussing how this artifact might be linked to the Electra, it is stated that

“It is worth noting that an inventory of the Earhart aircraft taken after the
March 20, 1937 crash in Hawaii lists “2 Pcs. Sheet metal Alcoa” (Item #66) as being among
the spare parts carried.”


Of course, we don’t know for sure that spare aluminum was carried on the Electra on the second world flight, but it certainly is worth keeping in mind the fact that Earhart did do so on her first circumnavigation attempt.

Interesting point.  Thanks Steve. We don't know how big or of what thickness the sheets were and, as you say, we don't know whether spare aluminum sheet was carried on the second attempt - but at least on the first attempt there seems to have been a recognition that a need for sheet might arise for minor repairs. 

Below are the photos and text for Artifact 2-2 (properly 2-1-V-2) from the NTSB Lab report. Elsewhere in the report it mentions that although this metal is 2024 (same as 24ST) alloy aluminum it is not "clad" (not ALCLAD).
Ask yourself this.  Where is there a sheet of aluminum on any aircraft that has a finished edge that is not riveted to something?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 22, 2014, 03:11:32 PM
Apophenia alert !

In this critical past clip, Are there some sheet goods under the white material ( above thermos)?....in several views it appears that there is a shiny edge sticking out from under ....and when Earhart drops her binocular case on one of the edges ( about 57 seconds in) ...whatever it is ,....it seems stiff, ( doesn't fold downward like one would expect the open flaps on a cardboard box to do) ...or is it plexiglass as at about 25 sec  Earhart's shoe passes by and at 118 sec  it looks like one can see the workers pants through the object's corner... ( unless it is reflective off aluminum.)

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063657_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_transatlantic-flight_Fred-Noonan
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 22, 2014, 03:55:39 PM
There has been some discussion on this thread about how the Miami Patch was fabricated, whether Pan Am was involved, etc.  In this light I find an article titled ‘Found Objects’ in an old issue of Tighar Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/objects.pdf) to be of interest.  It describes a piece of aluminum designated ‘artifact 2-2’ that was found during NIKU I.  In discussing how this artifact might be linked to the Electra, it is stated that

“It is worth noting that an inventory of the Earhart aircraft taken after the
March 20, 1937 crash in Hawaii lists “2 Pcs. Sheet metal Alcoa” (Item #66) as being among
the spare parts carried.”


Of course, we don’t know for sure that spare aluminum was carried on the Electra on the second world flight, but it certainly is worth keeping in mind the fact that Earhart did do so on her first circumnavigation attempt.

Interesting point.  Thanks Steve. We don't know how big or of what thickness the sheets were and, as you say, we don't know whether spare aluminum sheet was carried on the second attempt - but at least on the first attempt there seems to have been a recognition that a need for sheet might arise for minor repairs. 

Below are the photos and text for Artifact 2-2 (properly 2-1-V-2) from the NTSB Lab report. Elsewhere in the report it mentions that although this metal is 2024 (same as 24ST) alloy aluminum it is not "clad" (not ALCLAD).
Ask yourself this.  Where is there a sheet of aluminum on any aircraft that has a finished edge that is not riveted to something?

Spares... in the cargo?

Humble 2-2-V-2 is interesting.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2014, 04:56:57 PM
in several views it appears that there is a shiny edge sticking out from under ...

i agree. I think we may be looking at one, or maybe both, of the pieces of sheet metal described in the inventory. Is it big enough to fashion the patch from?  Hard to say.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 22, 2014, 05:00:42 PM
in several views it appears that there is a shiny edge sticking out from under ...

i agree. I think we may be looking at one, or maybe both, of the pieces of sheet metal described in the inventory. Is it big enough to fashion the patch from?  Hard to say.

Possibly, the source material for 2-1-V-2?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2014, 05:49:45 PM
Maybe I missed it somewhere in forum, but did the stringer  pictured  in the 2-2-V-I commission analysis match the new found stringer indentation Jeff Glickman found?  I realize there may be many sizes and widths of stringers.  Just curious if they were fitted together to see if they matched.

They match.  That piece of stringer and the mark on the artifact are both 5/8ths inches wide. It doesn't mean anything except to illustrate that stiffeners 5/8th inches wide are common on the Lockheed Model 10.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Possibly, the source material for 2-1-V-2?

Possibly, but why would you carry spare sheet metal that wasn't ALCLAD?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve Lee on October 22, 2014, 05:56:11 PM
There has been some discussion on this thread about how the Miami Patch was fabricated, whether Pan Am was involved, etc.  In this light I find an article titled ‘Found Objects’ in an old issue of Tighar Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/objects.pdf) to be of interest.  It describes a piece of aluminum designated ‘artifact 2-2’ that was found during NIKU I.  In discussing how this artifact might be linked to the Electra, it is stated that

“It is worth noting that an inventory of the Earhart aircraft taken after the
March 20, 1937 crash in Hawaii lists “2 Pcs. Sheet metal Alcoa” (Item #66) as being among
the spare parts carried.”


Of course, we don’t know for sure that spare aluminum was carried on the Electra on the second world flight, but it certainly is worth keeping in mind the fact that Earhart did do so on her first circumnavigation attempt.

Interesting point.  Thanks Steve. We don't know how big or of what thickness the sheets were and, as you say, we don't know whether spare aluminum sheet was carried on the second attempt - but at least on the first attempt there seems to have been a recognition that a need for sheet might arise for minor repairs. 

Below are the photos and text for Artifact 2-2 (properly 2-1-V-2) from the NTSB Lab report. Elsewhere in the report it mentions that although this metal is 2024 (same as 24ST) alloy aluminum it is not "clad" (not ALCLAD).
Ask yourself this.  Where is there a sheet of aluminum on any aircraft that has a finished edge that is not riveted to something?

Ric, actually, the question I ask myself is this:

“If Amelia was carrying spare Alclad on the Electra, doesn't it stand to reason that she got it from the place that just finished fixing her plane--Lockheed--and so its Alcoa markings should match those we have seen on the Electra, i.e., ALC 24ST?…”
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 22, 2014, 06:14:41 PM
Ric, actually, the question I ask myself is this:

“If Amelia was carrying spare Alclad on the Electra, doesn't it stand to reason that she got it from the place that just finished fixing her plane--Lockheed--and so its Alcoa markings should match those we have seen on the Electra, i.e., ALC 24ST?…”

Yes, that would be the question you would ask yourself and you would assume that spare sheets were also carried on the second attempt and that the size of the spare sheets was adequate to make the patch and you would answer yourself, "Yes, it stands to reason, therefore 2-2-V-1 cannot possibly be the Miami patch." and you would encourage TIGHAR to abandon the silly notion that we have a piece of NR16020.

And that's why you're a troll on moderation.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on October 22, 2014, 06:38:27 PM
What could they possibly have been anticipating to carry, of all things, spare sheet metal?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 22, 2014, 06:40:19 PM

“If Amelia was carrying spare Alclad on the Electra, doesn't it stand to reason that she got it from the place that just finished fixing her plane--Lockheed--and so its Alcoa markings should match those we have seen on the Electra, i.e., ALC 24ST?…”
Several things wrong with assumptions in that question:
The first Model 10 was built in 1934
Earhart's special was finished in 1936
The repairs were made in 1937
The markings seen could be from 1934 stock but changed by 1937.
Also, the spare metal carried on the first attempt could have been from different stock of spare metal, or replaced with different metal on the 2nd attempt, or have had more spares added or spares not carried at all on the 2nd attempt.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 22, 2014, 07:48:52 PM
Question for those who know....is non AL clad aluminum easier to work with than that with clad, for a quick patch job?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 22, 2014, 08:20:06 PM
Ric,
Re your question in reply #778

Engine cooling baffles
Wheel fenders
Fixed trim tabs
Wheel mud scrapers
Cabin heater heat shields
Muffler heat exchangers
APU heat shields

Just to name a few!

Ted Campbell

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 22, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
Metal work always fascinated me above all other A&P work... can't leave it alone -

She might have gotten a nice little batch of metal from new stock somewhere, or she might have gotten some random 'scrap' (perhaps new metal left as cuttings from larger sheet) that was big and attractive enough to serve her notions (likely Mantz's, is my guess) of what might be needed along the way.

---

Clad material is essentially no different from non-clad material to work with - you'd not notice the difference in drilling in forming.  The cladding has a negligible effect on strength or rigidity.

---

Quote
Engine cooling baffles
Wheel fenders
Fixed trim tabs
Wheel mud scrapers
Cabin heater heat shields
Muffler heat exchangers
APU heat shields

Interesting thought, but those all tend to have some sort of edge 'fastener' present.

Cooling baffles frequently have soft sealing material attached along the free edge, and when not are often shaped fit next into odd places or a curvature; a pure straight edge as we see might not be so common (is not in my experience, but now someone will find a photo...) -

Fenders and the like are typically reinforced; I think the Lockheed had a form of metal beading riveted around the edges (but a close-up would tell for sure).  Don't know much about 'scrapers'...

Fixed tabs are a good example, agreed.

Cabin heat shields and heat exchangers could, but usually these are formed into cylindrical sections.  Good thought, but we seem to be looking at 'stock' - unless it was from a fairly large article such as a shield or exchanger and cut loose from fastening features, etc.

No APU in the Lockheed other than the 'Armstrong' (it could be hand propped if you were tall enough and had the coconuts to do it...).

---

I know the "A D" marks bug a number of folks regarding 'era'; it bugs me a bit, too - I see the point, but still believe 'the line' should be better defined as to when that change occurred before this pursuit could possibly be disqualified, all the nice pictures so far notwithstanding.  The problem I have with all the nice pictures, so far, is whether we're really seeing a meaningful sample (and through the howls I'll also say I'm not totally certain of what we're seeing on 2-2-V-1, even though I know what it seems to be). 

It probably bugs Ric that this bugs me a bit, but I just see it as one signature detail whose importance is not yet known for certain; it also bugs me that others who are really bugged by this aren't bugged enough to dig deeper for more definitive evidence about that if what we're doing bugs them so badly. 

'A D' - bugger.

'night.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on October 22, 2014, 11:09:12 PM
As we know, A.E. and F.N. left behind all the things they didn't really need in Lae. So I don't think they would have carried metal spare parts with them when they were airborn for Howland Island.
Oskar, 4421A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 23, 2014, 07:51:59 AM
It probably bugs Ric that this bugs me a bit, but I just see it as one signature detail whose importance is not yet known for certain; it also bugs me that others who are really bugged by this aren't bugged enough to dig deeper for more definitive evidence about that if what we're doing bugs them so badly. 

It bugs me too.  It's a fly in an otherwise perfect ointment.  We're not ignoring it and we haven't dismissed it as unimportant. We have not said that 2-2-V-1 is definitely from the Miami Patch, nor will we.  We'll publish our research so far (it now looks like it will be Monday) and we'll continue to learn as much as we can about the artifact.  If we find something that legitimately disqualifies it as being from the Miami Patch we'll say so, but right now there is so much hard evidence that says it IS from the patch that it seems most likely that there is a reasonable explanation for the AD.  Meanwhile we're not going to provide a stage for troll dances that contain nothing but opinion.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 23, 2014, 07:52:33 AM
True, Oskar, but we can't assume that. Unfortunately no one thought to inventory what they left behind in Lae, or if that was done, the record has not surfaced.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 23, 2014, 07:56:28 AM
Unfortunately no one thought to inventory what they left behind in Lae, or if that was done, the record has not surfaced.

The only reason the airplane was inventoried in Hawaii was because Earhart was on a ship to California the same day as the accident and left it to the Army to clean up the mess and ship the plane back to Lockheed for repair. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on October 23, 2014, 08:12:20 AM
Quote
Meanwhile we're not going to provide a stage for troll dances that contain nothing but opinion.

Reminds me of a quote from Sam Rayburn.  "Anyone can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one." 

Carry on, carpenters.  Your work is admirable.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 23, 2014, 08:43:45 AM
Let's see, 2-V-1-1 has  been subjected to the following information-gathering methods:

- Mark 1 eyeball.
- Hyperspectral imaging.
- Multispectrum paint analysis.
- Materials composition analysis.

Are there any other tests of a scientific nature that we can perform on this piece of aluminum to pry additional secrets from it?

LTM, who knows that answers cost,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 23, 2014, 08:57:00 AM
Let's see, 2-V-1-1 has  been subjected to the following information-gathering methods:

- Mark 1 eyeball.
- Hyperspectral imaging.
- Multispectrum paint analysis.
- Materials composition analysis.


To be exact:
- Materials analysis by NTSB Lab
- Materials analysis by ALCOA
- Failures opinion by retired FAA expert
- Two forensic attempts by Winterthur Lab to find paint, one on exterior, one on interior - both unsuccessful.
- Aircraft-of-origin research by USAF Museum and TIGHAR Commission
- Forensic imaging analysis
- Hyperspectral imaging (results pending)
- Structures comparison/analysis with two Lockheed Model 10s, c/n 1052 and 1091

Are there any other tests of a scientific nature that we can perform on this piece of aluminum to pry additional secrets from it?

Yes.  We haven't really begun to do an in-depth analysis of the damage (edge failures, dents, gouges, etc.).  For that we'll need forensic metallurgical  expertise.  We're working on that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 23, 2014, 09:44:36 AM
It probably bugs Ric that this bugs me a bit, but I just see it as one signature detail whose importance is not yet known for certain; it also bugs me that others who are really bugged by this aren't bugged enough to dig deeper for more definitive evidence about that if what we're doing bugs them so badly. 

It bugs me too.  It's a fly in an otherwise perfect ointment.  We're not ignoring it and we haven't dismissed it as unimportant. We have not said that 2-2-V-1 is definitely from the Miami Patch, nor will we.  We'll publish our research so far (it now looks like it will be Monday) and we'll continue to learn as much as we can about the artifact.  If we find something that legitimately disqualifies it as being from the Miami Patch we'll say so, but right now there is so much hard evidence that says it IS from the patch that it seems most likely that there is a reasonable explanation for the AD.  Meanwhile we're not going to provide a stage for troll dances that contain nothing but opinion.

It isn't a perfect world. 

You've just articulated very well why this is all worthwhile to many of us, despite the odds.

There is a big difference in topical skepticism and concerned research.  I dislike wiping up other's spaghetti on the wall.  I don't mind cooking, but if they throw it, they need to clean it up - otherwise they weren't examing my cooking, they just didn't like the meal. 

Disraeli had something to say about this  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics) kind of thing - and we all deal in probabiliteis here, all the time.  I've gone and looked at more fonts in person than I've seen posted here, so I know we're not getting a full picture and that 'A L C L A D' has not been pegged in time yet as to when it truly emerged; I also know what the 'A D' on 2-2-V-1 looks like, but am still not fully resolved that we have a clear, full picture of what we have for certain.  Maybe I'm just dumb.  I do note, however, that one reader recently pointed out what he thought was a subtle serif - and after the variations I've seen in Dayton I'm not sure that's not the case.

In any case, immature statistics can be the worst of veils.  What we're trying very hard to do with 2-2-V-1 is to work through that as well as can be done - lots yet to do.  Time...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 23, 2014, 09:54:16 AM
Let's see, 2-V-1-1 has  been subjected to the following information-gathering methods:

- Mark 1 eyeball.
- Hyperspectral imaging.
- Multispectrum paint analysis.
- Materials composition analysis.


To be exact:
- Materials analysis by NTSB Lab
- Materials analysis by ALCOA
- Failures opinion by retired FAA expert
- Two forensic attempts by Winterthur Lab to find paint, one on exterior, one on interior - both unsuccessful.
- Aircraft-of-origin research by USAF Museum and TIGHAR Commission
- Forensic imaging analysis
- Hyperspectral imaging (results pending)
- Structures comparison/analysis with two Lockheed Model 10s, c/n 1052 and 1091

Are there any other tests of a scientific nature that we can perform on this piece of aluminum to pry additional secrets from it?

Yes.  We haven't really begun to do an in-depth analysis of the damage (edge failures, dents, gouges, etc.).  For that we'll need forensic metallurgical  expertise.  We're working on that.

Really interested in the expert failure analysis - *IMO* 2-2-V-1 is very complex in this regard (if not obviously so in other regards).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on October 23, 2014, 10:30:46 AM
Really interested in the expert failure analysis - *IMO* 2-2-V-1 is very complex in this regard (if not obviously so in other regards).

Are you referring to the Korsgaard "opinion"?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 23, 2014, 11:02:19 AM
Really interested in the expert failure analysis - *IMO* 2-2-V-1 is very complex in this regard (if not obviously so in other regards).

Are you referring to the Korsgaard "opinion"?

Yes. His opinion that the piece was blown out by a fuel/air explosion now seems unlikely in the light of what we've learned since then.  Ditto for some of what we were told by the engineers at ALCOA.  "Expert" opinions are good to have but they are not infallible.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on October 23, 2014, 11:09:39 AM
Let's see, 2-V-1-1 has  been subjected to the following...

Monty, 
2-V-1-1 or not 2-V-1-1.  THAT is the question.  And the answer is not 2-V-1-1 but alas, it is 2-2-V-1.

With apologies to Willie S.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 23, 2014, 11:40:35 AM
In the hope of reducing confusion, allow me to decode the mysterious TIGHAR artifact numbering system.

The first digit is the chronological TIGHAR project number. TIGHAR's first major project was Project Midnight Ghost (the search for l'Oiseau Blanc). Artifacts associated with that project have numbers beginning with 1.  Our second major project was the Earhart Project so all Earhart Project artifacts have numbers beginning with 2.

The second digit is the chronological number of the expedition within that project on which the artifact was found. Artifacts found during the 1989 Earhart expedition begin with 2-1.  Artifacts from the second trip (1991) begin with 2-2.  And so forth.

The letter in the third position denotes the general location wher the artifact was found.  Artifacts found at the Seven Site have an S.  Artifacts found in the village have a V. The shoe parts found at the baby grave site have a G. Objects recovered from the Loran station have an L.  Objects recovered from Nutiran have an N.

The last digit is simply the chronological number of the artifact cataloging for that expedition at that site (not necessarily the order in which artifacts were found).

So ..... 2-2-V-1 is an Earhart Project artifact (2), found on the second Earhart Project expedition (2), in the Village (V), and it was the first artifact we cataloged (1).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 23, 2014, 11:54:32 AM
*pats self on back* They don't call me the Transposition Champ for nothin'!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 23, 2014, 11:56:52 AM
That which we call a rose...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 23, 2014, 12:27:11 PM
In the hope of reducing confusion, allow me to decode the mysterious TIGHAR artifact numbering system.

You left out the "slash numbers" for artifacts that have several pieces.   :)

There is a category in the  (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Artifacts)Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Artifacts) that has some articles on some of the artifacts.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on October 23, 2014, 09:34:18 PM
What could they possibly have been anticipating to carry, of all things, spare sheet metal?

With the discussion at hand....Ric....Was the interior structure of the Electra made from the same material as the outter shell of the plane? What I'm driving at here is whose to say that this piece of metal didn't come from something inside the plane? Or was it a piece of the damaged section when she crashed the first time? Just curious!!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on October 24, 2014, 07:09:18 AM
What could they possibly have been anticipating to carry, of all things, spare sheet metal?

With the discussion at hand....Ric....Was the interior structure of the Electra made from the same material as the outter shell of the plane? What I'm driving at here is whose to say that this piece of metal didn't come from something inside the plane? Or was it a piece of the damaged section when she crashed the first time? Just curious!!!!

Interesting possibility though but there's still the question of what size were these "2pcs. Sheet metal Alcoa". Perhaps the idea that they were large enough for the Alcoa imprint to be a notable feature can give some idea?

Ok, so you brought some sheet metal with you, how are you going to manipulate it? The Luke field inventory sure doesn't suggest there was much to work with if you had to fabricate something. Take something apart (a good amount of PWA [Pratt and Whitney Aircraft] maintenance tools), yes, but make something out of sheet metal? No, in my opinion.  Though there "cold solder" is an outlier in this regard.

But who can say exactly what from the Luke Field inventory made it back on the plane for the 2nd attempt? I guess this is pretty much an academic exercise.     
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 24, 2014, 07:24:38 AM
Was the interior structure of the Electra made from the same material as the outter shell of the plane?

In a stressed skin monocoque aluminum airplane like the Electra the interior structure IS the outer shell.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on October 25, 2014, 07:13:36 AM
Ric and Tim....I should have been more clear on what I was trying to say. In the interior part of the plane...like the flooring and bookcase or whatever...was the metal different? Also, during my research the other night I noticed something about this picture from the Miami Herald...that shows Amelia right next to the plane. As you guys noted the one window wasnt even there as could be seen (one with the so called patch), but the window behind the right wing was. In this window I noticed something very odd, and please help me out on this...but why would you have a cross brace across an open window and the interior of the window blocked off? Was this the way the windows were installed. When you visited Newton several weeks ago...was this notable on the Electra there? Let me know...thanks!!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 25, 2014, 10:12:58 AM
Ric and Tim....I should have been more clear on what I was trying to say. In the interior part of the plane...like the flooring and bookcase or whatever...was the metal different?

The floor was wood.  The navigator's table was wood.  There was no bookcase as far as we know. The fuselage fuel tanks were thin aluminum but we don't know what kind.

Also, during my research the other night I noticed something about this picture from the Miami Herald...that shows Amelia right next to the plane. As you guys noted the one window wasnt even there as could be seen (one with the so called patch), but the window behind the right wing was. In this window I noticed something very odd, and please help me out on this...but why would you have a cross brace across an open window and the interior of the window blocked off?

I don't know what you're seeing but there is no cross brace through the standard window in the Miami Herald photo and the window is not blocked off.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on October 28, 2014, 04:54:20 AM
Ric,
 
Job Well Done on the report.....dogged determination, preserverance, patience, scientific methodology, and just plain hard-headed hard work are paying off. Proud to be a part of the quest.
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on October 28, 2014, 06:16:43 AM

 Job Well Done on the report ...

Press release and report (http://tighar.org) ...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on October 28, 2014, 06:22:02 AM
Very well done, very professional approach, bring in the ROV's!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Gard on October 28, 2014, 07:09:38 AM

 Job Well Done on the report ...

Press release and report (http://tighar.org) ...

Agree. Exciting news.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 28, 2014, 09:21:44 AM
For those who may not have picked up on the 'Report'  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html) itself, please check it out.

The link is embedded in the press release  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/Oct2014pressrelease.html) that Bruce linked here earlier but I thought it might help to provide the direct link to the new bulletin. 

Ric would have announced this himself, but somehow got himself kicked off of TIGHAR's own site...  ???  I SWEAR I didn't do it...  8) and hopefully he'll be restored soon.

Surely this will raise some discussion among the many interested parties of all leanings and bents.  We who were able to be a part of the effort certainly found much of interest.  For a 'simple' piece of metal, 2-2-V-1 has become a fascinating study - enjoy!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark A. Cook on October 28, 2014, 11:27:49 AM
Want to thank every one of you to allow myself on this site with many hours of enjoyable reading. I am down right almost scared to post anything.
I think you are on the right track to solve this.
This just a quick general idea about the patch in question, without going into great detail like most you do & that is very understandable they way others have in the past try to tear each & every thing you say apart.

Only reason for a bigger window I see is so Noonan could take his sun line readings much better, Why not make the already there window  much bigger is a question, Extra fuel tanks in the way?   But in turn 2 windows so close together & different sizes I think this caused more problems structurally plane wise than it helped. This was way before the famous Comet plane structural problems,  Cutting out & reshaping metal support braces so close together even today scares myself as long time fabricator & welder.
 But you always must look back at there time period with there technology that was available to them.
Don't misunderstand me. I think they was a huge amount of small things went wrong on that flight that added up to 1 huge problem not just the structural problems only. This same problem of a lot different small problem's turning into big problems still effects us even today. 
I don't think it even been proven they had aircraft structural problems. But something went wrong from that Ca. to Fla. flight for the patch to be installed. Plus ground loop anything it will cause problems later. Or I feel it will.   

Hope I don't get too big of a chewing out over this post, But this what open discussions are for I feel,  But keep up the wonderful work,  I think you will solve this within next few years, Very good workmanship to all for your huge amount of time & effort into this cause..   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Todd Attebery on October 28, 2014, 12:50:26 PM
It may have been eluded to in an earlier page on this topic, but I would guess that the patch is lighter (lower weight) than the window it replaced.   If your mechanic notices that your tailcone has been "tweaked" due to a "hard landing", you start questioning the structural integrity of the original window mod, you are already worried about weight, and your new navigator says he doesn't need the window ... then the patch is an obvious quick fix. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on October 28, 2014, 12:52:31 PM
I know it's early yet, but any response from the usual cast of critics? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2014, 01:31:19 PM
I know it's early yet, but any response from the usual cast of critics?

Not yet. Patience.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on October 28, 2014, 04:23:22 PM
Sorry if the answer to this question is obvious, but could the structural analysis that was done at Wichita air services have been done with the Electra at the New England air museum, or was the N.E. Electra different from the Wichita Electra in a way that would preclude such an analysis ?

And, for that matter, since the dimensions of the skins, the positions of the circumferentials, etc. were already known (I think), how did doing this analysis with a real plane in-hand enhance the analysis?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2014, 04:45:20 PM
Sorry if the answer to this question is obvious, but could the structural analysis that was done at Wichita air services have been done with the Electra at the New England air museum, or was the N.E. Electra different from the Wichita Electra in a way that would preclude such an analysis ?

C/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum was restored as a Northwest Airways airliner, including the full lavatory (toilet, sink and water tank on the starboard wall, covering on the walls, etc.).  There is no way to see the underlying structural members.  Fortunately, Wichita Air Services restored the lavatory compartment of c/n 1091 as a luggage compartment.  There was some light carpeting on the wall and some sound proofing which they generously removed for us so that we had access to the bare metal wall. 

We've had the Lockheed engineering drawings of that area for some time but there's no substitute for hands-on examination, measurement, and comparison with the real animal. It was a priceless opportunity for which we are deeply grateful.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Kent Beuchert on October 28, 2014, 07:01:50 PM
 Unfortunately, there is nothing about this artifact that is unequivocal : the date of manufacture is unknown nor, apparently, the time period during which it might have been used, nor all the
places or purposes for which such a scrap of metal might have been used, nor how the piece could have become separated from the aircraft, or whether the size of the piece indicates its entirety (i.e. was it from a larger piece that would have been too large for the Earhart patch). One of the arguments posited against the null is to ask where else it could have come from. That is not estimatable - there are no statistics about such material in that part of the world, and since the useful lifespan of the metal apparently cannot be determined, the potential time interval involved could be quite enormous, radically altering any seat of the pants estimates of likelihood. I'm tempted to say that not much of anything can be definitely claimed about this piece of metal. It is obvious, however, that the artifact is very suggestive  if you buy into the Gardner Island hypothesis.
I am also not convinced by the fuzzy enlargements of the photos of the patch that there is the claimed match in terms of rivet lines. I can't see anything and do not trust any procedures that claim to see such rivet lines. At a minimum, such procedures should be tested by submitting similar grainy photos of the aircraft's known rivet lines, which I don't believe was done. If that pans out, then I would accept the procedure's ability to discern the rivet lines, which presumably would be positive evidence, although I'm not sure how distinctive distances between rivet lines are in the universe of patches. If they are all typically spaced pretty much the same distance apart (which seems logical), then there goes that evidence down the drain. Thus the potential weakness of the spacing evidence.
  As I mentioned in the other thread, if this is the patch from Amelia's plane, then to me, the only plausible manner in which it became separated, assuming the sudden apparent disappearance of the plane to be fact, is for Amelia to have removed it herself by kicking it loose from the inside.
I can't conceive of any other  way it could have ended up where it did, and in the condition that it's in. If someone can produce an alternative explanation that is plausible, I will be very, very surprised.  I sure can't think of one, and no one else on this forum can either at this point. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2014, 08:01:39 PM
Unfortunately, there is nothing about this artifact that is unequivocal :

That's simply not true.  There is an abundance of materials identification and dimensional information that is absolutely unequivocal.

the date of manufacture is unknown nor, apparently, the time period during which it might have been used, nor all the
places or purposes for which such a scrap of metal might have been used, nor how the piece could have become separated from the aircraft, or whether the size of the piece indicates its entirety (i.e. was it from a larger piece that would have been too large for the Earhart patch).

There is no finished edge.  Of course it is a piece busted out of a larger piece. The busted out edges must have been close to a firmly attached finished edge so we know that the entire piece was only slightly larger than the artifact.  If you disagree, explain how a piece could get busted out of a larger piece if the firmly attached edges weren't near the busted edges. 

One of the arguments posited against the null is to ask where else it could have come from. That is not estimatable - there are no statistics about such material in that part of the world, and since the useful lifespan of the metal apparently cannot be determined, the potential time interval involved could be quite enormous, radically altering any seat of the pants estimates of likelihood.

Again, simply not true. The types airplanes that have been in that part of the world are extraordinarily well documented.

I'm tempted to say that not much of anything can be definitely claimed about this piece of metal.

You just yielded to that temptation.  Your refusal to accept the facts doesn't alter them.

It is obvious, however, that the artifact is very suggestive if you buy into the Gardner Island hypothesis.

Your'e right.  The artifact is very suggestive - but nobody is asking you to buy into anything. 

I am also not convinced by the fuzzy enlargements of the photos of the patch that there is the claimed match in terms of rivet lines. I can't see anything and do not trust any procedures that claim to see such rivet lines.

Okay.  I can see the rivet lines. You can't.  Fair enough.

At a minimum, such procedures should be tested by submitting similar grainy photos of the aircraft's known rivet lines, which I don't believe was done.

You seriously think we wouldn't have confirmed that we can see other rivet lines on the aircraft before saying we can see rivet lines on the patch? What do you take us for?

If that pans out, then I would accept the procedure's ability to discern the rivet lines, which presumably would be positive evidence, although I'm not sure how distinctive distances between rivet lines are in the universe of patches. If they are all typically spaced pretty much the same distance apart (which seems logical), then there goes that evidence down the drain. Thus the potential weakness of the spacing evidence.

The other members of the 2-2-V-1 Commission can assure you that of the many patches we saw on aircraft in at the Air Force Museum, none bore any resemblance to the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1.


  As I mentioned in the other thread, if this is the patch from Amelia's plane, then to me, the only plausible manner in which it became separated, assuming the sudden apparent disappearance of the plane to be fact, is for Amelia to have removed it herself by kicking it loose from the inside.
I can't conceive of any other  way it could have ended up where it did, and in the condition that it's in.

We haven't yet quantified what forces it would take to "kick it loose from the inside" and, unless you have, your opinions are as worthless as ours would be at this point.,

If someone can produce an alternative explanation that is plausible, I will be very, very surprised.  I sure can't think of one, and no one else on this forum can either at this point.

I hope not.  Until we have better information their blusterings would be as meaningless as yours are.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 28, 2014, 08:41:27 PM
Though this article is dated April 1936 during the beginnings of the construction phase of Earhart's Electra, it mentions several deviations from standard construction, including the extra tanks, etc.....in addition, it does mention one feature, I found interesting,.....http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19360420&id=amkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hbYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6245,4996792
Sometime later a specific feature would be added....this article states HATCH....though during the course of construction or somewhat later, that item seemingly changed .....more importantly, it does state it's intended purpose. 
I am still having trouble with the thought of the added stringer at the bottom, though,.... if the existent rivets from the coaming were reused top,and sides , I wonder the dramatic change at the bottom double row rivet line. I am working on your reasoning.
Recalling the anecdotal stories as to the frying pan with attached stringers , and later posts concerning what looked like pry marks to remove such ....If the stringer ends were not attached to existent stringers,/ stiffeners,... one could see how this panel may be more easily separated from the main portion ,along  with it's attaching stringers.
Is the photo with the arrows pointing to thought to be rivet lines, the high resolution result? Are any other photos under consideration for this process?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 28, 2014, 09:51:31 PM
Kent ... not trying to be rude here (although I'm sure it will come off that way at this time of night), but - boots on the ground, buddy. Skin in the game. Money where your mouth is.

I've crawled over, under and through various and sundry aircraft, on my dime; helped front some of the testing that has given a clearer and clearer picture of what 2-2-V-1 is trying to tell us, on my dime; and have aided a few other endeavors I don't feel like expounding on but which I hope have been helpful to the overall effort.

What have you done to advance this cause?

Talk, especially repititious talk, is very, very cheap. Answers are expensive. Let me know when you feel like helping us find the answers.

LTM, who is saving the quarters for the next check,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 28, 2014, 10:47:41 PM
Regardng the outer most row of the staggered double row of rivet holes at the artifact's tab. Is there enough evidence of what remains of those holes to confirm their size? It looks like there may be enough of a hole at the bottom of one peak that you can tell the diameter but the way it transitions to the peak it is hard to see from pictures. I'm also wondering if the hole was deformed when the skin tore and if that may mean it looks 5/32" and many not have been so before it failed.  Has it been confirmed that these holes are also 5/32" like the holes adjacent to it?
 
Which row, of the staggered double row of rivets on the plane, would this row match up with?(the upper or lower row)

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 28, 2014, 11:06:27 PM
Question for Jeff regarding forming a flat piece of metal over the compound curvature. Would you start at the bottom where it was flatter and work up or start at the more curved top and work down?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 28, 2014, 11:11:01 PM
Regarding the stiffener added to the forward edge during the window installation( near 293 5/8 bulkhead)....what is the assumed original appearance? flat or U channel....I assume U channel as other verticals seem to be,.....when patching over , if left in place, it may be hard to attach new stringers too , so was it removed and new flat piece / or heavy circumferential portion ,installed and new stringers laid on and all three pieces ( skin/ stringer/ stiffener),.... riveted together? The edge of artifact that had the samples cut out for study , leaves me wondering ....as that edge is somewhat straight along the way,...if force knocked that attached side out , isn't it near enough to the heavy circumferential  at 320 ,...that it may leave on the artifact what we see on the bottom edge ( the shark tooth style rips) as, if the rivets were installed into the coaming  rivet holes they would be fairly close together , I don't understand a straight edge there without at least subtle ripples and tearing away from rivets as we see on the bottom, in the event of pull away.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on October 29, 2014, 01:47:28 AM
How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on October 29, 2014, 08:11:09 AM
Is Glickman's report on the rivet lines available yet?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on October 29, 2014, 09:03:07 AM

Talk, especially repititious talk, is very, very cheap. Answers are expensive. Let me know when you feel like helping us find the answers.


Monty made me smile..... and donate :)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 29, 2014, 09:33:45 AM
Though this article is dated April 1936 during the beginnings of the construction phase of Earhart's Electra, it mentions several deviations from standard construction, including the extra tanks, etc.....in addition, it does mention one feature, I found interesting,.....http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19360420&id=amkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hbYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6245,4996792
Sometime later a specific feature would be added....this article states HATCH....though during the course of construction or somewhat later, that item seemingly changed .....more importantly, it does state it's intended purpose.

The airplane was delivered without a "hatch" and also without the "de-icing equipment" mentioned in the article.

 
I am still having trouble with the thought of the added stringer at the bottom, though,.... if the existent rivets from the coaming were reused top,and sides , I wonder the dramatic change at the bottom double row rivet line. I am working on your reasoning.

My reasoning is simple.  The rivets had to be attached to something.  Do you have a better idea?


Recalling the anecdotal stories as to the frying pan with attached stringers ,

There is no anecdotal story about a frying pan with attached stringers. We recently had the recordings of interviews with former Niku residents living in in the Solomons transcribed.  I'll post what was actually said in a separate thread when I get a chance.


Is the photo with the arrows pointing to thought to be rivet lines, the high resolution result?

No. Anything you view online is limited by file-size. We're confident that the rivet lines are as represented in the report.


Are any other photos under consideration for this process?

We're looking at all of the other photos that show the patch. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 29, 2014, 09:34:34 AM
How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

Oskar, my answers, and my opinions, in order:

1) TIGHAR is trying to find the correct, qualified experts to answer that. The failures along the edges show definite patterns and have left definite traces. We just have to ask the right questions to the right people.

2) In my opinion, yes. Desperate people do amazing things during desperate time. If The Patch was kicked out from the inside, that, to me, indicates a level of desperation. Your mileage may vary.

3) In my opinion, yes. Amelia may have been a female but I hesitate to call her a lightweight, because she could probably kick my butt in a fair fight.

4) In my opinion, yes. Someone could build a mockup of the 10-E's restroom area, using the same materials and construction materials. Someone approximating Eahart's age, size and weight could be told to get in there and kick The Patch out any way she could. But at the end of the day, it would be a very, very expensive way to prove nothing. We weren't there. The only two people who were there are dead. Anything TIGHAR could attempt to replicate would have to consider so many different variables that the end result would be meaningless. Besides, it could have been Fred that kicked The Patch out. If it was kicked out at all. Or so it seems to me.

LTM, who will go back to Pondering The Patch now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 29, 2014, 09:36:52 AM
Regarding the stiffener added to the forward edge during the window installation( near 293 5/8 bulkhead)....what is the assumed original appearance? flat or U channel....I assume U channel as other verticals seem to be,.....when patching over , if left in place, it may be hard to attach new stringers too , so was it removed and new flat piece / or heavy circumferential portion ,installed and new stringers laid on and all three pieces ( skin/ stringer/ stiffener),.... riveted together? The edge of artifact that had the samples cut out for study , leaves me wondering ....as that edge is somewhat straight along the way,...if force knocked that attached side out , isn't it near enough to the heavy circumferential  at 320 ,...that it may leave on the artifact what we see on the bottom edge ( the shark tooth style rips) as, if the rivets were installed into the coaming  rivet holes they would be fairly close together , I don't understand a straight edge there without at least subtle ripples and tearing away from rivets as we see on the bottom, in the event of pull away.

Let's let people who know what they're talking about speculate on repair techniques.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 29, 2014, 09:47:56 AM
Is Glickman's report on the rivet lines available yet?

If his report was available I would post it.  Jeff Glickman asked me if we wanted separate reports on the photogrammetry analysis and the hyperspectral imaging. I asked him to give us a single report after the hyperspectral data have been interpreted.  Something may turn up in the hyperspectral data that impacts the photogrammetry and further photogrammetric analysis of other photos showing the patch may reveal more detail than we have now.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on October 29, 2014, 10:07:42 AM
How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

Oskar, my answers, and my opinions, in order:

1) TIGHAR is trying to find the correct, qualified experts to answer that. The failures along the edges show definite patterns and have left definite traces. We just have to ask the right questions to the right people.

2) In my opinion, yes. Desperate people do amazing things during desperate time. If The Patch was kicked out from the inside, that, to me, indicates a level of desperation. Your mileage may vary.

3) In my opinion, yes. Amelia may have been a female but I hesitate to call her a lightweight, because she could probably kick my butt in a fair fight.

4) In my opinion, yes. Someone could build a mockup of the 10-E's restroom area, using the same materials and construction materials. Someone approximating Eahart's age, size and weight could be told to get in there and kick The Patch out any way she could. But at the end of the day, it would be a very, very expensive way to prove nothing. We weren't there. The only two people who were there are dead. Anything TIGHAR could attempt to replicate would have to consider so many different variables that the end result would be meaningless. Besides, it could have been Fred that kicked The Patch out. If it was kicked out at all. Or so it seems to me.

LTM, who will go back to Pondering The Patch now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Monty
thank you for your posting. Yes, maybe it was Fred who kicked off the patch, but I cannot imagine any other way the patch came off the Electra. It was (if TIGHAR is right) washed over the shore and sank down. Why should it be seperated from the plane in this process? Could it be seperated deep down and came up again? I would believe 2-2-V-1, a piece of aluminium, would'nt do so.
Oskar. #4421
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 29, 2014, 10:09:25 AM
Although I have some questions, mostly the same questions referred to in the report, based on what I do understand it is hard to see how 2-2-V-1 is not from the Earhart’s plane. The line of rivets close to the edge at the top on the photo of Earhart’s plane, which I have no trouble seeing, seems to be oddly spaced from the edge, yet it fits artifact. Something that is odd and still fits is very compelling to me.  The evidence of the thin vertical stiffener seemed very odd to me as well but the vertical stiffeners on Earhart’s plane at that location were thin. The Null Hypothesis is a good point to consider when looking at all of the odd “fingerprint” matches.

 My compliments on a very good report. I liked the exhibits and how it had a balance of simple explanations and “in the weeds” logic.
Also, the Harney model is incredible. I did not know it opened up like that. I loved how it was used in some of the illustrations
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 29, 2014, 10:52:03 AM
Regardng the outer most row of the staggered double row of rivet holes at the artifact's tab. Is there enough evidence of what remains of those holes to confirm their size?

That's really hard to say.

It looks like there may be enough of a hole at the bottom of one peak that you can tell the diameter but the way it transitions to the peak it is hard to see from pictures.

It's just as hard to see in real life. I can't tell if we have the edges of rivet holes at the base of the peaks or not.  A microscopic examination by someone with the necessary expertise in metallurgical failure analysis may be able to tell.
 

I'm also wondering if the hole was deformed when the skin tore and if that may mean it looks 5/32" and many not have been so before it failed.  Has it been confirmed that these holes are also 5/32" like the holes adjacent to it?

The intact holes in the tab and the partial holes on either side are definitely 5/32"


Which row, of the staggered double row of rivets on the plane, would this row match up with?(the upper or lower row)

Hard to say for sure but I think it has to be the upper row. 
We have one other example of a tear like this and it happens to be on a Lockheed Electra.  Union Airways ZK-AFE hit Mt. Richmond in New Zealand in 1943. The airplane hit the rocky mountainside head-on at cruise speed.  TIGHAR researcher, the late Howard Alldred, visited the site in 2004 and took extensive photos of the devastated but amazingly intact wreckage.

The tear is strikingly similar to what we see on 2-2-V-1.  The torn section is on the top of the left wing.  Apparently the airplane (or the separated wing) rolled inverted and glanced off a rock causing the skin to tear along a double rivet line. In this case there was no tab because there is no gap in the rivet pitch.  If nothing else, this is an indication of the kind of force necessary to cause this kind of damage.


The attached photos are self-explanatory.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on October 29, 2014, 11:11:28 AM
How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

I had raised a similar question about the feasibility of someone of Earharts stature  being able to kick out the patch or using an improvised tool to rip it out and what the motivation might have been for it. My early speculation is that she might have wanted it or needed it for something... a tool, a cooking surface, water collection, crab shield, signaling mirror etc.  As to whether or not it  is possible, I explained a scenario in which desperation and fear moved me to do the "impossible."   I was 14, 5'9' and around 125 lbs...a scrawny beanpole with a build not too far off from Earharts... and pushed 1 1/2 ton flatbed truck up our driveway away from a burning house. We actually tried to see if I could do it again later after all of the bedlam had subsided. I couldnt budge it an inch.  So yes, it is feasible to do something that might not otherwise be possible. Being lost on an island, with hope of rescue dwindling, a dead airplane, no fuel, no food, no water, possibly injured, and your last remaining resource... a gleaming hulk of metal, wood, and fabric.... is teetering on the edge of a reef getting ready to be swallowed up by the Pacific could certainly fuel enough desperation to make her (or Fred or both) attempt to tear the plane apart for anything useful.  Personally, if I found myself in the same situation, Id probably be ripping the Electra apart with my teeth!

Whether or not this is the scenario, however, remains to be proven. If it was indeed kicked/pried/torn out, Im afraid the only person who can tell us why is Amelia. 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 29, 2014, 11:26:36 AM
Whether or not this is the scenario, however, remains to be proven. If it was indeed kicked/pried/torn out, Im afraid the only person who can tell us why is Amelia.

Possible scenario?  Waves too high to leave the rear door open, but wanted to get some air circulating?

OK, not a great thought.  It would probably be a lot easier to take a hatchet to the plexiglass windows in the rear of the plane.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on October 29, 2014, 11:36:40 AM
Whether or not this is the scenario, however, remains to be proven. If it was indeed kicked/pried/torn out, Im afraid the only person who can tell us why is Amelia.

Possible scenario?  Waves too high to leave the rear door open, but wanted to get some air circulating?

OK, not a great thought.  It would probably be a lot easier to take a hatchet to the plexiglass windows in the rear of the plane.

If the water is too high to open the rear cabin door wouldnt the back end of the cabin be flooded anyway? The door on the Electra doesnt look all that water-tight to me. Id be more inclined to sit in the cockpit with the hatch open. Better chance to be able to see a ship or circling airplane as well.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 29, 2014, 12:36:01 PM
Question for Jeff regarding forming a flat piece of metal over the compound curvature. Would you start at the bottom where it was flatter and work up or start at the more curved top and work down?

Good question.  Of course none of us can know what the installer 'would' have done in 1937, but -

After drilling a few locator holes around the periphery (top, bottom and forward edges - from middle toward, but not to, the corners) and installing a few clecos (http://www.rivetsonline.com/cleco.html) to position the sheet, I'd probably tack the middle of the lower and forward rows with two or three rivets first, then careully work the top row from the middle with 3 or 4 rivets, trying to nudge the metal into the desired contour as much as possible.

As to the contour - working this flat sheet onto that skin as I envision, the aft edge (notice was last) is going to need to absorb a bit of 'surplus', e.g. 'bubble' effect: you are not going to get a great deal of 'contour' out of this as one would a hydroformed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroforming) or wheel worked (http://www.eastwood.com/welders/english-wheel.html?SRCCODE=MN070020&utm_source=msn&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=%7Bkeyword%7D&utm_campaign=NonBr-Metal%2BFabrication) metal, but some effect toward that so as to make a graceful match to the bird's natural shape.  Hence one reason I've viewed the stiffeners as desirable.  I could be wrong: the installer may have simply contoured the covering in one dimension, a simple roll shape.  Given the area, that could also have been done without too much loss of aesthetic, but it's an even shorter cut in my view than what we see in 2-2-V-1 as a field effort, given the shape of that bird.  Even so, stiffeners would be needed all the more on a flat section to resist oil canning, I believe.

To help stabilize the metal into that compounded shape, I'd start working the stiffeners onto the covering and tack them much the same way, start at middle with 3 or 4 rivets / skipping to about every other hole in doing so, and would probably tack the forward ends with a fastener or two.  What we see in 2-2-V-1 are very neat rows - straight, and with rivets evenly spaced.  We also see some slight but odd convergence / divergence of these rows: as neat as they are individually, for some odd reason some converge slightly going 'aft' (as we envision the installation), and others diverge slightly.  This may be important as it suggests, to me anyway, that while care was taken to make the installation attractive, more focus was given making the metal behave in terms of where to place these stiffeners.  In any case, they do not appear - by their comparitive spacing to each other, to match a factory pattern: this is in part why 2-2-V-1 is so intriguing as to what it may just be.

Once the stiffeners were underway, I'd look at how the cover was shaping up and and start tacking the aft row - just 3 or 4 rivets, to start.  If trying to work a convex compound curve effect into this sheet, I'd evenly space about 4 fasteners and leave a slight bit of bulge between them to even suck up the surplus stock.  This 'bubble' would have been set by tacking the upper row, after having done the bottom and forward rows. 

BTW, to get an idea of what I'm trying to describe in terms of 'bubble' or contouring, lay a piece of paper on the table and tape three edges, taping the third edge so as to leave the fourth edge sticking up a bit in a slight 'bow'; then evenly tape down the fourth row to create a slight 'bubble' in the paper.  But do so gently and neatly, and note as you tape the last edge that you can effect a workman's job of 'smoothing' by gradulism what would have been one big wrinkle into a series of tiny ones; now imagine adding a few stiffening devices behind that 'bubble' so as to stablilize the shape into something a bit more graceful.  I believe that is why we can see some suggestion of slight distortion in the covering in some places, such as the Darwin photo, but would agree it's subjective and hard to say for sure. 

I would expect the aft ends of the stiffeners and the aft row - toward the aft ends, to be the last to finish.  I would expect the aft edge of the panel to have rather evenly 'absorbed' surplus metal - a very slight bowing between fasteners - not greatly noticable from a few feet away.  The overall effect should be rather clean to the eye.  This should give a very stiff membrane with reasonable restoration of strength and rigidity. 

The reasons I'd choose aft over the top, forward or bottom edges to take the last fasteners and to absorb the distortion are threefold -

1) weather dictates a tight upper joint,
2) slipstream and weather dictate a tight forward joint, and
3) the bottom row is more complex since it has a double row of staggered rivet placement, so a bit harder to work the surplus into that gracefully. 

The nature of the curves also suggests that the forward or aft edges would be the most logical to absorb the effects of trying to meet the longitudenal curve; the upper and lower edges would not be as useful for that in my view.  Aft row is the answer in my view.

I appreciate your question, and of course my 'would dos' are conjecture in this sense - I wasn't there, and I'm doing the best I can to offer some insight into the possibilities that we're looking at where this part was concerned.  It could obviously be any number of things, but the part as studied suggests some handling along these lines, as does the use of stiffeners - if it is all in fact related to the Earhart Electra's lav window.

Maybe it can also be seen why some of us are so keen on further metallurgical examination of 2-2-V-1: we may yet glean more details from her damaged state as to how she was installed, where the failure forces eminated and how they translated the full membrane in the various modes of failure that are suggested along her edges.  If it leads to the Electra, nice day; if not, we'll have learned a great deal about analysis of this sort.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Potratz on October 29, 2014, 12:49:10 PM
2-2-V-1  reported today on Archaeology.com:
http://www.archaeology.org/news

scroll down a bit  :)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on October 29, 2014, 02:18:53 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/researchers-say-theyve-found-a-piece-of-amelia-earharts-lost-plane/ar-BBbUXhn?ocid=up97dhp

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on October 29, 2014, 11:10:36 PM
The line of rivets close to the edge at the top on the photo of Earhart’s plane, which I have no trouble seeing, seems to be oddly spaced from the edge, yet it fits artifact. Something that is odd and still fits is very compelling to me.   

Greg, In regard to your observation, my interest is piqued, ..could you point out the area you mentioned? .......I really enjoy your drawings , as they paint a picture of what is being discussed, and are of great help.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 30, 2014, 12:40:28 PM
The line of rivets close to the edge at the top on the photo of Earhart’s plane, which I have no trouble seeing, seems to be oddly spaced from the edge, yet it fits artifact. Something that is odd and still fits is very compelling to me.   

Greg, In regard to your observation, my interest is piqued, ..could you point out the area you mentioned? .......I really enjoy your drawings , as they paint a picture of what is being discussed, and are of great help.

The center rows of rivets on 2-2-V-1 are roughly equally spaced about 4” on center but the rows next to the edge have a closer spacing. I thought it was odd not to equally space all of them. Possibly the ones close to the edge have something to do with reinforcing the structure but whatever the reason, the photo of the patch has that same oddity.
The premise I was thinking about when questioning this has to do with how the artifact seemed to fail. The premise being that where there was a double row of rivets, the skin failed, and where there was a single row of 3/32” rivets, the rivets failed. (the single row of 5/32" rivets being an exception).  It seemed a patch should have double rows of rivets at the edges so that fit the artifact being a patch.

Thanks for the complement on the drawing. I use them to help ask questions and for discussion and that is their only intent. I posted the question the night before, and when I woke up realized it is likely nobody would understand a word of what I was asking, so I added a graphic I did earlier with questions annotated on it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 30, 2014, 02:47:09 PM

I would expect the aft ends of the stiffeners and the aft row - toward the aft ends, to be the last to finish.  I would expect the aft edge of the panel to have rather evenly 'absorbed' surplus metal - a very slight bowing between fasteners - not greatly noticable from a few feet away. 

A very lucid explanation, Jeff, since even I could understand it!  I'm wondering, though, since I got a C in metalshop - would they have trimmed the panel more to fit after they started to attach it? Which assumes they started out with a squared-off aluminum sheet, and then discovered that there was "extra" along one or more of the edges as they got to the end of the repair. If that was the case, such trimming might have left a distinctive pattern, with a metals expert might be able to see. Which might strengthen the case for 2-2-V-1.

Or it might mean nothing at all.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on October 30, 2014, 03:05:34 PM
Monty, that's a very astute thought!  You make me wonder, if the 'bubble' of aluminum is unsightly enough, would a small slit or very sharp 'V' be cut into this trailing edge to help make it lay flat?  This may account for how that edge failed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 30, 2014, 03:15:45 PM
I think the trimming would have been done before the first rivet went in.  We're only talking about tiny increments here, not inches, to get a very slight 'bubble' effect worked into this part.  What you are really trying to avoid is having a 'flat' patch tend to 'cave in' visually and look ugly - priority number 2, right behind number 1 which is structural stability / oil can prevention (when I say 'oil can' think of the old-fashioned type that makes the 'clink-CLINK' sound when the bottom is depressed and released).

You could 'slit' paper, but not metal - it would be a natural stress riser in the form of a ready-made crack waiting to grow - and ugly.  That said, anywhere there is an irregularity you have distortions in the fastener loadings and overall load path, and could certainly load one corner or a segment of an edge of the metal such that it might induce earlier failure than in another area.  Nature abhores a vacuum, and she spends no more than she has to - a crack follows the line of least resistance.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 30, 2014, 06:46:07 PM
That said, anywhere there is an irregularity you have distortions in the fastener loadings and overall load path, and could certainly load one corner or a segment of an edge of the metal such that it might induce earlier failure than in another area

Trimming was a wild guess, as I said, metalshop did NOT end well for me.

But - now I think you've raised another point that is in favor of 2-2-V-1 being The Patch! TIGHAR is postulating that it was made as an expedient repair; photographic evidence shows The Patch was installed in an extremely short period of time; the guys doing it had to get it done along with a million other things ...

I can totally see a, "measure twice, cut once, beat into place" mentality taking over, especially with Earhart's well-known lack of tolerance with anything that might delay the trip or that she saw as unnecessary.  The heap of coincidences is growing taller.

LTM, who usually ends up making multiple trips to the hardware store,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Guardian news account and Slashdot
Post by: John Wallace on October 30, 2014, 07:26:34 PM
just thought I would pass these links along,
The Guardian: "Has Amelia Earhart's plane finally been found? Not so fast"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/30/amelia-earhart-plane-finally-found-not-so-fast (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/30/amelia-earhart-plane-finally-found-not-so-fast)

also, but not sure why since it is supposed to be computer oriented, slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/10/30/2221201/researchers-claim-metal-patch-found-on-pacific-island-is-from-amelia-earhart (http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/10/30/2221201/researchers-claim-metal-patch-found-on-pacific-island-is-from-amelia-earhart)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on October 31, 2014, 01:30:21 AM
Just for information, two of the main Dutch language newspapers in Belgium have picked up the story as well. De Morgen has a pretty good write-up of the whole story, De Standaard managed to make a mess of it, mixing up the Japanese abduction story with the Nikumaroro hypothesis - with the result of describing Nikumaroro as a Japanese island...

I notified them of the error, but more than 24 hrs later the original story has still not been corrected...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Rodman Frowert on October 31, 2014, 10:41:17 AM
I'm new here and I have enjoyed reading through this MASSIVE site.  Lots of information to be sure...

But, shouldn't TIGHAR "tap the brakes" a bit in regards to 2-2-V-1?  News organizations like this (http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/aluminum-fragment-appears-to-belong-to-earharts-plane-141028.htm) are reporting it as verified truth that this fragment came from the Electra.  Not only is the reporting terrible, but so was the press release from TIGHAR in the first place.  This fragment didn't hold up well in the early 1990's to scrutiny and honestly, it doesn't look too much better now.  Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

I would think that, for Ric and TIGHAR, a repeat of the March 16 1992 press release disaster would want to be avoided at all costs.  How many times can wolf be cried?? 

At any rate, good luck with your mission and investigations.  Just wanted to voice an opinion of someone on the outside looking in.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on October 31, 2014, 11:00:33 AM
Welcome, Rodman - glad to see you posting.

I can appreciate your concern, but mainly to do with the media's own not-so-careful all the time efforts, which are appreciated, but sometimes make me cringe as well.  It doesn't matter what the media is told (read the release and tell me if it warrants the kind 'absolute' reporting going on that concerns you - I'd say not) - they will re-tell as they see fit.

IMO, were TIGHAR to 'tap the brakes' we'd simply confuse further, and draw headlines like 'Earhart metal fragment a bust' or similar.  Read the front page of any paper and you can find a half dozen similar migrations of thought and fact on any given day.

That's not to criticize the press, it is just to acknowledge a reality: the people who work hard to report are not expert at all that they write about, and they are stuck with hellish deadlines to comprehend and present; it's what we say against what they think they hear, all mashed up against the deadline, I think.

My own belief is that TIGHAR has done all it can do to avoid the kind of thing that happened in 1992 - nobody wants to repeat that.  At the same time, we have a very exciting prospect in 2-2-V-1 and need for people to understand its import.  If we don't, we molder in a hole here and make no progress.

I've heard 'group sourcing' mentioned by an outsider now as a source of talent that TIGHAR depends on, and believe that was an adroit comment: we depend on interest from many just like you for these things to happen.  You also never know whose experience or insight is going to bring some crucial observation to the table for consideration.  Kill that and no search happens.  Everyone who'd search for the lost flier depends on much the same thing, one way or another.  Consider in fact that this event coaxed you into your very first post...

Welcome and I hope your interest takes root.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Sheryl McCallister on October 31, 2014, 11:54:03 AM
Imagine my surprise when The Patch made Slate's weekly news quiz, AND the 6 o'clock news on KSL (in Salt Lake City) in the same week!

Is that what's called being notorious? 

In any case, way to make news, TIGHAR researchers.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Friend Weller on October 31, 2014, 12:04:26 PM
...... AND the 6 o'clock news on KSL (in Salt Lake City)......

Dang, and here I was watching KUTV!   :D
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on October 31, 2014, 12:20:20 PM
Ric –

The report entitled "The Window, the Patch and the Artifact"  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_StepbyStep_2.html)describes how an area was taped off on the outside of the Wichita fuselage as being representative of the size of the Miami patch and its location on AE's plane.  The report describes (and shows with a photo, attached below) how 2-2-V-1 was then held up within that taped off area (or as close to it as you could get given the physical limitations of the piece) as a means of determining if 2-2-V-1 fit within that area.  I know you’re busy with the media storm now, but when you have time I would appreciate it if you could provide answers to just a few questions about this taped off area:

1)  What dimensions (height and width in inches) did you use for the taped off area?

2)  How did you determine what dimensions to use? 

3)  It looks to my eyes like the vertical piece of tape on the right side is slightly longer than the one on the left side (a hand blocks out part of the measuring tape and the rivets so it is difficult to know for sure).  Is this just an illusion (bad eyes?), an unintentional accident, or a deliberate placement for some reason (i.e. to account for slight aftwards convergent slope of the fuselage)? 

As always, thank you for whatever information you can provide. 

Diego

Edited 11/4/2014 to correct spelling.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 31, 2014, 01:02:24 PM
Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

I had the impression that the lack of paint on the inside helps to exclude military aircraft and Lockheed as the source of the patch.

I can't point to a single post where that argument is made. 

I think we will learn more when Jeff Glickman completes his reports.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 31, 2014, 01:07:11 PM
Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

Show me where we claimed that it's a smoking gun.
If the artifact is the patch there should be no paint/coatings on either side.
I think you need to tap the brakes until you know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on October 31, 2014, 01:27:26 PM
Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

I had the impression that the lack of paint on the inside helps to exclude military aircraft and Lockheed as the source of the patch.

I can't point to a single post where that argument is made. 

I think we will learn more when Jeff Glickman completes his reports.
Very early in this thread, back in June, Ric reported on the negative results in testing 2-2-V-1 for paint (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32062/topicseen.html#msg32062).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on October 31, 2014, 01:49:33 PM
News organizations like this (http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/aluminum-fragment-appears-to-belong-to-earharts-plane-141028.htm) are reporting it as verified truth that this fragment came from the Electra. 

Not only is the reporting terrible, but so was the press release from TIGHAR in the first place.  This fragment didn't hold up well in the early 1990's to scrutiny and honestly, it doesn't look too much better now.  Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

1) You and everyone on this forum should understand a fundamental truth about public relations--you can't control the press--neither the writers nor headline editors. On any given release, they will get it wrong. Every time, guaranteed. You simply live with that reality and construct the release and follow-up so that over time, the truth will out. TIGHAR was very careful to avoid making anything close to the claim 2-2-V-1 was a "smoking gun."

The inevitable conclusion is that you simply did not read the report.

2) You make some very serious, sweeping accusations but offer no specificity whatsoever. What, exactly are these "many hosts of issues?" And specifically, how do you refute or dispute the technical findings in the report? Note the word "specifically."

Nobody here is afraid of informed criticism. That's how the Scientific Method works. That is, through peer review, critique, and refinement. But your broad rhetoric contributes nothing to that process, and I suspect is really borne of some personal agenda.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on October 31, 2014, 02:11:02 PM
Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

The opposite ... the lack of paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the artifact is supporting evidence of its potential authenticity, for 3 reasons:

1) NR16020 had neither zinc chromate nor paint on its interior and exterior surfaces.

2) The Occam's Razor, or KISS, explanation for the artifact's presence on Nikumaroro prioritizes the inclusion of the Navy PBYs that regularly visited the island as potential donors, but all of these donor aircraft certainly included both zinc chromate interiors and painted exteriors per standard Navy rust/corrrosion prevention and camouflage procedures.

3) Most other aircraft that crashed in the region that could be included on TIGHAR's list of potential donors almost certainly featured zinc chromate interiors, and any USAAF aircraft prior to 1944 and any USN aircraft throughout the war had painted exteriors.  There is one C-87 that crashed at Canton Island that might not have had either and could be a potential donor ... but "might be able to match" conditions on an artifact presumed to originate from Canton are clearly inferior, from my perspective, to "matching" conditions on an artifact found at Nikumaroro when assessing the potential authenticity of the artifact as a supporting piece to the Niku hypothesis.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on October 31, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
I have a question about the impression on 22v1 of what might be a vertical stiffener at station 207; this was discussed in 'A Smoking Gun? (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html).

What I am trying to understand is the position of this vertical piece of metal relative to the lateral 'stringers'. In a photo in 'A Smoking Gun' (see attachment), the mark left by the stiffener falls neatly between two rivet holes in the vicinity of the red arrows.  Doesn't that suggest that the 'vertical stiffener' lay between the stringer and 22v1? Would three pieces of metal be riveted together? that doesn't seem right to me, but I'm no expert on airplanes. Yet, if the stiffener lay above the stringer, it would not leave a mark on 22v1, would it, so the stiffener had to be between 22v1 and the stringer, no?...

Also, If I look at the lines of rivet holes directly above and below this row, it looks like the rivet holes in 22v1 would graze the edge of the vertical stiffener if the stiffener lay between 22v1 and the stringers, and that doesn't seem quite right, either.

So, I'm not understanding how the vertical stiffener fits into the picture that is developing here...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bob Japundza on October 31, 2014, 07:27:30 PM
Hello,

Question from a guy who has done a lot of aircraft sheet metal work.  There is something obvious missing from the photos of the "patch" and its the stiffeners.  Typically the process of doing a quick and dirty patch in a case like this is thus: remove the plexiglass, drill and cleco the patch, fit/drill/cleco stiffeners, take everything apart, debur, clean, cleco everything back together, then rivet.  If the stiffeners were not attached to the surrounding structure, then what happened to them?  I see no evidence of fretting or corrosion damage around the rivet holes indicating that the stiffeners remained attached to the sheet for some time but then corrosion disintegrated the rivets and thus the stiffeners became separated from the patch.  Absent is any evidence of filiform corrosion around the rivet holes since the corrosion salts from disintegrating rivets would have increased the likelihood of corrosion on the patch.

Because of the missing stiffeners I think its unlikely that it was actually the patch.  However, lets say the mechanic goofed something up during the fabrication of the patch.  A duplicate can be quickly made using the original as a template.  Then the first patch with holes in it got tossed into the back of the airplane and used for some other purpose???  Since this piece could easily float away and end up on a beach the rest could be history??

Thanks,
Bob Japundza A&P IA
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bob Japundza on October 31, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
Something else to add.  Plexiglas was something new and rare in the 1930's and if the window broke, perhaps an alclad patch was fabricated to cover the window?  Sheet metal screws could have been used entirely for the patch and this is common to see happen in crude and austere conditions...for example many aircraft in Alaska and Canada have been patched together with sheet metal screws and patches to get the airplane somewhere they could be repaired.

Thanks,
Bob
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on November 01, 2014, 10:00:10 AM
From the "Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1" thread...
The transparent material was held in place by the aluminum frame we see in the "AE & Nilla" photo.  To remove the transparent material it was probably necessary to remove the frame.
How do you know that?  Is that the case with the other windows?  Maybe the frame is just a trim piece.

It would make no sense to reinstall the frame and then put a patch on top of it.
I would agree that it would "seem" to make no sense but we weren't there, we don't know why or even how the patch was installed so we can't know what made sense to the installer.

The patch was probably riveted to the same underlying structures the frame had been riveted to, with the apparent addition of an additional stringer along the bottom edge.
I agree... with or without the frame.


and back to the "2-2-V-1" thread...
Sheet metal screws could have been used entirely for the patch
I agree... almost.  My thought is that the patch was riveted around its edges exactly as the frame had been but where the stiffeners were added sheet metal screws were used.  This would explain the tearing around the perimeter of 2-2-V-1 and also the lack of any distortion around the rivet holes.  The screws could have rusted away or, more likely I think, been removed by someone.

Not knowing the reason for installing the patch I think it's possible the plexiglas remained in place.  Brad Beeching hinted at this earlier this year but it didn't generate much response...
Do you think there is any more information to be gleaned from Artifact 2-3-V-2 (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-3-V-2) and Artifact 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1) that might tie the two together? And are there any plans to further scrutinze 2-3-V-2 in the same manner we have investigated 2-2-V-1?

Along with the plexiglas I recall several metal artifacts that could have been parts of stiffeners or stringers.  So, has anyone looked into the possibility of tying any of these items together?

Aside from pop rivets I've never riveted anything in my life.  But I have had occasion to remove a few and whether I've drilled, ground (grinded?), or filed them I've never ended up with holes as pristine as the ones remaining in 2-2-V-1 and, while I do believe the patch is from the Electra, I just have a hard time believing those holes ever held a rivet. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 01, 2014, 10:45:58 AM

1) NR16020 had neither zinc chromate nor paint on its interior and exterior surfaces.

Not exactly. TIGHAR has documentation that standard Lockheed practice of the day was to spray a silver/aluminum-colored paint on all interior metalwork as a corrosion inhibitor. TIGHAR has a piece from the Idaho Lockheed crash of the same time period that exhibits the silver interior paint.

At first the 2-2-V-1 committee, in Dayton, was thinking that an apparent difference in the reflectivity of the "inside" and "outside" of the Putative Patch might mean one side was painted with silver paint. Extensive and detailed testing on both sides found no traces of any paint of any kind.

Which, as you said, supports the hypothesis that 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch - it would not have been painted on the inside because it was not original to the aircraft, but from whatever Alclad stock the shop happened to have on hand, and it probably predates WWII and is not service-connected because it doesn't have zinc chromate paint.

More is happening as we speak. The hyperspectral imaging report is coming and I'm holding my breath.

LTM, who doesn't turn blue if he holds his breath,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on November 01, 2014, 03:04:14 PM
If metal screws were used to hold the stringers in place, surely some remnants of thread should be visible in the holes?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on November 01, 2014, 03:39:56 PM
I enjoyed reading 'A Smoking Gun' and seeing how Ric, Aris, and Jeff studied the Wichita Electra, but I am still not clear on some aspects of how 22v1 fits the jigsaw puzzle of AE's Electra. Where does the bottom of the tab fit on the Fuselage of the Electra?  It would seem to me that it would have to be below the double staggered rivets on the bottom of the frame of the navigator's window, but on the other hand, I don't see the tab in the Darwin photo, which seems to have sufficient resolution for it to be visible.  Maybe the tab is actually the only surviving bit of the bottom of the patch?--but then what did the other line of 5/8th inch rivet holes seen on 22v1 attach to?--i maybe what is marked as 'additional stringer?' in one of the 'Smoking Gun' illustrations?  Could someone clarify this point?

Also, if the borders of the patch were the frame of the navigator's window, then why in 'Smoking Gun' does the patch appear to extend to Station 320?  The Darwin photo seems to show separation between station 320 and the window frame.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on November 01, 2014, 04:25:38 PM

1) NR16020 had neither zinc chromate nor paint on its interior and exterior surfaces.

Not exactly. TIGHAR has documentation that standard Lockheed practice of the day was to spray a silver/aluminum-colored paint on all interior metalwork as a corrosion inhibitor.

Apologies, and thank you Monty for sponsoring the clarification ... I sometimes forget how important specificity is in phrase construction (you'd think a journalism major would know better!).   There was a respective intention in my word order, i.e. I meant to write "neither zinc chromate on its interior, nor paint on its exterior, surfaces."  Important, of course, in the context of potential donor aircraft, and I regret the unintended implication of my statement that the Electra's interior surfaces were not painted.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on November 02, 2014, 01:55:01 AM
I enjoyed reading 'A Smoking Gun' and seeing how Ric, Aris, and Jeff studied the Wichita Electra, but I am still not clear on some aspects of how 22v1 fits the jigsaw puzzle of AE's Electra. Where does the bottom of the tab fit on the Fuselage of the Electra?  It would seem to me that it would have to be below the double staggered rivets on the bottom of the frame of the navigator's window, but on the other hand, I don't see the tab in the Darwin photo, which seems to have sufficient resolution for it to be visible.  Maybe the tab is actually the only surviving bit of the bottom of the patch?--but then what did the other line of 5/8th inch rivet holes seen on 22v1 attach to?--i maybe what is marked as 'additional stringer?' in one of the 'Smoking Gun' illustrations?  Could someone clarify this point?

Also, if the borders of the patch were the frame of the navigator's window, then why in 'Smoking Gun' does the patch appear to extend to Station 320?  The Darwin photo seems to show separation between station 320 and the window frame.

It's important to see there's no bulletin 'A smoking gun'. But there's a bulletin 'A smoking gun?', and that makes a great difference. Many newspapers (here in Europe too) don't quote the "?", and that makes it difficult for TIGHAR. Newspapers are careless, we all know, and they write what they want to write, and very often that`s (sorry) bull-s.
Oskar, 4421A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 02, 2014, 08:28:17 AM
  It would seem to me that it would have to be below the double staggered rivets on the bottom of the frame of the navigator's window, but on the other hand, I don't see the tab in the Darwin photo, which seems to have sufficient resolution for it to be visible.  Maybe the tab is actually the only surviving bit of the bottom of the patch?--but then what did the other line of 5/8th inch rivet holes seen on 22v1 attach to?--i maybe what is marked as 'additional stringer?' in one of the 'Smoking Gun' illustrations?  Could someone clarify this point?

Also, if the borders of the patch were the frame of the navigator's window, then why in 'Smoking Gun' does the patch appear to extend to Station 320?  The Darwin photo seems to show separation between station 320 and the window frame.
The artifact is closer to the camera so looks bigger than what is behind it. See the latest report.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2014, 08:43:14 AM
I would appreciate it if you could provide answers to just a few questions about this taped off area:

I didn't do the taping.  Jeff Glickman did.  I'm sure Jeff will address the issue of dimensions in his report.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 02, 2014, 12:25:55 PM
If metal screws were used to hold the stringers in place, surely some remnants of thread should be visible in the holes?

Ummm ... no. 2-2-V-1 was riveted (as evidenced by the surviving rivet) around its circumference. Riveting to attach a patch was standard repair practice of the day, as it still is today. Unless you're using speed tape to repair a combat aircraft to flight status as quickly as possible  ;D

LTM, who gets tape stuck to him all the time,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on November 02, 2014, 01:43:45 PM
If metal screws were used to hold the stringers in place, surely some remnants of thread should be visible in the holes?

Ummm ... no. 2-2-V-1 was riveted (as evidenced by the surviving rivet) around its circumference. Riveting to attach a patch was standard repair practice of the day, as it still is today. Unless you're using speed tape to repair a combat aircraft to flight status as quickly as possible  ;D

LTM, who gets tape stuck to him all the time,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Well clearly the patch was rivetted to the airframe around its circumference, but the question raised above was about the stringers attached to the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 02, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
And I apologizing for totally missing your question. Same answer, though. Rivets were used throughout.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 02, 2014, 03:30:02 PM
I'm a bit lost as to why we should think screws might have been used vs. rivets for the stiffeners.

I don't see how - those are 3/32" rivet holes so far as I can tell.  That would be a pretty small screw.

Were screws used, I'd think they'd show up mightily on some of the photos as more pronounced than rivets, which are rather diminutive as #3 brazier heads.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on November 02, 2014, 03:54:17 PM
Bob Japundza put this forward in reply no 866 - it would provide a straightforward explanation how the stringers got detached from the patch without trace of corrosion of damage on the holes that held the rivets - or metal screws...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2014, 04:00:09 PM
Bob Japundza put this forward in reply no 866 - it would provide a straightforward explanation how the stringers got detached from the patch without trace of corrosion of damage on the holes that held the rivets - or metal screws...

There's a better explanation that has recently come to light.  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 02, 2014, 04:42:41 PM
To me (I'm certainly no expert) the absense of the stringers is not important.  Why?  ... because they're absent!  No matter how it happened, it DID happen.  So if this is off another plane or whatever other theory you can come up with, it obviously once was riveted to stringers, and now it's not, and that happened on a deserted island.  How that happened has no bearing on whether or not it was the patch panel on the Lockheed. It also could have happened in 1990.  I say that in jest but the point stands.   

So with that out of the way, another major problem that comes up is why would they have installed a stringer at the bottom of the patch panel, when there's clearly a supporting stringer there already?  My personal opinion (just speculation) imagining the situation if I was doing the repair would be this: The bottom stringer was double riveted, and when drilled out, may have been damaged or looked bad, or looked weak with the number of holes, so it was simply decided to add an extra stringer for 'fresh meat' so to speak to rivet that patch to at the bottom.  If you look at the beautiful photo of Amelia standing next to the window, you'll notice that bottom support had already been 'swiss cheese' 'd as a previous poster eloquently described it.  The top rivet line being so close to the top of the window isn't a problem for me; the bend was more severe up there and that could have been to help curve it in as suggested by the kind metalworker a few pages back. 

My final problem I see with it is, how did it survive but nothing else on the plane did?  I immediately would assume somebody literally kicked the piece off the side of the plane, as others have speculated.  I'm just a good old boy and will tell you this, I feel I could give it a good go and might not have much of a problem at all kicking that off the plane.  If I was stranded on an island I'd be trying to steal everything feasible off the plane, and a piece of sheetmetal would be attractive... especially one with a nice frame around it that I knew had been riveted on top.  It would almost be like a bullseye for my foot. 

It may have been easier to remove than even my John Wayne alter-ego can imagine... and there's something to be said for the fact that in general a full grown man 80 years ago was probably more fit than I am sitting behind this computer.  I feel I could kick the patch out fairly easily, and I also feel it would attract that if you were looking around the plane to scavenge things, and saw a screened over window opening. 

Once again you come back to, too, it ripped off of something.  Whether or not it was this plane we can't prove right now, but it was removed, jaggedly, bluntly, from *something*, and then had the stringers removed.  You can't really argue, honestly, that since it was ripped off a plane, it couldn't have been ripped off the Lockheed.  Of course it could!  All of those rivets ripped through the skin, on a deserted island, one way or the other.  I think the navigator could have done it, or Amelia herself could have done it no problem.  what else are you going to do?  After you've screamed for help for a day and then tried to kill crabs for a day you'd start looking at what you can steal off the plane before it floats off. 

With all that said, I have no evidence to back any of it up, just an active imagination!  This is not the smoking gun, it's just another in a long, long, long line of credible evidence that can be 90% proven to be what we suspect it is.  When you add all of that up, I think you'd have to be a really dedicated critic to not make the small leap of faith and admit that it appears she actually landed on that reef. 

Great work as always Ric, I've watched you on television and in news reports for years.  Best wishes on the next trip, i'll be donating to help out. 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 02, 2014, 07:33:46 PM
One thing I'd like to bring back up, is 'the sag'.  This could never be conclusive evidence, so it's really all just subjective opinion... but to me, the installed patch has a slight sag to it that's obvious, and the 22v1 piece has a similar sag.  The similarity I see, is the sheet, in the orientation that we're supposing it was mounted on the plane, has the same general curvature as the patch panel (and the side of the plane, of course) but also seems to have a similar 'sag' near the bottom.  Ultimately it's just a slight, u shaped bulge that runs pretty much the whole width of the piece, and again could never be measured or scientifically compared to the pictures we have... but to the naked eye, I think it's fairly apparent.

The sheet of metal has no doubt been bent and rebent for decades for various reasons, but it still retains the general curve of the sidewall, and in my opinion still retains the general almost imperceptible 'sag' the patch had. 

Again, just speculation and not scientific.  Curious if anybody else sees the same thing.  (the red circle is not mine, just reusing a previous poster's picture!)

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Sean Sanfilippo on November 02, 2014, 08:57:35 PM
New forum member here, but have been reading the website with interest the last few years.  In a prior career I was an A&P with some experience in deconstructing GA aircraft for their scrap value.  While I personally have a hard time envisioning "kicking out" a section of fuselage skin constructed in a semi-monocoque manner based on this experience, the "patch" may be one of a few areas on the Electra that would be a good candidate for obtaining a sheet of aluminum, for whatever purpose the individual desiring it envisioned.

If I place myself in a similar scenario as our flyers, with the prospect of losing voice communication once the radio is disabled by exhausting the fuel supply to keep the battery charged,  by rising tides shorting the electrical system, or the destruction of the aircraft by wave action, my thought process turns to "How do I signal any aircraft overhead or a ship on the horizon to my presence?"

My answer is that I need a reflecting device during the day, and a sheet of polished, unpainted ALCLAD would seem to be a ready-made signaling device, especially one already formed with a curve. I don’t recall anyone on the forum addressing this, so forgive me if this has been already discussed. In this hypothesis, the patch has several attributes that make it an attractive candidate to repurpose into a signaling device.

1.  As a scab patch replacing a window in the fuselage, my assumption is that it doesn’t share the full structural rigidity of any other piece of fuselage or wing skin, making it easier to remove.
2. The dimensions and assumed weight make the patch something that could be handled and aimed.
3. While it probably won't truly ever be known, given the expediency of the repair in Miami, the interior of the patch is likely exposed aluminum with no fabric covering or trim piece.  In this case, the supporting stringers, frame and rivet shop heads are exposed/accessible.

For those with more experience and knowledge on the subject, can you lend your critical eye to the above supposition and perhaps answer some questions:

If there were no spare ALCLAD sheets on board the aircraft for small repairs at an intermediate stop (I believe on the first attempt that ended at Ford Island, the military inventoried a couple of aluminum sheets being flown as spares), are there other areas of the fuselage or wing structure that would be more easily removed to serve as an impromptu signaling device?  If spare aluminum sheets are onboard, then this hypothesis makes no sense as the amount of effort required to remove the patch seems counter-intuitive.  There may have course been other reasons to remove it (cross-ventilation is one suggestion I’ve read earlier on in this thread).

Were there any tools/ improvised tools on board that could have assisted in punching out the rivets to assist in the patch’s removal?  Without tools, I imagine a concerted effort using feet or shoulders repeatedly to strike the patch *might* get the job done for someone so inclined.

In this thought exercise, I’m trying to come up with a reasonable explanation why this one piece of aluminum may have come to be intentionally removed from the aircraft and ended up on the island. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on November 02, 2014, 09:38:53 PM
The "how" of it will come in time. 

As to "Why?"  Im afraid the only person who has that answer is Amelia.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on November 03, 2014, 09:59:40 AM
A hard landing, creating stress in that section of the plane, may have already torn one or two sides of the sheet, making kicking it out not necessary or at least less difficult (I would never kick it out by foot though, don't want to shred my leg on the exposed aluminum edges!) That hard landing may have seriously injured Fred too.

I doubt I'm the first person to have stated this thought though....   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 03, 2014, 10:05:01 AM
The attached Word document describes a new hypothesis to explain the absence of rivets in the artifact.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 03, 2014, 10:15:24 AM
The attached Word document describes a new hypothesis to explain the absence of rivets in the artifact.

Outstanding work and well stated. 

My first thought as I got into opening was 'what about the surviving rivet' - which is well answered.

This scan of the surviving rivet is good news. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on November 03, 2014, 10:18:58 AM
Terrific and easily tested hypothesis. Well done article, and, if the surviving rivet proves to be of the lower magnesium content, it WILL answer a big question we have had. Good work!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 03, 2014, 10:19:39 AM
It's just a hypothesis but it seems to make sense.  The SEM EDX work will be expensive but it should answer the question. 
A dedicated and generous TIGHAR once said "Questions are cheap. Answers are expensive."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 03, 2014, 10:24:15 AM
It does make sense.  The condition of the holes is very odd - not typical where rivets would have been drilled out, and there does not appear to be evidence of chiseling heads off, etc. either.

This is the thing I've come to ache for people to understand - this stuff doesn't come together over night and it isn't cheap, but if you have any inkling that Earhart just might have gone down at Niku then whatever is found that can't be shown impossible, is possible, and deserves to be wrung dry.

Will we have to sacrifice that surviving rivet?  We have pictures, but if this is destructive, I'm sure it will be thoroughly documented in all possible respects before it undergoes 'the machine'.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 03, 2014, 10:28:40 AM
I asked Aris Scarla (our 2-2-V-1 Commission structures expert) to review the article.  His reply:
"Ric, that is a very accurate theory and hypothesis that I could support. Dissimilar metal corrosion can have very dramatic effects on aircraft. That hypothesis can still be tested today by placing a sheet of aluminum with stiffeners of bucked rivets from that era in a salt bath with the same consistency of salt that is in that portion of the Pacific. Then wait and see what happens. Temperature and time controlled would tell you how long it would take."

From the patches of coral growth we already know that 2-2-V-1 spent some period of time in shallow salt water. It would be nice to know how long. Seems like the tricky part about that experiment would be finding a supply of rivets from that era.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 03, 2014, 10:30:03 AM
Will we have to sacrifice that surviving rivet?

No. SEM EDX is non-destructive.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 03, 2014, 10:33:02 AM
Thanks!  Duh - 'x-rays' - I should pay more attention - probably does not even have to leave the host part.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 03, 2014, 10:36:17 AM
probably does not even have to leave the host part.

I dunno.  Having observed some SEM work, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to "dismount" the rivet. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gus Rubio on November 03, 2014, 11:23:07 AM
Wow, the "Corrosion Hypotheses" document is fascinating.  It provides a way to find a couple of important pieces of information, namely, what happened to all the missing rivets, and it could date the lone present rivet to a specific era, i.e. pre-WW2, as Ric indicated above. 

Seems like the tricky part about that experiment would be finding a supply of rivets from that era.

Might it not be possible to cook up a batch of those low-Mg rivets for the salt-water test?  The recipe has to be around, doesn't it?  Or maybe you could use a a donor rivet to determine the composition?  One could be borrowed from a pre-war museum plane, or a known wreck in the field. 

The story keeps getting more interesting, you can feel it coming to a conclusion, if only in a Zeno's Paradox way.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on November 03, 2014, 12:54:21 PM
I never bought the idea of a "fluid force" blowing the heads off all the rivets.  At least this new corrosion hypothesis is something I can subscribe to if the rest of the evidence goes that way.  In the back of my mind though, I seem to remember that with galvanic (or is it electrolytic?) corrosion one surface loses while the other gains so it would seem like there should be evidence of the rivets existence around the holes.  But I could very well be mis-remembering that.

Me and Occam still think the "they-aren't-rivet-holes-they're-screw-holes" idea is the simplest answer, at least until someone tells us why that can't be.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 03, 2014, 01:22:11 PM
Might it not be possible to cook up a batch of those low-Mg rivets for the salt-water test?  The recipe has to be around, doesn't it?  Or maybe you could use a a donor rivet to determine the composition?  One could be borrowed from a pre-war museum plane, or a known wreck in the field.

I don't know if any of the Idaho Electra wreck parts that TIGHAR recovered have rivets on them, I seem to recall that the one piece we examined in Dayton did. I don't believe TIGHAR recovered anything with rivets on it from the Alaska Electra wreck. That one would be a bear to get back to.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 03, 2014, 01:24:18 PM
Me and Occam still think the "they-aren't-rivet-holes-they're-screw-holes" idea is the simplest answer, at least until someone tells us why that can't be.

In an environment where there is a lot of vibration, rivets would be preferable to screws, I think.

I'm not an A&P.  I've just done a lot of dumb things in my life with nuts and bolts and screws.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on November 03, 2014, 01:39:25 PM
Interestingly, the rivet corrosion theory also provides an explanation how 2-2-V-1 got separated from the rest of the airframe, having been fitted with old stock rivets in Miami, while the rest of the rivets fitted in the factory were corrosion resistant enough to prolong the integrity of the rest of the aircraft
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 03, 2014, 01:45:40 PM
Interestingly, the rivet corrosion theory also provides an explanation how 2-2-V-1 got separated from the rest of the airframe, having been fitted with old stock rivets in Miami, while the rest of the rivets fitted in the factory were corrosion resistant enough to prolong the integrity of the rest of the aircraft

Good thought but we have those edges that suggest some sort of 'mechanical help', as if cleaved away.

Of course that could have happened after the part was running loose, too.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on November 03, 2014, 01:57:07 PM
Might there have been any surviving rivets from the re-skinning of the Wichita Electra?
Rick
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 03, 2014, 02:30:23 PM
I would defer to Jeff and those who know about fixing airplanes, but as I understand it, the old rivets are drilled out and pretty much destroyed during the reskinning process.

Never hurts to ask, though!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 03, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
Are there any rivets left on the "Dado"s"?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 03, 2014, 07:28:29 PM
I think they may be a completely different type of rivet/ fastener but some of the fasteners in the wings of the Electra at the Gillam crash (http://tighar.org/Contract_Services/Gillam/Gillam01.html) look rusted, like they were made of steel. Perhaps these were used for structural reasons at the wing attachments?

Corrosion in saltwater may explain the curved "fender" shape in the debris field. Its shape looks like a leading edge of the wing to me. Rivet corrosion could explain how it could keep the shape without any visible structure.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on November 03, 2014, 09:47:52 PM
In an environment where there is a lot of vibration, rivets would be preferable to screws, I think.
That's true Marty, on a permanent installation.  But we don't know the why or how of the patch so we can't know if it was meant to be permanent.  Also, there are screws all over the place on airplanes, fastening fairings and various covers and the like.  They don't seem to come loose too often but when they do a good pre-flight inspection should find them.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on November 04, 2014, 02:44:47 PM
If all hope was sinking along with the aircraft, and AE had a shiny piece of aluminum in her hands like the patch, one would think she would be tempted to scratch a message on it to tell the tale.

Scott Mitchell
#3292
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 04, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
That's a very good point Scott...I wish she would have!

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 05, 2014, 07:02:13 AM
New video on the TIGHAR YouTube channel, soon to be on the TIGHAR website.
http://youtu.be/bFKCkN6C5JQ?list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 05, 2014, 07:08:08 AM
Oh, how much younger we all were then ... ;D

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 05, 2014, 07:14:33 AM
Diego is going to be all over me because I said that I wasn't involved in taping off the dimensions of the patch and the video shows that I clearly was.  Ah, the frailty of human memory.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Paul March on November 05, 2014, 09:05:22 AM
New video on the TIGHAR YouTube channel, soon to be on the TIGHAR website.
Very well done. Thank you for posting such an insightful look into your efforts. (and the ringtone was entertaining!)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 05, 2014, 10:03:34 AM
(and the ringtone was entertaining!)

Aaargh!  That was Pat (my wife) calling. We're both of Scottish decent. Her ringtone is one of our favorite pipe tunes The Black Bear.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on November 05, 2014, 10:11:56 AM
Ric, great video, love the obvious emotion you felt as things started to line up... must have been a heck of a day!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 05, 2014, 01:48:14 PM
Regarding the tape on the plane.
Is Mr. Glickman using it to determine and match scales of different photos at known points close to where the patch may be or is it meant to define some limits of the patch?
If the tape is defining limits of the patch then which edges of the tape define it?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 05, 2014, 03:58:40 PM
Is Mr. Glickman using it to determine and match scales of different photos at known points close to where the patch may be or is it meant to define some limits of the patch?

"Close to" is the best we can do.  There isn't enough resolution in the photos to see precisely where the edges of the patch were.  In the selfie with Nilla Putnam we can see clearly where the window frame was attached and there must have been structure added for the frame to be riveted to.  Logically the patch was riveted to those same structures but trying to pin down exactly where the patch edges were riveted is a fool's errand.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on November 06, 2014, 06:50:52 AM
Has the following been addressed before: What are the rectangular "cutouts" on the left edges of the artifact? I feel like those cutouts did not exist when it was found? Were pieces cut away for testing?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on November 06, 2014, 07:15:39 AM
Has the following been addressed before: What are the rectangular "cutouts" on the left edges of the artifact? I feel like those cutouts did not exist when it was found? Were pieces cut away for testing?

I believe two rectangular pieces were cut out for metallurgical testing.  Must have been excruciating for Ric to consent to that ... but a necessary "evil" in the forensic archaeology process.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 06, 2014, 07:20:30 AM
I believe two rectangular pieces were cut out for metallurgical testing.  Must have been excruciating for Ric to consent to that ... but a necessary "evil" in the forensic archaeology process.

That's right.  The NTSB lab cut off part of the "tab."  ALCOA cut out three big "coupons."  The lab that tested for the presence of paint cut out another piece. And, yes, it was excruciating. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 06, 2014, 07:29:38 AM
Finally got to view the video - excellent, very candid presentation - felt like it 'put me there', and how I wish I could have been.

I liked the 'null hypothesis' statement.  My take away from that was 'consider the "could be anything" case for this random piece of metal' - which refined a number of thoughts for me as i followed this graphic presentation:

- As random 'junk' goes, 2-2-V-1 just happens to provide a remarkably good 'envelope' fit to a certain piece of field work that is known to have been done on NR16020, considering of course that the original edges are gone

- Further to that, there is logically some risk that it might have actually been larger than 'the patch', but there are also signs that it is sized 'right': the cleaved edges (along aft, upper and upper-forward margins) suggest failures along or near the borders of sister structure

- The stiffener lines do not match original structure, but do remain logical to what a mechanic might do given a short amount of time and sparse resources to cover a hole of that size: rigidity and shape might trump simplicity and one could have gotten creative in the practical solution - I can't speak for Bo McNeeley, but can visualize the solution I see in this piece of work quite well, especially given what I believe are corresponding rivet lines in a couple of Miami photos

- The placement of the upper row and 'the tab' raise wild cards: if 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra then these are deviations from what I would expect, but they are far from 'disqualifying' as I see them; in fact at least one Miami photo suggests an addition of an extra member just below the upper margin of the window, for one

- Speaking of the tab, the 'double row' appears to be a good fit in terms of rivet pitch to the stock Electra - better than I had come to think; that's another positive

- As to the 'tab' and variances, it will be interesting to see what expert analysis of failure mode can reveal, but the fact that it stands as anomalous suggests an interruption of the normal pitch (rivet spacing) at that place for some reason; perhaps the pictures, or others if discovered, can yet answer this for us

But in sum for the moment, consider the null -

- The artifact seems to be field work, not factory (stiffener convergence/divergence, poorly bucked surviving rivet)

- It is large for the typical 'patch' - larger than any of the many examples I got to see at Dayton, for instance, and oddly so if that's what it is because 'damage' requiring a patch of that size would more likely necessitate a skin replacement; 2-2-V-1 is almost certainly an improvised cover, in my view, for a hole that just happens to be about the same size as that of the Earhart window

- A lot of islanders were 'moving stuff around' - but where did they happen to find this piece of metal that just happens to have these particular fingerprints?

2-2-V-1 remains a large candidate for Earhart's window as I see it; she remains rich with secrets to be coaxed out.  I hope the artifact reveals more and I remain excited about where that can lead us.  In fact it makes me more impatient to go scour that island further.  It is not hard for me to see how one can get the Gardner Island fever in the search for Earhart.

Great job, Ric, Aris and Jeff G.

-
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gus Rubio on November 06, 2014, 03:52:26 PM
What a great video on the front page; as Jeff said, it's like being there. 

Will TIGHAR be able to re-visit the Wichita Electra, should the need arise?  Along those lines, would there have been anything to be gained by pressing the artifact snugly against the outside of the fuselage?  A sheet of thick clear plastic would prevent damaging that beautiful bird, I'm sure.  Just a thought.

Lastly, is there a way to tell if the artifact rivet holes were punched or drilled?  I'm sure there would be a detectable difference  for freshly-made holes, but on the artifact?  That determination may not mean anything, though, since a field repair would use whatever method at hand was faster or easier.  Another thought.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 06, 2014, 07:04:32 PM
All,

I keep coming back to that one offset rivet on the “tab” that breaks the general rivet pitch pattern along the bottom of 2-2-V-1.

When looking at the “Wichita” pictures you can see where it would be necessary to cut through the vertical rib to fit the window.  The upper rib segment is quite substantial compared to what was remaining at the bottom of the window opening.

Could it be that there was a gusset installed on/around the lower vertical rib to strengthen the rib and help hold it in position?  This factory installation – of a gusset - “may” have called for an interruption in the rivet pitch in order to accommodate the window modification.

We really need to focus on that lower series of rivets, looking for such an interruption in rivet pitch.  Let’s look at all the pictures we have of the window installed after leaving the factory.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on November 06, 2014, 07:53:36 PM
As I think Ted suggests, to understand a patch it is necessary to try to fully understand the thing that is being patched...

Is there any reason to think the interior aspect of the starboard rear window installation was executed in any significantly different way than the other smaller window...other than the height difference of course.  My strictly amateur guess of how it might have looked is photo shopped in the attached.  (Top section of relocated stringer is really the only difference)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on November 06, 2014, 09:12:50 PM
Is there any reason to think the interior aspect of the starboard rear window installation was executed in any significantly different way than the other smaller window.

I believe there is Doug.  The larger window appears to be recessed a little bit thus requiring the "frame" which itself seems to me to be poorly crafted.  The smaller factory window looks almost flush with the skin and there is no frame.  It looks like a much neater installation.  I've been looking at the Wichita video to try to determine why the "aftermarket" guys couldn't have used the same method as the factory did.  The only idea I've come up with is that maybe they butchered the hole when they cut it and that necessitated a change in plan, thus the recess and frame.  Jeff Neville, your experience might shed a little light here.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on November 07, 2014, 06:12:57 AM
I wonder if the apparent external difference in the rear window external "trim", if thats a good way to word it, could be connected to the modification mentioned in this excerpt from Elgin Long's book.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 07, 2014, 08:00:31 PM
This from skeptic Mark Pilkington, who posted to the Nat Geo article ... this seems to be the main line of attack from the comment threads in all the recent web articles about 2-2-V-1:

"There are other photos such as the Darwin photo that provides adequate rivet line identification, but is apparently not being analysed by Tighar.

But the need to evidence stiffeners, or justify the 4 rows of 3/32" holes , or alternatively find what other aircraft it could be from, or why it is without wartime paint are all largely irrelevant given Tighars own work seems to show the Artefact is too high by @ 2"?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32359.html#msg32359

The window frame is shown to be 18" high, the inner dimensions from rivet to rivet is more like 17" top to bottom, yet the Artefact is known to be 19" high as confirmed by the NTSB report.

The lower 5/32" rivet line bears no resemblance to the staggered 5/32" rivet line seen on the New England Electra on the lower longeron, and the Darwin photo clearly shows the patch finishes flush with that longeron and row of rivets,

ie the tab on the lower edge of the artefact is not protruding lower as is presented in the Tighar bulletin, and once you lift it up, the top edge height of the patch is clearly exceeded.
Does the patch have to line up with the removed coaming edges? Or where we think they were based on previous forum postings? I think the forward edge did and possibly the aft one as well, or they were "close to" it. This is all IMHO at this point in what I understand.  I think the staggered 5/32" rows may have been on each side of one of the horizontal stringers at the top or bottom of the window(bottom one in the orientation where the tab is at the bottom). The theory being the frame was compromized in a hard landing and was reinforced at each side. A stiffener on each side of a stringer could be close to the 1 1/2" between the artifacts dbl row. That extra stiffener below or above the window is a theory for the patch possibly being bigger than the removed coaming.(and I say this with the assumption that it even was).
I was going to post a drawing questioning some of the assumptions in this theory but wanted to wait for Mr. Glickman report first since my questions may be moot after it comes out.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 09, 2014, 05:26:13 AM
analyzing hypothesi (I'm sure that's plural for Hypothesis ...

The hypothesis that "hypothesi" is plural for "hypothesis" is testable.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis) disagrees with your treatment of "hypothesis" as if it were from a second-declension Latin masculine noun (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_second_declension) like "amicus" (singular), "amici" (plural).  Linguists instead believe that it is based on a Greek third declension feminine noun (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thesis), "thesis," whose plural is "theses."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 09, 2014, 09:55:47 AM
analyzing hypothesi (I'm sure that's plural for Hypothesis ...

The hypothesis that "hypothesi" is plural for "hypothesis" is testable.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis) disagrees with your treatment of "hypothesis" as if it were from a second-declension Latin masculine noun (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_second_declension) like "amicus" (singular), "amici" (plural).  Linguists instead believe that it is based on a Greek third declension feminine noun (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thesis), "thesis," whose plural is "theses."

Eh.  That does sound very rational and well-researched... but I looked up the IRS records of wiktionary.org and the chief web adminstrator isn't living in poverty so I throw out all of their conclusions.  Hypothesi it is!!!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on November 10, 2014, 06:46:12 AM
Good morning. It might be the wrong place to ask this, but I didn't want to start another thread just for a basic question. In which thread were the discussions on the anomaly that Randy found? I'd like to reread some of that material. Thank you.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on November 10, 2014, 11:00:18 AM
Probably doesn't matter much but I recall a discussion earlier in the thread (I can't find it at the moment) where it was suggested that 2-2-v-1 was originally a flat piece of sheet made to fit the compound curve section essentially "in place" ie start at one point and force fit from there, rivetting as you go.  At least thats my interpretation of what was posted...

Not saying thats wrong but do we know when the English Wheel came into common use in U.S. aircraft repair circles?  I see the device has been around for a while and would have been perhaps a more elegant way to craft such a patch from sheet stock.  The patch would probably be a very easy fabrication for someone with even basic English Wheel skills and not needing to fight the patch while installing would improve the odds of keeping straight rivet lines for one thing.

http://www.aeroplanefactory.us/Sheet-Metal-Forming.htm
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James G. Stoveken on November 10, 2014, 11:11:41 AM
The 5/32" rivet holes in 2-2-V-1 imply a double staggered row of rivets.

Can you explain this a little better for me Ric?  I've never understood why a double staggered row is suspected.  If that were the case shouldn't there be another hole or two in the tab?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on November 10, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Good morning. It might be the wrong place to ask this, but I didn't want to start another thread just for a basic question. In which thread were the discussions on the anomaly that Randy found? I'd like to reread some of that material. Thank you.

Ingo - I think you are referring to the sonar anomaly that was pointed out by Richie Conroy, yes?

In that case, the thread starts here

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1140.240.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1140.240.html)

Best

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on November 10, 2014, 12:08:28 PM
The 5/32" rivet holes in 2-2-V-1 imply a double staggered row of rivets.

Can you explain this a little better for me Ric?  I've never understood why a double staggered row is suspected.  If that were the case shouldn't there be another hole or two in the tab?

Are there a portions, however small, of the rivet holes along the line of tear?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 10, 2014, 12:38:28 PM
Probably doesn't matter much but I recall a discussion earlier in the thread (I can't find it at the moment) where it was suggested that 2-2-v-1 was originally a flat piece of sheet made to fit the compound curve section essentially "in place" ie start at one point and force fit from there, rivetting as you go.  At least thats my interpretation of what was posted...

Not saying thats wrong but do we know when the English Wheel came into common use in U.S. aircraft repair circles?  I see the device has been around for a while and would have been perhaps a more elegant way to craft such a patch from sheet stock.  The patch would probably be a very easy fabrication for someone with even basic English Wheel skills and not needing to fight the patch while installing would improve the odds of keeping straight rivet lines for one thing.

http://www.aeroplanefactory.us/Sheet-Metal-Forming.htm

I'm assuming the English wheel was around in Earhart's day.  That said, I don't have any idea that one was available to Bo McNeeley.  Even if it had been - that is also hardly a perfect way to get a great fit on a piece of metal that size (ever used one?); an approximation would of course help - and it is not a severe compound shape, but I still believe the stiffener patterns we see might have been a way to deal with that shape.  I've also pointed out, even if one took the expedient out of simply placing the skin on as a segment of a cylinder, the stiffeners could be desireable to prevent oil canning.  That 'patch' was not a highly-refined compound section of skin in my view, but appears to have been worked into place and stabilized as best the installer could do with limited resources and time.  Opinion, of course, draw your own conclusion.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 10, 2014, 02:32:06 PM
Is there a way for TIGHAR to visually represent that the 4 verified rivet lines are there on the picture Jeff analyzed?  That would go a long way to quiet the storm, but I don't know if that technology has a way to SHOW that without altering the photo in such a way that it would raise even more criticism. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 10, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
Is there a way for TIGHAR to visually represent that the 4 verified rivet lines are there on the picture Jeff analyzed?  That would go a long way to quiet the storm, but I don't know if that technology has a way to SHOW that without altering the photo in such a way that it would raise even more criticism.

Jeff Glickman and I have been pondering this problem. Some of Jeff's confidence that the rivet lines are there in the Miami Herald photo depends upon his practiced eye in photo interpretation but he is keenly aware that just asking people to take his word for it is not sufficient in a debate as heated as this one. Jeff is presently working at applying a cutting-edge analytical technique to confirming scientifically where the rivet lines are on the patch in the Miami Herald photo.   I have seen a prototype of the processed data and I think I understand how the technique works.  It's very cool but I should let Jeff explain it.  Given the intense debate about the artifact, Jeff has decided to write a report about this issue before completing the hyperspectral imaging analysis. I'm not sure when he'll have it done but I'll publish as soon as it's available.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 10, 2014, 05:07:19 PM
Thanks to the discovery of a new collection of photos in the University of Miami Library (research sponsored by a dedicated TIGHAR member and Forum contributor) we have a new photo of the Electra with the shiny new patch installed, taken in Miami sometime between Saturday, May 29 (the date of the last photo that shows the window still present) and sundown on May 31.  Can anyone identify the purpose of the striped framework on the ground?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 10, 2014, 07:17:08 PM
Credit for alerting us to the collection that contains the new photo goes to lurker  Dr. Roger Thomas  of Olathe, KS.  On site research was done by UofM student Howard Brilliant at the behest and sponsorship of a dedicated TIGHAR researcher. This was Howard's third TIGHAR research mission in Miami.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 10, 2014, 08:45:06 PM
Ironically, in that Miami library photo, the reflection on the bottom of the patch resembles our beloved 'tab'... 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on November 10, 2014, 08:53:00 PM
Ironically, in that Miami library photo, the reflection on the bottom of the patch resembles our beloved 'tab'...

Similar to the Herald photo, a 'trick' of the horizon/crowd reflection.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 11, 2014, 07:31:03 AM
Hmmm ... I can see some panel lines in the new print but I don't think that resolution is going to be good enough to extract what we need about 2-2-V-1.

Is a trip for Jeff Glickman to Miami in order? If so, count me in for some of the airfare.

LRM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on November 11, 2014, 08:10:29 AM
Andrew sez "... I'm guessing it is some sort of fuel pit."
I agree - What looks to me like a fuel hose is visible in the shadows curving up to the port side wing leading edge, and a person standing on that wing paying attention to what I'd guess is the fuel nozzle.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on November 11, 2014, 09:56:03 AM
Andrew sez "... I'm guessing it is some sort of fuel pit."
I agree - What looks to me like a fuel hose is visible in the shadows curving up to the port side wing leading edge, and a person standing on that wing paying attention to what I'd guess is the fuel nozzle.

Agree John.  Weren't white coveralls standard dress for mechanics and such in that era?  The person who seems to be seated at some kind of control panel on the right side may be monitoring the pump controls.  Looking close, I think he may be military. A Navy Chief Petty Officer in khakis?  Sure looks like the top of a chief's hat to me.

Ric, were there any notes, dates or other kind of documentation in the folder?  Other (better?) photographs?

I'm wondering if this isn't the final fueling before departure the next morning, right after the a/c came out of the hanger with a bright, shiny new patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 11, 2014, 04:18:32 PM
All,
The attached photo – the night shot of the Hawaii crash – IMO, is the best view of the before “Patch” window framing that we have.  It suggests that the window frame was quite substantial and well engineered.

Perhaps Jeff Glickman can tease out the various rivet patterns that had to be taken into account when it came to designing the “Patch”.  How does the underlying engineered Electra window opening correspond to that what we see on 2-2-V-1?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 11, 2014, 04:22:26 PM
OK question is out of the current stream but is there evidence that warbirds were manufactured or patched with un painted aluminium during WW2?

I'm sure I've seen somewhere that it was a practice in the later stages of the war.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 04:36:15 PM
The attached photo – the night shot of the Hawaii crash – IMO, is the best view of the before “Patch” window framing that we have.  It suggests that the window frame was quite substantial and well engineered.

Perhaps Jeff Glickman can tease out the various rivet patterns that had to be taken into account when it came to designing the “Patch”.  How does the underlying engineered Electra window opening correspond to that what we see on 2-2-V-1?

Have you not seen this photo?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 04:45:19 PM
OK question is out of the current stream but is there evidence that warbirds were manufactured or patched with un painted aluminium during WW2?

I'm sure I've seen somewhere that it was a practice in the later stages of the war.

Aircraft bound for Europe were unpainted in the latter part of the war.  The B-17s my father flew in late 1944 through the end of the war were unpainted except for group and squadron markings (Dad is second from the right in this photo).  Battle damage was patched with unpainted aluminum. There were probably also some unpainted aircraft serving in the Pacific.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 04:56:55 PM
The person who seems to be seated at some kind of control panel on the right side may be monitoring the pump controls.  Looking close, I think he may be military. A Navy Chief Petty Officer in khakis?  Sure looks like the top of a chief's hat to me.

I don't think so.  There shouldn't be any military personnel at Miami Municipal.

Ric, were there any notes, dates or other kind of documentation in the folder?  Other (better?) photographs?

There are seven photos in the collection, all apparently taken the same day.  I can't share them until we clear some copyright issues with the university.  The photo posted earlier is the only one that shows the right side if the airplane.

I'm wondering if this isn't the final fueling before departure the next morning, right after the a/c came out of the hanger with a bright, shiny new patch.

There was a test flight on Sunday, May 30.  This could be fueling for the test flight or fueling for the flight to Puerto Rico. In any case, it now seems that the patch was installed sometime late Saturday the 29th or early Sunday the 30th.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 11, 2014, 06:20:29 PM

Have you not seen this photo?

There is a vertical line in the window glazing that starts about 8 rivets from the upper right and extends down. I think it is a scratch on the photo or some other digital artifact but I'm not sure. What is wierd is it turns left a bit when it gets to the top of the frame.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on November 11, 2014, 06:38:55 PM
Hatch or patch (again)...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 06:43:00 PM
There is a vertical line in the window glazing that starts about 8 rivets from the upper right and extends down. I think it is a scratch on the photo or some other digital artifact but not I'm not sure. What is wierd is it turns left a bit when it gets to the top of the frame.

I think I see what you see.  In Photoshop I cranked up the brightness and the line appeared.  Then I embossed the image.  There's a similar vertical mark on the standard cabin window, much shorter and a bit thicker.   Like you, I can't tell if these are flaws in the photo or scratches on the windows. The line on the big window could even be a crack.

I'll run this by Jeff Glickman.  If it's a crack in the window you may have just confirmed our hypothesis about the motivation for replacing the window with a patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 06:47:16 PM
Hatch or patch (again)...

Patch.  I can see no evidence that it was a hatch.  Before May 30, 1937 it is always a window from the time it first appears in early 1937.  From May 30 all the way to Lae, New Guinea it's solid aluminum - a patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James Champion on November 11, 2014, 06:51:13 PM
Quote
If it's a crack in the window you may have just confirmed our hypothesis about the motivation for replacing the window with a patch.

Mighty straight line for it to be a crack.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on November 11, 2014, 07:12:28 PM
Actually my point was to evaluate the possible set of three March 37 photos that show window, window, nothing...with the plane looking like it hasn't rolled.  Seems like a hinged hatch like in a B-24 or other method of opening might be an idea... darn low res photos...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 11, 2014, 07:13:23 PM
Ric,

Why are you always at odds with me when it comes to posting on this site?

I suggested that there may be more information from the “night” shot of the Electra and you posted “haven’t you seen -  the 1/3 window outline”.  Hell yes I’ve seen the 1/3 window outline, why do you think I pointed out the “night shot”.  It was to give an alternative view of the original window installation.

Damn it Ric, you have the widow Patch, why do you get so protective of your theory of how the thing was attached? 

You know I support everything TIGHAR is doing but lately I am getting the impression that appreciation of this support is subject to your mind set at the time.  Keep it up and support will diminish!

Calmly look at what I pointed out and respond accordingly.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 11, 2014, 07:19:50 PM
Quote
If it's a crack in the window you may have just confirmed our hypothesis about the motivation for replacing the window with a patch.

Mighty straight line for it to be a crack.
I agree. Maybe plexiglass might crack like that though. It's a question that had been bothering me for a while. I'm thinking there is a very small chance it is a crack. Either way it would be nice confirm what it is and put it to bed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 11, 2014, 07:49:20 PM
Hatch or patch (again)...
The picture where the Lav window is not there is probably before the window was even installed. I can't see the patch or RDF and the cabin window appears to have that horizontal bar, and the engine cowlings look painted
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 08:02:26 PM
Actually my point was to evaluate the possible set of three March 37 photos that show window, window, nothing...with the plane looking like it hasn't rolled. 

I'm afraid I don't know what  "possible set of three March 37 photos that show window, window, nothing...with the plane looking like it hasn't rolled." you're talking about.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
I'm thinking there is a very small chance it is a crack. Either way it would be nice confirm what it is and put it to bed.

I've asked Jeff Glickman for his opinion.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 08:06:41 PM
The picture where the Lav window is not there is probably before the window was even installed. I can't see the patch or RDF and the cabin window appears to have that horizontal bar, and the engine cowlings look painted

The only time the cowlings were painted was at the time of the Bendix race in September 1936 - long before the window was installed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on November 11, 2014, 08:27:12 PM
There is a vertical line in the window glazing that starts about 8 rivets from the upper right and extends down. I think it is a scratch on the photo or some other digital artifact but I'm not sure. What is wierd is it turns left a bit when it gets to the top of the frame.

I just figured that was the reflection of a straight edge from something inside the aircraft, much like we see the interior through the other window forward on the fuselage ... looks too "engineered" for a scratch, especially with the right angle to the left near the top of the window frame.  Interesting.

The other interesting thing of note about the photo is the reflection of the wing on the fuselage skin behind the ladies.  Note the warping of the straight edge of the wing and its shadow below ... this at least partially, if not wholly, explains the 'puckering' or 'bulging' effect seen in the more reflective patch in the Miami and Darwin photos.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2014, 08:30:09 PM
Ric,

Why are you always at odds with me when it comes to posting on this site?

I suggested that there may be more information from the “night” shot of the Electra and you posted “haven’t you seen -  the 1/3 window outline”.  Hell yes I’ve seen the 1/3 window outline, why do you think I pointed out the “night shot”.  It was to give an alternative view of the original window installation.

Damn it Ric, you have the widow Patch, why do you get so protective of your theory of how the thing was attached? 

You know I support everything TIGHAR is doing but lately I am getting the impression that appreciation of this support is subject to your mind set at the time.  Keep it up and support will diminish!

Calmly look at what I pointed out and respond accordingly.


Ted, I honestly don't think the photo you posted is anywhere near as good a source of information as the photo taken in Miami.  The resolution is poor and it was taken before the airplane was repaired.  The Miami photo shows us terrific detail of three edges of the window frame and it was taken the day before the patch was installed.

I know and appreciate that you're a generous supporter but I won't agree with you just to make you feel good.  I apologize if I am occasionally, perhaps even frequently, tactless but I sincerely hope that I am not "protective" of what we have learned from the photos and the aircraft we examined.  If we got it wrong I invite anyone to show us how and why we got it wrong.

 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 11, 2014, 08:56:32 PM
There is a vertical line in the window glazing that starts about 8 rivets from the upper right and extends down. I think it is a scratch on the photo or some other digital artifact but I'm not sure. What is wierd is it turns left a bit when it gets to the top of the frame.

I just figured that was the reflection of a straight edge from something inside the aircraft, much like we see the interior through the other window forward on the fuselage ... looks too "engineered" for a scratch, especially with the right angle to the left near the top of the window frame.  Interesting.
Yep. Or Lav door slightly open and light getting thru the door and door jamb.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Nathan Leaf on November 11, 2014, 08:58:59 PM
OK question is out of the current stream but is there evidence that warbirds were manufactured or patched with un painted aluminium during WW2?

I'm sure I've seen somewhere that it was a practice in the later stages of the war.

Well, ALL warbirds were manufactured with unpainted aluminum...   ;)

All warbirds in "hot zones" (i.e. areas of potential conflict in the 1930s, even if there was no official war) were painted with service branch or even local camouflage schemes. "Squadron Signal Air Force Colors Vol. 1 1926-1942" by Dana Bell is a great resource showing the evolution of Army Air Force paint schemes in the pre-war/early war period.  The Navy was experimenting during this period as well, of course.

It was not until 4 months after Pearl Harbor in March 1942 that the Joint Aircraft Committee had issued its standardized color schemes for the Army, Navy and RAF (including RAAF and RCAF) ... all aircraft in theater not conforming to these schemes were stripped and repainted by the end of June, 1942, with all aircraft rolling off the assembly lines painted in these schemes at the factory until January 1944.  The one lone exception I am aware of was in the Aleutians, where the enemy air strength was so weak as to not pose more than a nuisance, and operational losses were the primary driver of aircraft attrition, so with air superiority and a greater concern for reducing the weight of aircraft to improve performance (particularly on treacherous takeoff and landing roll-outs in consistently poor flying conditions), many American aircraft in the Aleutians were unpainted.  There was also the occasional C-47 General's transport that was unpainted, thought more attractive by the ground crews who maintained them and more "ballsy" by the Generals who flew around in them.

In December 1943, the War Department announced the removal of paint from aircraft to save weight, which primarily affected army aircraft rolling off the assembly lines beginning in 1944. By mid-1944, you see photos of B-17 squadrons where half of the planes are painted and half are in "naked" aluminum finish, and the prevalence of unpainted aluminum aircraft becomes very noticeable ... especially P-51s, P-38s and B-29s. Of course the Navy painted all of their aircraft through the end of the war, and even with the War Department announcement, many local army units preferred to continue with painted aircraft to the end of the war.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Doug Ledlie on November 11, 2014, 10:34:28 PM
Quote
Posted by: Ric Gillespie
« on: Today at 09:02:26 PM »

I'm afraid I don't know what  "possible set of three March 37 photos that show window, window, nothing...with the plane looking like it hasn't rolled." you're talking about.

There was a word doc attached in earlier post but here's a collage pic of what I'm going on about. Certain aspects of the three photos seem remarkably similar to my untrained eye and may suggest they were all taken on the same day/location (unfortunately with different quality of hardware it would seem).

Point being if they all date to March 1937 it may tend to add credence to Mr. Long's, apparently unconfirmed, mention of a hatch being installed in place of the lav window in Jan/Feb 1937.  So what appears to be a window could be an open hatch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Palshook on November 12, 2014, 01:19:00 AM
Doug,

In the 3rd (bottom) of the set of 3 Electra photos you posted, look at the tail of the aircraft.  It shows registration number R16020, not NR16020.  That 3rd photo was taken much earlier than the other 2 photos.  I believe the 3rd photo was taken in Cleveland, OH, some time in 1936.

Jeff P.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on November 12, 2014, 01:35:32 AM
Doug,

In the 3rd (bottom) of the set of 3 Electra photos you posted, look at the tail of the aircraft.  It shows registration number R16020, not NR16020.  That 3rd photo was taken much earlier than the other 2 photos.  I believe the 3rd photo was taken in Cleveland, OH, some time in 1936.

Jeff P.

So that would be BEFORE the window was installed let alone the subsequent patch, right?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 12, 2014, 05:12:39 AM
Right.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 12, 2014, 05:39:29 AM
Quote
If it's a crack in the window you may have just confirmed our hypothesis about the motivation for replacing the window with a patch.

Mighty straight line for it to be a crack.

I agree.  It also seems more coincident with other features like a vertical door frame in the lavatory bulkhead, which may be reflecting in some odd way in the photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 12, 2014, 05:54:25 AM
Jeff Glickman says, "The white line in the left-hand black window appears to be an emulsion scratch."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 12, 2014, 06:01:49 AM
Makes sense.

Looking at old photos can almost make one believe in ghosts.  Well, maybe we should...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 12, 2014, 06:55:15 AM
Looking at old photos can almost make one believe in ghosts.  Well, maybe we should...

We ARE looking at ghosts, Jeff   ;D   Seventy-plus-year-old ghosts, to be precise. These new University of Miami photos are a very discreet time capsule, documentation of a very short period of time on one specific day in 1937 ( or so it appears to me). It is haunting, to me, to look at Amelia Earhart, waving from the top of her plane, surrounded by people eager to help, and think that in less than two months, she would enter the history books as arguably the most famous missing person in the world.

The new University of Miami photos are a piece of the puzzle. How important may depend on the interpretative magic of Jeff Glickman and the like. It still constantly amazes me that new material is STILL surfacing about Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on November 12, 2014, 07:07:14 AM
Quote
Looking at old photos can almost make one believe in ghosts.  Well, maybe we should...
like this photo from the Purdue archives(http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr262/pdtweeks/ajaxhelper.jpg)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 12, 2014, 08:02:29 AM
Jeff Glickman says, "The white line in the left-hand black window appears to be an emulsion scratch."
Thank you Ric.
Thanks to Mr. Glickman as well.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 12, 2014, 08:36:19 AM
Point being if they all date to March 1937 it may tend to add credence to Mr. Long's, apparently unconfirmed, mention of a hatch being installed in place of the lav window in Jan/Feb 1937.  So what appears to be a window could be an open hatch.

They were not all taken in March 1937.  The first two were taken on March 14, 1937 in Oakland prior to Earhart's first world flight attempt.  The third photo shows that airplane when it still had the R (Restricted) registration and the bar through the standard cabin window.  The Hooven Radio Compass antenna has not yet been installed so the photo date to earlier than October 1936.  The cowlings are painted as they were in September 1936 when Earhart participated in the Bendix Trophy cross-country race.

Long was simply wrong about the hatch, as he was about so many other things.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 12, 2014, 08:39:21 AM
At some point we should probably publish a guide to dating photos of the Earhart Electra. Various antennas and windows came and went at various times and there seems to be nothing so common as a mis-captioned photo of the airplane. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 12, 2014, 09:35:05 AM
At some point we should probably publish a guide to dating photos of the Earhart Electra. Various antennas and windows came and went at various times and there seems to be nothing so common as a mis-captioned photo of the airplane.

The Harney drawings might be a good place to start with that - it has a summary with 4 (?) side views showing the various configurations. If we do undertake such an effort, it would at least help date the tidal wave of photos.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 12, 2014, 09:39:43 AM
I actually considered writing an entire book on the evolution of c/n 1055 from inception to disappearance. It's a fascinating story of experimentation, compromise, and administrative screw-ups.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on November 12, 2014, 10:57:55 PM
I came accross this photo; http://www.huntington.org/uploadedImages/Files/images/aerospace3026.JPG  the other day, .....( some time back ) the forum was in discussion as to the possible attachment of 2-2-V-1 to the belly area, though mute now,.....some things I note are, .......the numbering of the stations on the upper rail, .....the view from starboard, ( activity taking place in close proximity of the currently discussed area),... and it was also discussed at some length, the possible method of attaching stringers/ sheet alclad, etc...It appears the fellow on his backside is attaching stringers , however; I can't say that is the way the alclad was applied .....( the fuselage in the neighboring jig seems at least partially skinned), .....I just thought it interesting, and wondered as to the lack of advanced equipment in the early days of lockheed.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 13, 2014, 10:01:40 AM
Jerry, good catch.

Yes, the belly got me re-captivated for a while, as well, as a possibiilty, but seemed finally to be too far a reach: belly 'repairs' should follow the existing / original structural scheme, almost exactly.

'Modifications' can easily be an entirely different matter - and while I've never held 2-2-V-1 to be a shoo in (despite my enthusiasm - which draws both more enthusiasm and criticisms, of course), I do see it as a 'wild card' possibility given that the large lav window is NOT stock.

That said - I respect the arguments that say that stiffener patterns, etc. SHOULD come closer to the original airframe scheme.  It is true that a window covering would ideally follow the original construction scheme.  I merely hold that under the circumstances of patching over that window, lots of other things were quote possible, and 2-2-V-1 is too fortunitous a find to pass up for consideration.  I had no idea there was anywhere on the Electra where a panel of that size would fit, logically - except maybe a belly 'repair' - until the window was realized. 

My main focus since the beginning of this 'does it perhaps belong to the window covering' quest has been 'gee I'd love to just see a great picture of that finished covering' - a truly clear picture would be worth many thousands of words here.

We may be at the cusp of that.  What it will tell us I cannot know yet.  I know what the pictures show so far, and a lav window covering fit is far more likely than the belly, which I think we rightly abandoned - but only time and more information will truly tell.

Thanks for sharing this cool photo of the belly - correction, my bad - LAV WINDOW - area framing on an Electra - it is interesting.  Perhaps it can be seen why this - the belly - was such a fascinating area for a time, especially knowing of the Luke Field incident damage, etc.  From this shot, we can easily understand the ideal notion of 'just put the skin back like it was' in covering the window, but we must also consider that the added window changed a lot here, and having to cover it with apparently limited resources and time may have become something akin to the 'mother of invention'.

Updated for clarity and to correct my reference to the 'belly' as we're actually seeing a side area of the fuselage in the STA 293 5/8 to 320 or so on an in-work factory Electra build.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 13, 2014, 04:22:51 PM
Updated for clarity and to correct my reference to the 'belly' as we're actually seeing a side area of the fuselage in the STA 293 5/8 to 320 or so on an in-work factory Electra build.

Yes, and much of the structure those guys are diligently assembling had to be cut away to install that stupid window.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 13, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This sketch shows how I think 2-2-V-1 fits in the horizontal direction.
I used the most forward row of the double rows at the bulkhead to set sta. 293 5/8 and the single row aft row of rivets to set sta. 320.  I set these 26 3/8 apart. The sticky measure tape seen on the Wichita Electra looks close to this dimension.

In the Miami Herald photo, the vertical rivets were previously estimated to have 1” pitch. This photo was scaled so some of  the vertical rivets at the bottom were as close to 1” o.c. as possible. Using this photo, I estimated the horizontal rivets to be about 1 ¼” on center. The horizontal rivets were drawn exactly 1 ¼” on center. I estimated their starting location based on the rivets in the window coaming. See the reference rivet and dimensions I estimated on the sketch. 

The location of the added vertical frame was estimated from the Miami Herald photo as well. I estimated the gap from sta 293 5/8 at an area close to where I was estimating the other dimensions (at the bottom)  I kept the added window frame parallel to sta 293 5/8, even though it appears to get closer at the top which would mean even more room for a fit. Also if they added another stiffener forward(in between the bulkhead and window frame), and riveted to it, there  would be even more room.

The outline of the artifact was a tracing of a photo of the artifact I did several months ago.  Since it is based on a photo, it is not to scale.  For this study, I rescaled the outer edges of the tracing so  the width was 24 3/8”wide, which was a previous width estimate for the artifact. I could have just used a 24 3/8” box and accomplished the same thing but what was interesting to me was how close the rivet pattern on the artifact tracing fit the rivet pattern I drew for the coaming, which was drawn before I inserted the tracing.

 This is just how I see it fitting based on my understanding to date, which may be wrong. I can see it fitting with other slight variations as well.
The PDF has the better resolution of the files attached.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 13, 2014, 06:43:56 PM
Nice work, Greg.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 13, 2014, 07:56:50 PM
Nice work, Greg.
Thank you Jeff.
This study was done with more of a consideration that it was a cover and had no added vertical stiffeners at the edges. Also the suggested middle stiffener Mr. Glickman discovered was not considered at 307 but possibly more towards the middle of the old window opening. That the middle member was not riveted was considered as a reason it was not at 307.

I plan on doing a variation (I believe like the current thinking) where 2-2-V-1 is more forward and considers the added vertical stiffener at 307. I think that is going to involve an added vertical stiffener at the front edge. I would consider it as the "more than a cover" variation.
edit:Or just option B since added stiffeners could be needed for other reasons. Like what you said a while back about some of these holes (the bottom row) being drilled 3 times.
If I got it straight they are:
1. The original hole drilled for when the aiplane had original skin.
2. Then drilled out for the window.
3. Then drilled out for the patch
Seems like you may need added places to rivet or bigger rivet holes in the old stringers at some point.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on November 14, 2014, 07:04:53 AM
Any ideas as to whether the window was fabricated on site for its purpose or a was a manufactured window unit installed? Not sure what that may suggest btw.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 14, 2014, 07:35:26 AM
I would say the two windows added were manufactured on site - they were not the size as the standard Electra windows and were installed in an area where no windows were intended to be put.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on November 14, 2014, 07:49:09 AM
Two windows? Did I miss something?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on November 14, 2014, 08:53:33 AM
Two windows? Did I miss something?
Yes, two of 'em. At the time the lavatory window was installed on the right side of the aircraft, a window was installed in the door on the left side.

Notice, in this photo  (http://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2013/06/650x512xAmelia-Earhart-with-her-Lockeed-Electra-10E-NR16020-at-Lockheed-Aircraft-Company-December-1936.jpg.pagespeed.ic.kZ-dafJxs2.jpg)found on the website of This Day in Aviation (http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/amelia-earharts-lockheed-electra-10e-special-nr16020/) (said to have been taken in December 1936), the door does not have a window in it. (Oh, bless their little journalist hearts: there Amelia's Cord automobile is described as being painted light blue; in other places it's described as being yellow. Did she have it repainted?!?!? Did she have multiple Cord Phaetons?!?!?)

But as we know from pictures taken in 1937, a window was installed in that door.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on November 14, 2014, 09:09:08 AM
Ok, sure, I just don't remember the door window being mentioned.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 14, 2014, 10:03:32 AM
... Amelia's Cord automobile is described as being painted light blue; in other places it's described as being yellow. Did she have it repainted?!?!? Did she have multiple Cord Phaetons?!?!?

The 1936 blue Cord (http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2011/06/30/3257534.htm) might have belonged to her husband.

The claim repeated, with the explanation of "Eleanor blue." (http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/59322/the-finer-things-in-life/)

Same car, same claim. (http://www.motormarques.com/community/drivers-and-cars/item/400-cord)


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce Thomas on November 14, 2014, 10:10:54 AM
... Amelia's Cord automobile is described as being painted light blue; in other places it's described as being yellow. Did she have it repainted?!?!? Did she have multiple Cord Phaetons?!?!?

The 1936 blue Cord (http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2011/06/30/3257534.htm) might have belonged to her husband.

The claim repeated, with the explanation of "Eleanor blue." (http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/59322/the-finer-things-in-life/)

Same car, same claim. (http://www.motormarques.com/community/drivers-and-cars/item/400-cord)

Not the same car as shown in the picture I linked to ... check out the venting pipes on the Eleanor blue car, versus the much plainer car in the photo with AE standing by the window-less door.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on November 14, 2014, 11:20:52 AM
This sketch shows how I think 2-2-V-1 fits in the horizontal direction. ...


Is the pitch of the rivet lines (deviation from parallel) really as pronounced on the 2-2-V-1 as your drawing suggest? If that could be corroborated forensically in photo, then... 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 14, 2014, 12:26:32 PM
This sketch shows how I think 2-2-V-1 fits in the horizontal direction. ...


Is the pitch of the rivet lines (deviation from parallel) really as pronounced on the 2-2-V-1 as your drawing suggest? If that could be corroborated forensically in photo, then...
The pitch is usualy referred to as the spacing between the rivet holes. The lines may look like they deviate from parallel, but remember the tracing I made was from a photo so that could make them look that like they deviate more than they do. I believe Aris Scarla helped to clarify that the irregularities are slight in the The Riddle of Artifact #2-2-V-1
report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html).
“Careful measurement of the space between lines of rivets holes revealed that the lines do not taper or converge as previously believed – including by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Lab. There are, however, slight irregularities in the spacing between lines suggesting that the underlying structures, presumably stringers, were not precisely aligned. These irregularities suggest that 2-2-V-1 may be part of a repair”
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 14, 2014, 01:17:31 PM
Not the same car as shown in the picture I linked to ... check out the venting pipes on the Eleanor blue car, versus the much plainer car in the photo with AE standing by the window-less door.

OK, I see that now.

But there may have been two Cords in the family, one blue and one yellow.

That might account for the error in the caption.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on November 14, 2014, 01:46:07 PM
In going through the repair procedures , as far as some patches are applied , they appear to be sealed around the perimeter with an 1/32nds inch thick piece of neoprene material ..( though no edges are left on 2-2-V-1) save possibly the bottom tab ,if this repair was performed in like manner,...  may the hyperspectral imaging provide any evidence of an outline there of said material/ ...residue?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 15, 2014, 07:50:45 AM
Where did you find procedures for a dry bay involving neoprene?  Curious.

I wouldn't expect that, but it is not out of the question that some sealant might have been used, of course.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 15, 2014, 08:39:12 AM
I spent yesterday morning in Boston examining 2-2-V-1 with three scientists at MIT:

Prof. Thomas W. Eager, ScD, P.E. - Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems
Prof. Ronald G. Ballinger - Head, H.H. Uhlig Corrosion Laboratory
Prof. R. John Hansman - T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Dr. Harold R. Larson, ScD - Metallugy, Materials, Failure Analysis

Not to belabor the obvious, but in terms of expertise to help us understand 2-2-V-1 it just doesn't get any better than this.

When we were done, Prof. Eager gave me the attached letter. 
Eager is best known for debunking the myth that planted charges brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

As time permits I'll elaborate on what these gentleman thought about what forces have acted on 2-2-V-1 to make it look as it does today.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 15, 2014, 09:24:29 AM
I spent yesterday morning in Boston examining 2-2-V-1 with three scientists at MIT:

Well done!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James Champion on November 15, 2014, 09:27:58 AM
According to Wikipedia, Neoprene was developed in 1930 and only in moderate use by the end of the 30's. If any sealant was applied to the edges of the window patch, it would be in accordance with techniques in use during the late 30's, but use of Neoprene is unlikely as it was probably a rather an exotic material. Like all aircraft of the time, the Electra was unpressurized and techniques for sealing aircraft was to come later.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 15, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Interesting news. Can't wait to hear more of what the experts thought.

If the artifact was underwater for about a half century, and based on when(after colony abandoned) and where it was found, how does that effect the search area?

If the rivets failed from stress corrosion cracking and the sheet edges from wave action, what does that suggest about the rivets at the edges?  Bigger diameter ones and/or more of them? Edit: or less flexing around the heads due to being more rigid. (Like would be expected at the edges of a patch)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: James Champion on November 15, 2014, 09:33:20 AM
I spent yesterday morning in Boston examining 2-2-V-1 with three scientists at MIT:

Well done!


Did you get any suggestions on SEM analysis of the rivet? I see this issue as extremely important to the questions remaining about 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 15, 2014, 09:44:34 AM
I spent yesterday morning in Boston examining 2-2-V-1 with three scientists at MIT:

Well done!
Yes, very well chosen experts and a smart course of action.
Go Ric!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 15, 2014, 10:04:21 AM
One more nail in TIGHAR's evidence box around 2-2-V-1. And it sounds like an awfully good nail, at that,

I can already hear the legions of detractors, though ... "Why didn't you check this?  ... or What about that?"

To which I am now going to start to say, "It's a free country. You are free to go find your own experts and solicit their opinion. Talk is cheap. Answers are expensive. Unless you're willing to invest the time and bucks to support your own contentions, don't waste my time trying to tear down ours."

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on November 15, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
Where did you find procedures for a dry bay involving neoprene?  Curious.

I wouldn't expect that, but it is not out of the question that some sealant might have been used, of course.
According to Wikipedia, Neoprene was developed in 1930 and only in moderate use by the end of the 30's. If any sealant was applied to the edges of the window patch, it would be in accordance with techniques in use during the late 30's, but use of Neoprene is unlikely as it was probably a rather an exotic material. Like all aircraft of the time, the Electra was unpressurized and techniques for sealing aircraft was to come later.

In search of any types of sealants that could have been used around the patch, ....neoprene was one of several sealant materials, that I noted as being used in the 30's ....another example .....http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfNKeNuQukwC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=sealants+used+in+the+1930's&source=bl&ots=ipVidLmYB5&sig=UViZymGw1WjnoyVMneQQYu9XqD4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T6dnVIqnLYyryASu0YLgDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sealants%20used%20in%20the%201930's&f=false
On pages 164-168 ,in this 1937 manual it's use is suggested in a recommended reinforcement.....
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/lockheed/model-14-super-electra/lockheed-14-super-electra-service-manual.html
.....And the PBY manuel that greg provided a link to, http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/Other%20Airframes/Consolidated%2001-5M-3%20(PBY-5%20,%205A,%206A%20-%20Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Manual).pdf  illustrates it's use during patching ( though, it is dated a bit later and used on a bulkhead) .....page 42 ,and others
Again , I don't know if any neoprene tape was used,......however; may whatever was used have left a little residue behind,?....if any type of sealant residue could be detected on the tab, it may reinforce the idea it was a patch and not an original skin attachment.   
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on November 15, 2014, 12:36:00 PM
I spent yesterday morning in Boston examining 2-2-V-1 with three scientists at MIT:

Prof. Thomas W. Eager, ScD, P.E. - Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems
Prof. Ronald G. Ballinger - Head, H.H. Uhlig Corrosion Laboratory
Prof. R. John Hansman - T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Dr. Harold R. Larson, ScD - Metallugy, Materials, Failure Analysis

Not to belabor the obvious, but in terms of expertise to help us understand 2-2-V-1 it just doesn't get any better than this.

When we were done, Prof. Eager gave me the attached letter. 
Eager is best known for debunking the myth that planted charges brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

As time permits I'll elaborate on what these gentleman thought about what forces have acted on 2-2-V-1 to make it look as it does today.



Really!!?  MIT?  Those are some seriously mainstream, high-powered credentials!  I think you've booted the credibility of 2-2-V-1 being the patch from NR16020, and TIGHAR's in general, as well, way up into the stratosphere.  The naysayers in TECTIC better have their shi...err stuff seriously together if they wish to attack/denounce these findings.  Looking forward to additional papers from them.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 15, 2014, 03:11:51 PM
That is an impressive letter from Eagar.  I was frankly a bit surprised at part of his personal conclusion, just because reserved judgment is more common for such things - he was willing to venture further into a probability of Earhart provenance than I would have dared dream. 

It is heartening that he 'got it' with regard to some details that are rather concrete to some of us about why this oddball part may be a fit to the Electra.  I well understand and respect why those details continue to appear more abstract to many onlookers.  That said, I've 'felt' (that most unreliable personal device, but by observation and instinct, I suppose) for sometime that 2-2-V-1 is somehow more unique than just a random piece of aluminum sheet happening to be about the right size for the 'bathroom window' on NR16020.  It is good to see we have some strong company -

As Eagar noted, the oddity of size and pattern are suggestive to some of us about a peculiar, particular provenance.  So Eagar sees that as well - something beyond just a sterile review of failure modus.  Plus he gives strong insight into the conditions of failure - much of which is supportive as to the right kind of environment to help explain an Earhart-related relic at that place.

I look forward to more details from these gentlemen when able.

Makes me appreciate what time, tides and mother nature's rocking chair (motion of the ocean on a somewhat fixed object) can do.  What they envision is not the more violent initial event that I had believed might have initiated the failure; not expert there myself, of course, I am very grateful for their insight. 

The rivet failure modus Eagar envisions also makes perfect sense as well.  Stress corrosion cracking is very consistent with much we'd imagine about what the Electra would have endured if submerged on the reef face at Niku. 

I'm grateful that you were able to get such qualified folks to look 2-2-V-1 over - won't find heavier hitters than MIT for qualifications on this kind of stuff.

EDITED: I have eagerly corrected 'Eager' to 'Eagar'...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on November 15, 2014, 08:14:18 PM
So the theory would be that the piece stayed on the plane, and over possibly decades, the rivets themselves corroded away... then the piece of metal kind of flapped in the currents until finally it broke free, and washed ashore? 

If that's what actually happened, it places the plane carcass likely extremely close to the island (for instance, where the anomaly is). 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 15, 2014, 08:33:41 PM
So the theory would be that the piece stayed on the plane, and over possibly decades, the rivets themselves corroded away... then the piece of metal kind of flapped in the currents until finally it broke free, and washed ashore? 

If that's what actually happened, it places the plane carcass likely extremely close to the island (for instance, where the anomaly is).
I don't think "corroded away" is what he was saying. From my understanding, I think the rivets were weakend by the stress cracks that grew in them due to corrosion and failed at the heads from wave force or flexing.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 15, 2014, 08:39:05 PM
Good description, Greg.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 16, 2014, 04:19:04 PM
That is an impressive letter from Eagar.  I was frankly a bit surprised at part of his personal conclusion, just because reserved judgment is more common for such things - he was willing to venture further into a probability of Earhart provenance than I would have dared dream. 

I went into the meeting asking only for the professors' opinions on what kind of forces it takes to cause the kind of damage we see on 2-2-V-1.  Once they saw the artifact they changed the question.  Like you, I was amazed that they felt as strongly as they did and that Prof Eagar volunteered to write what he did.  But remember, these guys have done hundreds of aviation accident investigations and are often called upon to be expert witnesses.  They're not afraid to reach conclusions and stand by them. 

It is heartening that he 'got it' with regard to some details that are rather concrete to some of us about why this oddball part may be a fit to the Electra.

They recognized TIGHAR's methodology.  We do it right.  The essence of science is the replicability of results.  We did exactly what they would have done.  It should be no surprise that they concur with our conclusions.

I look forward to more details from these gentlemen when able.

You betcha.

I'm grateful that you were able to get such qualified folks to look 2-2-V-1 over - won't find heavier hitters than MIT for qualifications on this kind of stuff.

I'd like to say that I charmed them into wading into the Wonderful World of Earhart Earhart Research but that's not what happened.  The recent media tsunami brought an old accident investigator buddy out of the woodwork.  We traded funny stories about the old days and, as an afterthought, I mentioned that I was looking for a top notch forensic metallurgist.  He said, "I have just the guy if I can talk him into taking your call."   I don't know what he told Prof Eagar about me (we hadn't been in touch for 35 years) but he got the professor to take my call. Prof. Eagar said, "Send me what you've been doing and what you want to know."  I did and he replied,  "I think I can help you.  Come on up to Cambridge on Friday the 14th and I'll see who else I can round up." The rest, as they say, is history.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on November 16, 2014, 05:43:23 PM
Ric, I'm not surprised they helped.  It's been my experience that top notch people enjoy sharing their expertise if you do things right, you do good sound research and thinking, and you're not a jerk.  Bravo!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 16, 2014, 05:49:05 PM
...you're not a jerk.

Thanks Dale.  There are those who would disagree but I'll happily settle for your opinion. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dan Swift on November 17, 2014, 09:14:46 AM
That's a great story Ric!  I used to hear, "what makes you go are the people you know"...and even though it had been a few decades, the respect was obviously still there.  So as you say, "the rest is history".  Good deal!! 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 17, 2014, 10:09:15 AM
I warned Prof. Eagar that going on the record as agreeing with TIGHAR would bring down fire and brimstone upon his head.  He laughed and reminded me that he had been in the middle of a storm of controversy when he debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Sure enough, the electrons were not dry on his letter before he was assailed with a lengthy email from a TIGHAR hater. He described his response in an email he wrote to me this morning replying to my request that he review my Is TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 from a PBY (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/74_Is_22V1_From_PBY/74_Is22V1PBY.html) paper.

I pass along Prof. Eagar's words of wisdom.  I have redacted the name of the assailant to save him the public embarrassment.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 17, 2014, 10:19:13 AM
Thanks for sharing that.  Eagar is quite a gentleman.

I regret his having to endure personal attack and certainly agree with Eagar's comment on that having no place in investigative study and commentary.  "Yer mama wears army boots if you believe 2-2-V-1 is from Earhart's airplane" has no constructive place in this search - or in the greater Earhart search community at all, or in fact at all anywhere, for that matter. 

I admire Eagar's thick skin and advice; some criticisms are not worthwhile - and I agree with him that personal attack is utterly disqualifying.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gus Rubio on November 17, 2014, 11:03:02 AM
Just wanted to chime in and say that, through the eyes of someone virtually beyond the very outer fringes of TIGHAR's Earhart investigation (I read the forum every day and have donated literally a few dollars), these are incredibly exciting times. 

I remember the theory I had about AE and FN's disappearance, back in the 3rd grade/1979 or so: they flew over the equator, where the Sun's energy heats up the Earth the most, and their plane caught fire and exploded.  Eight years old, mind you.   :D  To think that we could be mere months from a solid resolution to this mystery is thrilling.  Onward!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 17, 2014, 11:08:21 AM
..they flew over the equator, where the Sun's energy heats up the Earth the most, and their plane caught fire and exploded. 

Wait a minute!  I don't think we've ever considered that possibility.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 17, 2014, 12:07:43 PM
Taken from Eagar's masterful analysis of the World Trade Center collapse:

As Lord Kelvin said,

            “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

TIGHAR's knowledge is the numbers kind of knowledge. Virtually all of the TIGHAR hater's knowledge is of another kind - but just because they stack up a bunch of imponderables and what ifs, doesn't make their knowledge true.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on November 17, 2014, 12:30:54 PM
..they flew over the equator, where the Sun's energy heats up the Earth the most, and their plane caught fire and exploded. 

Wait a minute!  I don't think we've ever considered that possibility.
How'd you miss that one, Ric???  :D

Cool, Gus.  Lately I've favored 'aliens'... hey, who knows???

Seriously, I think it was the seventh grade for me - around 12 years of age.  I recall a question from a classmate about ADF driving me to the local libarary (the 'internet' of my day) where our beloved librarian steered me to what I believe to have been Fred Goerner's book "The Search for Amelia Earhart" (specific memories have faded, but that is the likely candidate).  She made the connection from "ADF" to "Earhart" through personal recall that the lady pilot had been lost due to some sort of "navigation error that involved radio directin finding"; the book was fairly fresh at the time and she got me to it instantly through her own recall.  She thought that it might be a good start for my interest. 

It was a great start - not so much for radio navigation understanding as for sparking this lad's interest in the lost aviatrix, someone he'd actually not known the fate of before that day.  I'd also never heard the term 'aviatrix' then, until I got home and asked my mother about Earhart.  She shared a great deal more from her own living memories. 

I recall realizing that Earhart had made quite an impression on those ladies as someone with a bold spirit who showed the world something about women's abilities.  I recall leafing through that book and feeling haunted at the loss - that somehow she deserved to be found and the answers known.  That would have been around 1970 - a mere 33 years after Earhart was lost.  Hard to believe it has now been 77 years since the disappearance.

Looking back, I'm grateful for the sharing of real news from my mother's and the local librarian's own early lives - there's a taste of Betty Klenck Brown's experience in that line of thought, I suppose.  Each of those ladies would have been around mid-to-late forties in years when I was introduced to that book; both are gone now.  As for me, I've never been able to rest easy with the notion of that Lockheed lying out there somewhere, not found.  That thought has kept me afire all these years.

Now as you say, this is a thrilling time.  I hope beyond hope that we have an answer emerging - it couldn't get better than that for me.  If anyone can answer it in my lifetime I will be very glad.  I don't think anyone is trying harder or putting more hard-nosed analysis into the solution than TIGHAR is.  Glad to be a part of that like you.

Equator, sun... who knows???  Who'd of thought that!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on November 17, 2014, 12:46:15 PM
Taken from Eagar's masterful analysis of the World Trade Center collapse:

As Lord Kelvin said,

            “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

TIGHAR's knowledge is the numbers kind of knowledge. Virtually all of the TIGHAR hater's knowledge is of another kind - but just because they stack up a bunch of imponderables and what ifs, doesn't make their knowledge true.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

Excellent Monty! 

Reminds me somewhat of the WY Judge's opinion in dismissing the Mellon lawsuit:  "No matter how convinced or sincere Plantiff is in his subjective belief and opinion. . .that belief and opinion is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact."

Replace 'Plantiff' with . . . .

That's all the naysayers and TIGHAR-hater's have:  subjective belief and opinion!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 02, 2014, 06:05:48 PM
You may recall that MIT Prof. Eagar mentioned in his letter that:
"I did recommend a commercial laboratory that has extensive experience in chemical analysis of commercial alloys."

Tomorrow I'll be spending the day at that laboratory with 2-2-V-1 and an array of aluminum samples for comparison to the artifact. Our objective will be to determine if there is a measurable difference between aluminum used to build Electras circa 1935 (we have two exemplars from Electra wrecks in Idaho and Alaska) and aluminum from WWII aircraft (we have exemplars from B-17G and B-24 aircraft circa 1943).  If there is a measurable difference we will compare the examples with 2-2-V-1 and artifact 2-1-V-18, the possible heat shield.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on December 02, 2014, 07:45:49 PM
Ric,
Take the comb pieces with you.

TedCampbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 03, 2014, 04:19:45 PM
Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. (http://lehightesting.com) was recommended to TIGHAR by Prof. Eager at MIT as the best lab for trying to learn more about 2-2-V-1 (and other aluminum artifacts) through materials analysis.  By pure coincidence, LTL is located in Wilmington Delaware about 45 minutes from TIGHAR HQ. I contacted LTL and dropped Tom Eagar's name.  They responded with enthusiasm and today we set out a program of testing that should give us the answers to a number of important questions.  Those answers could confirm our fondest conclusions about 2-2-V-1 or they could blow them out of the water.

The first question we'll try to answer is:
Is 24ST ALCLAD sheet used to build Lockheed Model 10 Electra aircraft in the mid-1930s measurably different from 24ST ALCLAD sheet used to produce B-17 and B-24 aircraft during the mid-1940s?

To answer that question we'll compare the alloy, trace elements, tensile strength, cross-section, and temper of known examples of 1935 vintage aluminum from Lockheed Electras (the Idaho and Alaska wrecks surveyed by TIGHAR) with known examples of mid-1940s aluminum (sample of original skin from B-17G 42-32076 "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" and B-24 skin collected on Funafuti by TIGHAR in 1997).

We'll then compare those results with 2-2-V-1 (the putative Miami Patch) and 2-1-V-18 (the putative "heat shield").  We decided not to test other aluminum found on the island because we wanted to restrict the analysis to island artifacts for which there is reason to believe they are from NR16020.  We may decide to test other artifacts later depending upon the results of these initial tests.

I won't try to list the alphabet soup of technologies LTL will be using to do this work.   They're doing this pro bono because such is TIGHAR's reputation in the scientific community that they consider it an honor to be asked to help with our investigation. What they'll be doing represents thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dollars worth of work if hired at commercial rates.  The results we'll get will be scientifically sound, whether or not they're what we want to hear.

No firm timetable for results but I'm welcome to observe the analytical work as schedules permit. They'll give us a written report when the testing is concluded.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on December 03, 2014, 05:41:37 PM
Great work again, Ric and congratulations.

That reputation in the scientific community is very damn hard-earned indeed--and the primary differentiator that separates TIGHAR from other Earhart hypotheses and their advocates. As we see here and on other occasions, it pays dividends in both big and small ways.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jennifer Hubbard on December 03, 2014, 07:53:49 PM
Wonderfully generous of the lab and much appreciated.

Is testing of the 2-2-V-1 rivet still planned? It was mentioned a while ago in conjunction with the corrosion theory. If I've followed this discussion, there seem to be second thoughts about the corrosion theory, but I wasn't clear on whether the rivet testing was still planned.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on December 04, 2014, 06:45:16 AM
The results we'll get will be scientifically sound, whether or not they're what we want to hear.

Exactly. And this is what sets TIGHAR apart from other Earhart mystery groups. We lay it ALL out, and the facts, when they are known, are indisputable.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 04, 2014, 07:14:30 AM
What is most important to me about this message from Ric is the willingness to take it as it comes and call things as they are when we can know more.  It also clarifies that despite our enthusiasm and the many positives we believe we've found, we still do not have all the answers.  This remains a search.

The need for this kind of truth of process has become more crucial to me as I have matured here than finding Earhart, actually.  No matter how this matter settles, I still believe TIGHAR has a great hypothesis about Gardner / Niku.  But how we get there - or fail utlimately if we must, has grown to be everything from my view if we'd be the laboratory we seem to want to be.

I don't know if we're going to find significant enough differences between mid-thirties metals and those of later millwork through this effort - that's over my head, but this is an interesting exercise.  That the lab is working with us this way is generous and heartening not only for us, but should be for anyone who's interested in answers to the Earhart loss.  Yes, it is good that the lab found enthusiasm for working with TIGHAR - but the whole community ought to note what can happen if we keep a sense of open-minded exploration and a desire to find answeres wherever they might be found.  This lab demonstrates that spirit as I see it and I'd like to think they're responding to that same thing in us: maybe in going there we are saying we still need answers; many can respond to that when they see that spirit.

I also hope that more direct information might come from the Miami photo effort coming up next week.  Nothing could define this whole thing faster and more clearly than a single better-enough photograph that can once and for all give us clear information about the cover and how it mated to the airframe. 

I welcome the outcome, whatever it is.  Of course I'd love it solve the mystery, but if it doesn't I am not swayed from searching.  Let's just do it right.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Richard Lyon Metzger on December 04, 2014, 11:43:33 AM
Ric, one question comes to mind regarding 2-2-V-1....it is a "patch" and thus the material could have come from anywhere or from another plane or scrap that had been sitting around for a long time.


I think this is the place....
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 04, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Ric, one question comes to mind regarding 2-2-V-1....it is a "patch" and thus the material could have come from anywhere or from another plane or scrap that had been sitting around for a long time?

Just my opinion but I don't think this a piece of metal that has been sitting around for even a short time.  It's too shiny. New aluminum sheet oxidizes to a dull gray (like the rest of Earhart's plane) in a fairly short time.  We can see the patch get duller and duller as the plane proceeds around the world. I think this was a new sheet ordered from ALCOA.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 04, 2014, 01:37:24 PM
The need for this kind of truth of process has become more crucial to me as I have matured here than finding Earhart, actually. 

I have said many times that, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what happened to Amelia Earhart.  The value of The Earhart Project is as a vehicle for exploring and demonstrating how we go about figuring out what is true.  That's a skill everyone needs every day.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on December 05, 2014, 06:46:53 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think this a piece of metal that has been sitting around for even a short time.  It's too shiny. New aluminum sheet oxidizes to a dull gray (like the rest of Earhart's plane) in a fairly short time.  We can see the patch get duller and duller as the plane proceeds around the world. I think this was a new sheet ordered from ALCOA.

Wouldn't the chances be good that once the patch was in place it would have been buffed or otherwise cleaned up cosmetically?

Why do I seem to have gotten the impression that removing and patching the window was done so as to attract as little attention as possible, if not down right secretly? that couldn't be the case could it?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 05, 2014, 07:42:27 AM
Might have been, Tim, good point.  But there can also be a desire to not emphasize a new 'patch' by polishing it so nicely in contrast to what surrounds it.

Bottom line, I don't know.  My gut agrees with Ric that we're seeing what was probably fresh stock at the time.

I've gotten one worthy comment about the markings being on the outside and not polished, and that Earhart probably would want such stuff removed.  That could fit your point, or at least that the printed markings were removed at the time.  I do not know the chemical specifics of this, but those of us who have personally viewed 2-2-V-1 don't 'ink', but what appears more as micro-etching of the surface around those characters.  I cannot say whether visible ink would have remained for that to happen, or whether some faint residue would serve to do so.

Just thoughts on this very confoundingly enigmatic piece of metal - who'd of thought a humble piece of clad could generate so much interest...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 05, 2014, 08:01:54 AM
Wouldn't the chances be good that once the patch was in place it would have been buffed or otherwise cleaned up cosmetically?

Why would you do something that would draw attention to a modification which seems to have been done in secret? Remember, the patch was installed at the last minute - sometime between Saturday, May 29 and Monday, May 31. No mention of it occurs in the press or in the various accounts of Earhart's activities while she was in Miami.  You can make a sheet of aluminum shinier by polishing it but there is no way to make it duller to blend in with the rest of the airplane.  That has to occur naturally over time.  I think the patch is shiny because the aluminum was new and shiny and there was nothing they could do about it.

Why do I seem to have gotten the impression that removing and patching the window was done so as to attract as little attention as possible, if not down right secretly? that couldn't be the case could it?

I think your impression is correct and it could absolutely be the case.  Earhart was habitually secretive and often downright misleading about anything that might reflect negatively on her public persona.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 05, 2014, 08:14:47 AM
I do not know the chemical specifics of this, but those of us who have personally viewed 2-2-V-1 don't 'ink', but what appears more as micro-etching of the surface around those characters.  I cannot say whether visible ink would have remained for that to happen, or whether some faint residue would serve to do so.

It's really very simple. We looked at the markings under high magnification at MIT.  They are not "etched" into the metal.  The places where markings are visible today are simply places where the original ink was thick enough to protect the underlying aluminum from oxidation.  The ink gradually wore off leaving areas that are less oxidized than the surrounding metal. Those areas are naturally in the shape of the letters that were once there. 

The attached image shows the D under high magnification.  There is no difference in height between the shiny areas and the dull oxidized areas.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 05, 2014, 06:33:57 PM
Jeff Glickman and I have been working with the two Darwin photos (see below). We need your help in tracking down the best, i.e. most original, hi-res copies of these photos.    Far from disproving the Patch Hypothesis as alleged by some critics, they turn out to be significantly supportive.  Both photos show distortion (aka "oil-canning") of the patch.  The photo of the plane being refueled in Darwin shows distortion of the patch in exactly the same spot as we see distortion in the artifact (see photo overlays). We've been assuming that all of the bending and bowing we see on the artifact occurred after the plane landed at Niku, but these photos strongly suggest that is not the case.  We can also see indications of the presence of a vertical stiffener at Sta. 307. 

Curiously, a good air-to-air photo of the aircraft and patch taken over Java just days earlier shows no oil-canning.  It would appear that something happened between Java and Darwin that destabilized the patch and permitted it to deform.

Where did the Darwin Fueling photo come from?  Does somebody in Australia have a print or negative?  Ditto for the Darwin hangar photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ricker H Jones on December 05, 2014, 07:21:20 PM
Do we have this photo (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11115382?searchTerm=mrs Putnam arrival in darwin&searchLimits=) taken in Darwin (Melbourne Argus, July 3, 1937)?
If not, it might be possible to track down a better image.
Rick J
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 05, 2014, 07:49:34 PM
Do we have this photo (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11115382?searchTerm=mrs Putnam arrival in darwin&searchLimits=) taken in Darwin (Melbourne Argus, July 3, 1937)?
If not, it might be possible to track down a better image.
Rick J


That's the Darwin Fueling photo we're talking about.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 05, 2014, 08:38:50 PM
The best source for that one that I know of is Purdue.  Theirs seems to be high resolution and is best copied with tif to do any analysis, I believe.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 05, 2014, 09:25:00 PM
The best source for that one that I know of is Purdue.  Theirs seems to be high resolution and is best copied with tif to do any analysis, I believe.

Our faithful reader provides this link to the Purdue image (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/57).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 05, 2014, 11:13:52 PM
Ric, I'm so glad to see you guys are hard at work looking into the similarities in the bends actually on the artifact, and the photos.  That has stood out to me since I first saw those photos of the 'oil-canning'.  It's such an amazing coincidence that it's almost impossible to believe, but yet there it is in the photos. 

As crazy as it sounds, simply put: the patch appears bent.  The artifact appears bent in the same way. 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 05, 2014, 11:18:14 PM
About it being a secret:

Essentially, this patch was a repair, to damage caused when the window was installed.  So it's ultimately a repair to fix a mistake made previously.  That's the absolute WORST kind of thing to admit and own up to.  Amelia strikes me as a proud prideful individual, of course she would want to keep that 'on the down low'. 

Personally if I were in her position, I wouldn't make a big deal out of it but I wouldn't want to draw attention to it.  "Well, we thought this was a good idea, but now we admit it wasn't and wished we never would have done that" isn't a good position to be in.  Given the choice, you may as well do the repair as quietly as possible and then not mention it to anybody to save a little face. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on December 06, 2014, 06:55:52 AM
Amelia strikes me as a proud prideful individual, of course she would want to keep that 'on the down low'.

Exactly. It wouldn't do to disparage the "flying laboratory," now would it?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 06, 2014, 07:42:09 AM
Forget about 2-2-V-1 for a second.  Think about what we've learned over the past months.  It is beyond dispute (even by our critics) that the large window installed prior to the first world flight attempt was removed and replaced in Miami with an aluminum patch and, by the time the plane got to Darwin a month later, that patch had developed a serious oil-canning problem.  At this point we can't see a connection between the oil-canning and the airplane's failure to reach Howland Island, but the window/patch problem is an aspect of the story that has heretofore been unknown despite over three-quarters of a century of Earhart research.

What continues to blow my mind is that, of all the things we could have found, we really do seem to have that patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 06, 2014, 08:26:36 AM
So, how sure are we then that we see stiffener rivet lines in the photos, as earlier suggested?  Did the stiffeners perhaps come later, like perhaps at Darwin or Lae in response to this development?

Our critics have noted that the distortions you are suggesting shouldn't be there if reasonable bracing was present.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 06, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
So, how sure are we then that we see stiffener rivet lines in the photos, as earlier suggested?

Very sure, based on some high-tech analysis Glickman did that is too complicated to get into here and you wouldn't believe anyway.  With luck we'll be able to get better detail from the photo in Miami next week.  That would be something you might believe.

  Did the stiffeners perhaps come later, like perhaps at Darwin or Lae in response to this development?

They were only in Darwin for one afternoon and night.  In the Darwin hangar photo I don't see any indication that anybody is working on the airplane.  They were in Lae for three days (June 29, 30, July 1) and Guinea Airways operated two Lockheed 10s of their own so repair materials may have been on hand.  If modifications were made I would expect them to be made in Lae but, in his letter, Guinea Airways manager Eric Chater lists all the work done to NR16020 and there is no mention of structural mods. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that structural work was done in Darwin or Lae.

After Miss Earhart's arrival work was proceeded with on her machine under her supervision, and this was continued the next day (June 30th). During this period the following work was carried out –

CHIEF ENGINEER'S (E. Finn) REPORT
Clean set of spark plugs fitted to both engines.
Oil drained from both tanks.
Oil filters inspected and cleaned - both engines.
Petrol pump removed from starboard engine on account of fluctuation of pressure at cruising revolutions. Spare petrol pump fitted.
Thermo couple connection on No. 4 cylinder, starboard engine, repaired.
Air scoop between Nos. 2 & 3 cylinders on port engine repaired.
Propellers greased.
Batteries inspected for level and charge.
New cartridge fitted to exhaust gas analyser - starboard side.
Spare adapter plug fitted to carburettor air scoop for temperature gauge line.
Sperry Gyro Horizon (Lateral & fore & aft level) removed, cleaned, oiled and replaced, as this reported showing machine in right wing low position when actually horizontal.
Engines run up on ground. Petrol pressure on starboard engine too low. Petrol pump removed. Original petrol pump valve and seat ground in to remove uneveness. Pump fitted to engine.
Engines run up on ground and tested in air. Both engines okay. Petrol pressure port engine 4 1/2 lbs., starboard engine 4 3/4 lbs.
Engines, instruments and aircraft approved okay by Miss Earhart.



Our critics have noted that the distortions you are suggesting shouldn't be there if reasonable bracing was present.

Remind me what qualifications those critics have. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 06, 2014, 08:51:55 AM
Our faithful reader provides this link to the Purdue image (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/57).

Thanks Marty.  The next question is whether Purdue got this as a digital image from somewhere or whether they have a print or negative. We should be able to find out.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 06, 2014, 09:34:16 AM
So, how sure are we then that we see stiffener rivet lines in the photos, as earlier suggested?

Very sure, based on some high-tech analysis Glickman did that is too complicated to get into here and you wouldn't believe anyway.  With luck we'll be able to get better detail from the photo in Miami next week.  That would be something you might believe.

Unduly snarky, Ric.  I've never wavered in wanting to see better photos, nor have I challenged Glickman's abilities as unbelievable. 

This kind of defensiveness may change my views, however.  Seems Ted Campbell had a point (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg34915.html#msg34915) recently.

  Did the stiffeners perhaps come later, like perhaps at Darwin or Lae in response to this development?

They were only in Darwin for one afternoon and night.  In the Darwin hangar photo I don't see any indication that anybody is working on the airplane.  They were in Lae for three days (June 29, 30, July 1) and Guinea Airways operated two Lockheed 10s of their own so repair materials may have been on hand.  If modifications were made I would expect them to be made in Lae but, in his letter, Guinea Airways manager Eric Chater lists all the work done to NR16020 and there is no mention of structural mods. Bottom line: I don't see any evidence that structural work was done in Darwin or Lae.

After Miss Earhart's arrival work was proceeded with on her machine under her supervision, and this was continued the next day (June 30th). During this period the following work was carried out –

CHIEF ENGINEER'S (E. Finn) REPORT
Clean set of spark plugs fitted to both engines.
Oil drained from both tanks.
Oil filters inspected and cleaned - both engines.
Petrol pump removed from starboard engine on account of fluctuation of pressure at cruising revolutions. Spare petrol pump fitted.
Thermo couple connection on No. 4 cylinder, starboard engine, repaired.
Air scoop between Nos. 2 & 3 cylinders on port engine repaired.
Propellers greased.
Batteries inspected for level and charge.
New cartridge fitted to exhaust gas analyser - starboard side.
Spare adapter plug fitted to carburettor air scoop for temperature gauge line.
Sperry Gyro Horizon (Lateral & fore & aft level) removed, cleaned, oiled and replaced, as this reported showing machine in right wing low position when actually horizontal.
Engines run up on ground. Petrol pressure on starboard engine too low. Petrol pump removed. Original petrol pump valve and seat ground in to remove uneveness. Pump fitted to engine.
Engines run up on ground and tested in air. Both engines okay. Petrol pressure port engine 4 1/2 lbs., starboard engine 4 3/4 lbs.
Engines, instruments and aircraft approved okay by Miss Earhart.

Accepted, and good stuff.  But then we also know that Earhart may not have been particularly eager to broadcast anything that would bring attention to this kind of detail (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35336.html#msg35336).

Our critics have noted that the distortions you are suggesting shouldn't be there if reasonable bracing was present.

Remind me what qualifications those critics have.

Some that are similar or greater than mine - one I now realize is a long-standing structures engineering, still practicing at age 74 including working repairs to a Fokker 100 in recent days - which means significant transport-level structures knowledge.  Lots of experience as a liaison type between floor and drafting board, analysis, etc.  His experience exceeds mine by many years.  One ought to know one's critics before critiquing them too harshly, I've learned.

Point being, we're now nodding to what some of those raised as a reasonable challenge to the prospect of light bracing within the 'patch' - which you may recall I postulated on very favorably for the TIGHAR approach only recently.  I stand by that possibility, but now we seem to embrace the deformation - and since that was central to the theme of bracing or not, perhaps that remains a concern.  Obviously you no longer have full confidence in my judgment as anything more than an amateur, so as an amateur onlooker I merely suggest this point be duly considered.  Perhaps Aris Scarla or someone similar can help, or perhaps Eagar can jump in - that is needed, because clearly you nor Glickman possess any structural expertise beyond mine.  I'd get my ducks in a row on that.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 06, 2014, 09:35:02 AM
Our faithful reader provides this link to the Purdue image (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/57).

Thanks Marty.  The next question is whether Purdue got this as a digital image from somewhere or whether they have a print or negative. We should be able to find out.

When you get it, pay close attention to STA 320 and the aft edge of the patch - they are discernable.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 06, 2014, 10:58:40 AM
Unduly snarky, Ric.

Sorry.  It's a failing I struggle with.  When I get impatient and frustrated I tend to get snarky.

Accepted, and good stuff.  But then we also know that Earhart may not have been particularly eager to broadcast anything that would bring attention to this kind of detail (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35336.html#msg35336).

But this isn't Earhart.  This is Chater reporting what he knows after she has disappeared.  I can't think of a reason why Eric Chater would cover for Earhart.

Some that are similar or greater than mine - one I now realize is a long-standing structures engineering, still practicing at age 74 including working repairs to a Fokker 100 in recent days - which means significant transport-level structures knowledge.  Lots of experience as a liaison type between floor and drafting board, analysis, etc.  His experience exceeds mine by many years.  One ought to know one's critics before critiquing them too harshly, I've learned.

Whether the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch is not a structures issue.  Working solely from photographs it's a scaling issue - and a very complicated scaling issue.  Standing beside an airplane with the artifact in hand as Glickman, Scarla and I have done is an entirely different and infinitely simpler exercise.  The thing fits.


Point being, we're now nodding to what some of those raised as a reasonable challenge to the prospect of light bracing within the 'patch' - which you may recall I postulated on very favorably for the TIGHAR approach only recently.  I stand by that possibility, but now we seem to embrace the deformation - and since that was central to the theme of bracing or not, perhaps that remains a concern.

We're not nodding to or embracing anything. I pay absolutely no attention to "the critics." I do pay attention to new information like higher-res versions of the Darwin photos.  I sent the Darwin photos to Glickman and said that it looked to me like there might be some oil-canning.  He replied, "I am of the opinion that the new .png image below clearly shows oil-canning of the patch, as I have eliminated other possible sources for the image anomaly including media and scanning distortions." 

After looking more closely at the photos he wrote:
"Please compare the image of oil-canning during Darwin refueling with 2-2-V-1 in-situ on Nikumaroro.
Please rotate the 2-2-V-1 image 180 degrees, and then compare the v-shaped indentation seen in the Darwin photo to the 2-2-V-1 in-situ image."


And later:
"We may be approaching a point where we can create structural fingerprints of both 2-2-V-1 and the patch, comprised of both the statistical detection of rivet lines and surface deformations, that would be nearing conclusive evidence."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on December 06, 2014, 11:15:46 AM
Before we get too wrapped around the airwheel, so to speak, I think we need to remember that aluminum and light mixed together can do some funny things, even in broad daylight, and the combination may be playing with us with regards to the Darwin photo which was certainly taken in less than ideal lighting.  Yes it looks like the patch is deformed, but....

I remember some discussion about this photo of the Electra below, that looked like damage to the nose of the aircraft. 

Wow!  Did she hit a goose or what?

On the face of it one might conclude that there was a big wrinkle in the skin.  We ended up figuring out that it wasn't damage, but an optical illusion - an odd mixture of light and aluminum that sure looks like damage.

Gotta keep an open mind here because we don't know everything about the conditions that existed at the moment the Darwin image was taken.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 06, 2014, 12:01:17 PM
Unduly snarky, Ric.

Sorry.  It's a failing I struggle with.  When I get impatient and frustrated I tend to get snarky.

Admission is the first step, and I am familiar with the malady. 

We who resort to that so easily, however, might do well to consider the chilling effect it can have and whether that fits within our ethical charge.  Just because I'm mostly polite doesn't mean I skin as easily as most are trapped into believing, but I do have a deep concern for whether we have a hostile environment for others here, or not.

Thank you.

Accepted, and good stuff.  But then we also know that Earhart may not have been particularly eager to broadcast anything that would bring attention to this kind of detail (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35336.html#msg35336).

But this isn't Earhart.  This is Chater reporting what he knows after she has disappeared.  I can't think of a reason why Eric Chater would cover for Earhart.

Some that are similar or greater than mine - one I now realize is a long-standing structures engineering, still practicing at age 74 including working repairs to a Fokker 100 in recent days - which means significant transport-level structures knowledge.  Lots of experience as a liaison type between floor and drafting board, analysis, etc.  His experience exceeds mine by many years.  One ought to know one's critics before critiquing them too harshly, I've learned.

Whether the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch is not a structures issue.  Working solely from photographs it's a scaling issue - and a very complicated scaling issue.  Standing beside an airplane with the artifact in hand as Glickman, Scarla and I have done is an entirely different and infinitely simpler exercise.  The thing fits.

My meaning in this passage was to do with the potential for oil canning to exist if stiffeners were present or not as voiced by our critics, not photo analysis and scaling. 

That said, OK - we'll talk 'dimensions' -

It is not dreadfully hard to see, appreciate and measure distinct structure aspects in photos if one has an understanding of the stations data on drawings and a grasp of lofting, etc. - especially when points such as fuselage stations can be easily discerned and applied for calibration.  Think of enhancing Glickman's effort - the engineer's grasp of lofting, etc. is probably better than his.  I'm sure he's a fine photogrammetry man, but it might be well to couple him with an able design engineer to extract a more promising outcome, just as a thought.

It was actually my next post that referred to the direct visual evidence that is apparent in the Darwin ramp photo, but since you opened up on it I'll share that my meaning was that the rivet line at STA 320 is visible in that photo and in fact turns out to be easily measured.  The stations progressing along the fuselage in that area provide one ample means of thorough calibration and to help account for distortion if one has access to accurate metrics software (I do now).  We are also looking at a relatively flat area (minimal distortion) in the mid-waterline area of the fuselage side, also with fairly low angularity to the lens, so it is not hard to work out the metrics as it turns out.  This was carefully verified station-to-station by many dozens of comparisons.  I actually have some astonishingly precise measurements that now tell me what the actual length of the patch was (verified by careful measurements taken from several different photos), but won't spill that here because I have no intention of imparting bias.

But skip all that - the forward and aft edges of the patch are also clearly visible in a good copy (tiff will do, and contrast adjustment does help - and turns out to be reliable).  My direct read now is that the patch does not reach the rivet line at STA 320.

That is my amateur observation, which I've given you already.  I'm not offering this as a hard conclusion, but to encourage consideration of something that turned out to be well-founded criticism in my view.  I also did not care to go unchecked, and for my own confidence have had a local photo analyst review this as well.  I imparted no bias, but simply 'can you tell me where this part end' and 'can you see rivet lines - like these others at STA 343, etc.'.  He is the same gentleman who helped me have greater confidence in the Bevington Object photo in 2012, in fact.  But that's my business because I am not claiming a firm call, but offer it for you to check if you will.  This has long been looked at by critics, so I'm not throwing you to the wolves, either.  That is in fact how it came to my attention in the first place by way of another TIGHAR member - for me to rebut if I could.  Ignore this as so much critical nonsense, or do with it as you will.

Point being, we're now nodding to what some of those raised as a reasonable challenge to the prospect of light bracing within the 'patch' - which you may recall I postulated on very favorably for the TIGHAR approach only recently.  I stand by that possibility, but now we seem to embrace the deformation - and since that was central to the theme of bracing or not, perhaps that remains a concern.

We're not nodding to or embracing anything. I pay absolutely no attention to "the critics." I do pay attention to new information like higher-res versions of the Darwin photos.  I sent the Darwin photos to Glickman and said that it looked to me like there might be some oil-canning.  He replied, "I am of the opinion that the new .png image below clearly shows oil-canning of the patch, as I have eliminated other possible sources for the image anomaly including media and scanning distortions." 

After looking more closely at the photos he wrote:
"Please compare the image of oil-canning during Darwin refueling with 2-2-V-1 in-situ on Nikumaroro.
Please rotate the 2-2-V-1 image 180 degrees, and then compare the v-shaped indentation seen in the Darwin photo to the 2-2-V-1 in-situ image."


And later:
"We may be approaching a point where we can create structural fingerprints of both 2-2-V-1 and the patch, comprised of both the statistical detection of rivet lines and surface deformations, that would be nearing conclusive evidence."

That is interesting, but a picture is worth a thousand words (and millions of bytes); maybe Miami will turn up a better picture, or maybe the Darwin ramp photo will yield more to you than it has me - but I see a lot in it now.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 06, 2014, 12:08:28 PM
Before we get too wrapped around the airwheel, so to speak, I think we need to remember that aluminum and light mixed together can do some funny things, even in broad daylight, and the combination may be playing with us with regards to the Darwin photo which was certainly taken in less than ideal lighting.  Yes it looks like the patch is deformed, but....

I remember some discussion about this photo of the Electra below, that looked like damage to the nose of the aircraft. 

Wow!  Did she hit a goose or what?

On the face of it one might conclude that there was a big wrinkle in the skin.  We ended up figuring out that it wasn't damage, but an optical illusion - an odd mixture of light and aluminum that sure looks like damage.

Gotta keep an open mind here because we don't know everything about the conditions that existed at the moment the Darwin image was taken.

Andrew

I agree, Andrew - and have said before, light and shadow tend to exaggerate small deformities. 

Minor, normal skin contours can look monstrous in the 'right light'.

That said, maybe there is a big dent in the window covering; if a direct fingerprinting tie can be made to today's visible distortions in 2-2-V-1 then my hat is off - but it does seem like a long walk for a KISS.

Ah, well...  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsu3hiP1ikQ)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 06, 2014, 01:08:27 PM
Is testing of the 2-2-V-1 rivet still planned? It was mentioned a while ago in conjunction with the corrosion theory. If I've followed this discussion, there seem to be second thoughts about the corrosion theory, but I wasn't clear on whether the rivet testing was still planned.

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. No testing of the rivet is currently planned.  I discussed the corrosion hypothesis with the forensic analysts at MIT.  It was their opinion that if the rivets had simply corroded away there should be residue remaining in the rivet holes, and there isn't.  Also, it is apparent that the artifact has spent a long time underwater and the surviving rivet has suffered from some corrosion.  It's probably not possible to get an accurate breakdown of its original elemental makeup.  There is also the point that to do anything with the rivet would require its removal from the artifact and I really don't want to do that without a very good reason.

The best hypothesis to explain the absence of rivets in the artifact is that they suffered from Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) which caused them to break apart and fall out of the holes. SCC is a catastrophic form of corrosion in which tensile stress internal to cold-worked metal (like rivets) induces cracking in a corrosive environment (like in seawater). 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 06, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
Regarding possible oil canning:
Two of the original stringers were cut to make the big square opening for the added Lav window. Per the hypothesis, the new stringers did not line up with the original ones and the structure was not brought back to its original design.  It seems to me that because the added stiffeners were not aligned with the original stringers, this big square area is still a weakness in the fuselage. Now imagine this big square being deformed into a diamond shape everytime the plane lands and flexes. What happens to this skin when the shape it covers goes from square to diamond shaped?

Also the vertical stiffener at 307 not being riveted and possibly being more segmented, or having more nothces for the added stiffeners, is an area of concern too.

(I keep hearing Seinfeld in my head saying "Who would do such a thing? It doesn't make sense")
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Lucas on December 07, 2014, 09:31:32 AM
Hi,

Being a tool design engineer up in Philadelphia for a number of years and watching aircraft being assembled and coming down the line all day long,
I have countless times looked at the contours of brand new aircraft and have sworn that they had concave pockets in the skin or high spots which
looked pretty crummy until going over to the aircraft and running my hands over the area proved that what I was seeing was the light creating illusions.
These were composite skins though and not aluminum sheet.

Bill
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 07, 2014, 09:46:36 AM
It seems to me that because the added stiffeners were not aligned with the original stringers, this big square area is still a weakness in the fuselage. Now imagine this big square being deformed into a diamond shape everytime the plane lands and flexes. What happens to this skin when the shape it covers goes from square to diamond shaped?

Exactly.
When I was at MIT we were looking at the way the skin tore along the double staggered row of #5 rivets along the bottom of the artifact.  I asked Prof. Eagar, "It must have taken a lot of force to cause that kind of tearing."  He said, "Not at all.  I see evidence of fatigue cracking around those rivet holes."

Seems to me that the flexing you describe would put a lot of stress on that bottom row of rivets.

Also, in the area where deformation of the artifact appears to match oil-canning of the patch, five of the small #3 rivet holes show pronounced dimpling.  It seems possible that flexing from another hard landing somewhere between Java and Darwin caused these five rivets to fail, allowing the skin to pull free from the underlying stiffener and bulge as we see in the Darwin photos. 

Also the vertical stiffener at 307 not being riveted and possibly being more segmented, or having more nothces for the added stiffeners, is an area of concern too.

Jeff Glickman sent this false color image showing that the mark left by the vertical stiffener seems to be present in the Darwin Fueling photo. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 07, 2014, 01:27:56 PM
If we suspect that it's just a play of light creating an illusion on the patch, then why isn't it playing a similar illusion on the other skin of the plane?

... it's because the other skin of the plane was properly supported, and original to the design of the plane. 

We do see some light play doing weird things on the other skins, on say the Darwin photo, but you see a clear and different... 'deformity' on the patch. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 07, 2014, 01:43:04 PM
That's a bit of a jump in my amateur opinion, Ron.

This looks dramatic, but it might be useful to understand what all the colors really mean.  I just don't buy that we're seeing serious deformations or that the patch somehow found itself suddenly unstable - especially with all the surrounding skins seemingly intact.

Why not also use Glickman's skills to check the cover dimensions and juxtaposition to STA 320 rivets?  That seems like a more direct investigatory effort to answer this riddle.

AS might the photo review this coming week in Miami.  A really good picture can remove all doubt, either way.  I hope one is found.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 07, 2014, 03:54:49 PM
If we suspect that it's just a play of light creating an illusion on the patch, then why isn't it playing a similar illusion on the other skin of the plane?

There's really no doubt about it.  In the opinion of a professional who makes his living as an expert witness in court cases involving photogrammetric interpretation, both Darwin photos (hangar and fueling) taken under entirely different lighting conditions show unmistakable deformation of the patch consistent with oil-canning.  In the opinion of a forensic metallurgist professor at MIT, the row of large rivet holes along the bottom edge of the artifact show evidence of fatigue cracking and the smaller rivet holes in the oil-canning area show dimpling that indicates pressure that is trying to force the skin outward.

In the Darwin Fueling photo deformation in the patch matches deformation in the artifact.  In the same photo, other deformation suggesting the presence of a vertical stiffener at Station 307 matches the presence of deformation on the artifact suggesting the presence of a vertical stiffener at Station 307. 

The question of whether the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch was addressed and answered by physical comparison with a Lockheed 10 aircraft.

Amateur opinions will invariably vary. 

 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 07, 2014, 04:33:31 PM
Amateur opinions will invariably vary.

As will some by other professionals.  But Godspeed to Miami - hopefully more can be found.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 07, 2014, 10:41:25 PM
I say this with all respect, it's just a supposition... I wonder if some observers just aren't good at seeing ripples and deformities in sheet metal?  I remember these tests in school when I was a kid where they would show you geometric shapes, and rotate them all these different ways, and you were supposed to pick the proper one, rotated a different way.  Some people did well on them, others just didn't see it.

Sort of like how certain people are really good at body work (car repair) because they can see and feel deformities, other people aren't good at it and can't tell if something's tweaked slightly.

To my eyes, the thing is clearly bent, yet several people in several comments don't seem to see anything.  Every picture of the patch I've seen shows the metal is clearly bent.  Whether it was distorted when installed, or distorted after some hard landings may be arguable, but it's hard for me to ignore my eyes and suppose that it's a trick of light... in every photo... on only that 1 panel...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 08, 2014, 05:44:44 AM
With all due respect to all myself, why not wait and see if better photos surface in Miami this week?  That might just take  the guesswork out of this.

Nobody but possibly Ric would like to see 2-2-V-1 pan out here more than me, I assure you.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on December 08, 2014, 07:06:26 AM
So now it actually IS oil caning? I thought it was

It's either just the way the light is reflecting off the patch or it's a map of the 18th Congressional District in Kansas.

Some how I sense vindication.

On the first pic that Ric post above (the BW one) does anybody else see what looks like an "O" or similar letter just below his first (left) two arrows? About twice the size of the "alclad" D. What is that dark green stuff on the patch anyway?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Lucas on December 08, 2014, 07:24:41 AM
Ron is right on some people struggling with being able to see in 3 dimensions.
I've been doing 3D cad images for more years than I want to admit and we have had people who struggle with 3D
as opposed to just 2D. They just can't seem to wrap their brain around it. Not being derogatory that's just the way it is.
My post above was just saying there can be optics illusions when viewing at certain angles in certain light.
I'm not saying that I believe it is a dent but it APPEARS that there is a wedge-shaped concave depression.....
the length of which (station measurement) spans almost the entire width of the patch and the shorter side of the "wedge" faces forward
and is about half the "length" (in waterline dimension that is) of the rearward side of the "wedge". The angled part of the wedge faces down
while the top part of the "wedge" is pretty much parallel to the top of the fuselage.

The fueling photo SEEMS (faintly) to back that up but the white patch of light seen in the fueling photo in my view doesn't correlate
to anything in the hangar photo. We might have an illusion there in just that 1 spot.

Bill
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 08, 2014, 08:35:59 AM
On the first pic that Ric post above (the BW one) does anybody else see what looks like an "O" or similar letter just below his first (left) two arrows? About twice the size of the "alclad" D. What is that dark green stuff on the patch anyway?

There is no "O" on the artifact.  There is a letter "D" preceded by a letter "A".
On another part of the artifact there is an identical letter "D" followed by "24".
The dark green stuff is organic material (we had it tested).  Some kind of marine growth.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 08, 2014, 08:53:05 AM
Every picture of the patch I've seen shows the metal is clearly bent.  Whether it was distorted when installed, or distorted after some hard landings may be arguable, but it's hard for me to ignore my eyes and suppose that it's a trick of light... in every photo... on only that 1 panel...

So far, I only see oil-canning in the two Darwin photos.  I do not see oil-canning in photos that show the patch at earlier times (Miami, Karachi, and Java).  The resolution of the photo taken in Lae is not sufficient to tell one way or the other.
The air-to-air shot in Java is particularly good and I don't see any indication of deformation to the patch.  Do you?
I think the oil-canning is a problem that developed sometime between Java and Darwin when some of the rivets in the stiffeners let go (as evidenced in the dimpling of the revet holes) after too much flexing and too many landings.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Lucas on December 08, 2014, 09:41:39 AM
Looks clean to me.......now that's a photo where the light is obvious.

Bill
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on December 08, 2014, 10:05:15 AM
would the "in flight" loading of the airframe be sufficiently different to the "on ground" loading to highlight any weaknesses
in that particular location on the plane ?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 08, 2014, 10:34:09 AM
would the "in flight" loading of the airframe be sufficiently different to the "on ground" loading to highlight any weaknesses
in that particular location on the plane ?

Good question.  I don't know, but .032 sheet does not bend easily.  I would think that once it's bent it stays bent.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on December 08, 2014, 11:01:33 AM
would the "in flight" loading of the airframe be sufficiently different to the "on ground" loading to highlight any weaknesses
in that particular location on the plane ?

Good question.  I don't know, but .032 sheet does not bend easily.  I would think that once it's bent it stays bent.

It may be just semantics, but when someone says 'bend' I think of a resulting crease that's permanent.  Perhaps what we appear to see is more of a 'flexing' of the sheet aluminum, popping in-and-out as the load changes.  This could certainly put a varying load on one section of the rivet line.  To me, that's what I visualize when someone says 'oil-canning'.  If that is truly what's happening, Patrick may be right, it may just be different on the ground than in-flight, especially if there is some kind of weakness near the bottom of the a/c.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on December 08, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
...it could be that by this point in the Around-the-World flight, the rough landings and take-offs from less-than-ideal runways have taken their toll on the heavily loaded Electra's airframe, and we're actually looking closely enough to see that. Maybe AE and FN saw it too, IF it was indeed the case.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 08, 2014, 12:20:57 PM
...it could be that by this point in the Around-the-World flight, the rough landings and take-offs from less-than-ideal runways have taken their toll on the heavily loaded Electra's airframe, and we're actually looking closely enough to see that. Maybe AE and FN saw it too, IF it was indeed the case.

Good point about the heavy loads and rough fields.  Tough duty, and any weakness is likely to show up.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 08, 2014, 07:50:52 PM
Ric I can't see the deformity in the picture you posted above, but I'm not sure if it's because it's not there or because it's just not lit up in the right angle to show it. 

I went back and tried to find all the pictures we've talked about in this thread, and I agree with you, I can only see it on the two in Darwin. 

Also when I used the word 'bent' I'm just saying in the photo it's not the shape it should be, it may or may not be permanently that way.  I suppose "deformity" is the best word I've seen used for it so far.  Oil-canning sounds proper as well...

They of course installed this patch while the plane was on the ground... so we cannot have a situation where it looks fine in the air, but not on the ground, because they wouldn't have been able to install it that way!

So since a couple pictures pretty conclusively show it oil-canned, I think there are only two possiblities.  Either

A. It was installed with a deformity and that was the best they could get it... it at all times had a deformity and the pictures that appear to NOT show the oil-canning are just shot at an angle or a resolution that it's not apparent.... or

B. It was installed relatively properly formed, but got more deformed as the plane landed and took off on the journey. 

I use the phrase "properly formed" because it's not flat, it's curved slightly to fit the curvature of the fuselage. 

Ric's hypothesis that the rivets tore lose and that's what caused the sag sounds plausible to me. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on December 09, 2014, 11:22:51 AM
You can get "oil canning" without a permanent deformation being set in the material.  The B-52 forward fuselage is a classic example.  See the attached photo.  The "oil canning" disappears in flight.  If I remember correctly the plating in that area is also .032 (I was astounded when I learned how thin a lot of the skin was on that bird!).

I believe the "oil canning" or "puckering" seen on the patch is the result of fitting stock .032 material to a section of the fuselage that has a compouond curvature (i.e. the skin surface is changing in more than one dimension at the same time) and doing it in the field without the proper tools.

The only way to get a rectangular piece of material to lay flat against a compound curavature surface to stretch-form it over a form block that matches the surface you wish to match, or roll it with an "English Wheel", and then trim it to fit.  Otherwise, only three of the four sides can be made to naturally contact the fuselage at the desired loaction.  The fourth edege will have to be forced into position.  The result is the oil canning we see.  Now, once the patch is firmly attached with the "pucker" in place, if you then had a hard landing you could probably "set", or crease, the pucker premantly in to the material.

One other thought:  It is possible to have "oil canning" on the ground that go away in flight and visa-versa.  The loads on that area of the fuselage will differ a good bit between what it sees on the ground and what it sees in the air.  That may explain the absence of the "pucker" on the airborn photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 09, 2014, 08:20:36 PM
Jay, how did they install it puckered on the ground in such a way that it would disappear in the air?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on December 10, 2014, 10:36:57 AM
I don't think that it was originally present on the ground.  You would never design that way.  I assume that the air loads must offload some of the drooping (and as a result the oil-canning) inflight becasue I have never seen a photo with the oil-canning present in flight --- only on the ground.

The fuselage is built in sections in jigs.  The jigs support the fuselage section all around.  The seperate sections are mated together.  The forward section is basically cantelivered from a ring frame on the aft end.  The struture forward of the ring-frame "droops", hence, the oil-canning.  The loading is differs when the aircraft is on its wheels from when it is in flight.  The last Buff was delivered in 1963.  I'm not sure what vintage this aircraft is.  The all had a LOT of electronics upgrades while in service.  A notable one is readily visible in this photo:  The twin FLIR turrets.  Origianlly the oil-canning was probably not present on the ground.  It may have shown up after a lot of heavy modifications were done forward of the wing/MLG. 

It has occured to me that this is the case on AE's Electra and the patch.  If, say, the patch was installed with the fuselage tanks empty, and the the deformation may not be present when the aircraft is basically empty.  Once the fuselage tanks are full there might be enough flex in that area to load up the "patch" and cause the "puckering".  That patch was installed for a reason.  I go with the assumption that the section properties of the fuselage in the area of that window turned out to be a lot less capable that would normally be desired, hence, too much flexing under various load conditions (full fuel? hard landing?, etc.).  I would wager enough flexing to cause the Plexiglas to crack and the "patch" to be installed becasue, maybe, the material and tooling (an maybe expertise to form the Plexiglas) was not available at an outstation like Miami.

The "patch" did not provide any stiffness to the fuselage at that location.  It did not overlap the structure nor did it have enough fasteners to do so.  Any loading that perhaps would have casued enough flexing to crack the Plexiglas would show up as a deformation the the "patch".
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on December 10, 2014, 11:08:22 AM
The question of whether the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch was addressed and answered by physical comparison with a Lockheed 10 aircraft.

Ric - Were you ever able to determine the dimensions of the Miami patch?  If so, what were those dimensions and how did you determine them?  Thank you for whatever information you can provide.


Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jay Burkett on December 10, 2014, 11:44:36 AM
Ron,

I guess they have always been there. They were on the YB-52 prototype ...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 10, 2014, 12:58:48 PM
Ric - Were you ever able to determine the dimensions of the Miami patch?  If so, what were those dimensions and how did you determine them?  Thank you for whatever information you can provide.

We know the dimensions of the artifact and we know the dimensions of the aircraft.  By physical comparison we know the artifact fits with room to spare between Station 293 5/8 and Station 320.
So far we have not found a photo of the airplane/patch with sufficient resolution to tell the exact dimensions of the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on December 20, 2014, 01:53:49 AM
The question of whether the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch was addressed and answered by physical comparison with a Lockheed 10 aircraft.

Ric - Were you ever able to determine the dimensions of the Miami patch?  If so, what were those dimensions and how did you determine them?  Thank you for whatever information you can provide.

We know the dimensions of the artifact and we know the dimensions of the aircraft.  By physical comparison we know the artifact fits with room to spare between Station 293 5/8 and Station 320.
So far we have not found a photo of the airplane/patch with sufficient resolution to tell the exact dimensions of the patch.

Ric –

Physically fitting 2-2-V-1 between the two stations may put it in the ballpark as far as the horizontal dimension is concerned, but mere entry into the ballpark is a far cry from saying the question of fit is resolved.  There are plenty of posts and photos, along with your own structural analysis and reports, that clearly indicate that neither the window coaming nor the subsequent Miami patch ran the full length between the two stations you mentioned.  The Miami patch was obviously somewhat shorter in length than the distance between those two stations.  The fact that 2-2-V-1 fits between those two stations does not answer the question of whether it fits within the horizontal dimensions (length) of the Miami patch. 

Do you have any evidence that would show that 2-2-V-1 fits within the horizontal dimensions of the Miami patch (as opposed to just noting that it fits between the two stations)?

I know you are already very busy with other things, including reviewing more photos from Miami and elsewhere that might provide more valuable information on this very topic, so as always I thank you very much for taking the time to provide whatever information you can. 

Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 20, 2014, 08:29:09 AM
The question of whether the artifact fits within the dimensions of the patch was addressed and answered by physical comparison with a Lockheed 10 aircraft.

Ric - Were you ever able to determine the dimensions of the Miami patch?  If so, what were those dimensions and how did you determine them?  Thank you for whatever information you can provide.

We know the dimensions of the artifact and we know the dimensions of the aircraft.  By physical comparison we know the artifact fits with room to spare between Station 293 5/8 and Station 320.
So far we have not found a photo of the airplane/patch with sufficient resolution to tell the exact dimensions of the patch.

Ric –

Physically fitting 2-2-V-1 between the two stations may put it in the ballpark as far as the horizontal dimension is concerned, but mere entry into the ballpark is a far cry from saying the question of fit is resolved.  There are plenty of posts and photos, along with your own structural analysis and reports, that clearly indicate that neither the window coaming nor the subsequent Miami patch ran the full length between the two stations you mentioned.  The Miami patch was obviously somewhat shorter in length than the distance between those two stations.  The fact that 2-2-V-1 fits between those two stations does not answer the question of whether it fits within the horizontal dimensions (length) of the Miami patch. 

Do you have any evidence that would show that 2-2-V-1 fits within the horizontal dimensions of the Miami patch (as opposed to just noting that it fits between the two stations)?

I know you are already very busy with other things, including reviewing more photos from Miami and elsewhere that might provide more valuable information on this very topic, so as always I thank you very much for taking the time to provide whatever information you can. 

Diego

Further to Diego's concern, I've come to notice what may be a conflict in one of the Wichita shots, which uses measure tapes to help us understand fitment / scale to some degree.  Ric has captioned the picture to emphasize alignment of the vertical stiffener line found on 2-2-V-1 (and a possibly related 'tear' near that line) with the STA 307 rivet line on the Wichita Electra.  That was an amazing find and the alignment on the bird was exciting to see, but -

In that same picture, I note that the forward edge of 2-2-V-1 is also pushed forward up hard against the aft skin edge at STA 293 5/8.  This 'forward edge' area is captioned as to the presence of the fatigue failure, where the part failed by bending against the edge of a fixed component. 

That appears problematic in that it would seem for STA 307 to align as shown, it is required that the 'patch' be over-extended forward.  This conflicts with what we know about the coaming fitment, which was clearly displaced aft in the Nilla-Amelia shot.  It also conflicts with what appears to be the case about the forward end of the patch in the Darwin ramp photo and the Miami photo, both seemingly showing an aft placement away from the skin edge at STA 293 5/8.

Was this accounted for?  It seems important if that vertical stiffener line truly relates to STA 307.

Thanks for consideration of this.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 20, 2014, 08:26:20 PM
Attached are jpegs (full frame and detail) of the original Albasi photo loaned by Jonell Gill.  The resolution is better but still not great.  There is some improvement in the resolution of skin edges and vertical rivet lines.  Jeff Glickman is working with the image to see if he can pull out more detail.

I understand Diego's and Jeff's concerns. I agree that the forward edge of certainly the window coaming and apparently the subsequent patch were set back from Station 293 5/8.  Based on the known 1.5 inch rivet pitch on the skin forward of the window/patch, the window coaming looks to have been riveted about an inch and a half aft of the edge of the skin. There's normally nothing there to rivet to so we must assume a structure was added. We can't see the forward edge of the patch nearly as well as we can see the window coaming but we've been assuming that the patch was riveted to the same underlying structure added for the window. If that is true, we can place the forward edge of the patch at 295 1/8. The aft edge of the patch appears to have been right on Station 320. That makes sense.  There would be no need to add structure there.  So the horizontal dimension of the patch would be 24 7/8 (320 minus 295 1/8). The horizontal length of the artifact is 24 3/8 so the artifact fits within the horizontal dimension of the patch with half an inch to spare - assuming all of our assumptions are correct.
If the assumptions are correct, the line up of the tear and "ghost" vertical stiffener with Station 307 is problematic.  307 minus 295 1/8 = 11 7/8 but the distance on the artifact from the edge that presumably failed against an underlying structure at 295 1/8 is 13 inches from the line of the "ghost" vertical and tear - an inch and an eighth too much to line up with Station 307.  Maybe the tear and "ghost" stiffener are not associated with Station 307, or maybe our assumptions are off - but it certainly doesn't disqualify the artifact as the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 20, 2014, 08:57:16 PM
Ric,

Thanks for sharing these photos and for acknowledging the concerns about fitment.  You have offered a lot for thought which is helpful.

I'm not sure how the 'ghost' brace question resolves if it cannot be validated to STA 307, but it is something to ponder.  The bigger concern may be that which I think Diego touched on: can we be sure that the patch's overall length was sufficient to have contained enough of 2-2-V-1 such that the forward and aft edge rivet holes could have been lost as the yield we see in the surviving artifact emerged.

Thanks for this thoughtful reply.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on December 20, 2014, 11:52:47 PM
Ric –

There are an awful lot of issues concerning the dimensions of the Miami patch and whether or not 2-2-V-1 can fit within those dimensions.  The 2-2-V-1 thread has already gone 73 pages.  I think that it will take quite a few more pages to resolve the fitment issue.  I would respectfully suggest that you start a new thread, something along the lines of “Miami Patch Dimensions” and transfer our last few exchanges to that thread.


On another note, I couldn’t help but notice, even before of Jeff’s recent post, that you previously chastised him severely for forgetting to add in additional skin to allow for the 2-2-V-1 to have been riveted to something: 

Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?

You said, " I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother)."

You seem to be wondering about things that have already been established.  That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.  The edge above that line is not a finished edge so there had to be additional skin above that line and it had to be riveted to something [emphasis added].

Did you make the same minor error when making your calculations that suggested you had a half an inch to spare?  If so, could you please redo your calculations to allow for the fore and aft rivet lines that at one time must have been part of 2-2-V-1 (if indeed it were part of the Miami patch) and let me know what you come up with.  Thank you.

Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 21, 2014, 09:15:19 AM
Ric,

Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply on this.  I appreciate the continuing emphasis on Glickman's work toward interpretation of the photo data.  I think there is value, however, in a more direct review of the Wichita exercise, given -

...I agree that the forward edge of certainly the window coaming and apparently the subsequent patch were set back from Station 293 5/8.  Based on the known 1.5 inch rivet pitch on the skin forward of the window/patch, the window coaming looks to have been riveted about an inch and a half aft of the edge of the skin.

I agree and was able to validate it by scaling landmarks on the very clear Wichita picture against similar landmarks on the Earhart Electra in the Nilla-Amelia picture, namely the rivet row at STA 320, and distance to the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8.  I used the direct measurements available in the form of your measuring tape on the Wichita image as a starting point by which to establish some actual datum references - rivet line and skin edge displacements, namely.

By direct measurement thus it is 12" from the rivet line at STA 307 to the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8 - see picture.  The forward coaming vertical rivet line lies approximately 1.5" aft of the aft edge of the skin ending near STA 293 5/8.  The forward coaming rivet line - and assuming the patch is similar - as it does appear to be, lies therefore 10.5" forward of the rivet line at STA 307. 

See attached mark-up of your Wichita photo and reference the scale you and Glickman applied thereon, please.

...we can place the forward edge of the patch at 295 1/8.

This citation of a station may be an indicator of an assumption that has introduced error - there can be a hazard in using assumptions about rivet lines lying faithfully along stations.  Deriving distances this way may have swayed your calculations. 

Visible rivet lines and skin edges can be and often are actually offset from 'stations', which are in fact more theoretical at times than easily pinpointed physical landmarks.  A station more often is one face or the other of a bulkhead, etc. as laid-up in the jig, but seldom directly in alignment with a rivet line.  A study of the Wichita photo, with the measureable scaling you provided there, shows this to be the case on the Lockheed, in fact. 

Therefore I submit that a direct observation of the tape measure in your Wichita photo is the more reliable method: I get 23" from the forward coaming / patch rivet row, as we've assumed it to be placed, to the rivet row at STA 320, if that was used as you've assumed for this exercise.  Please again see attached.

...So the horizontal dimension of the patch would be 24 7/8 (320 minus 295 1/8).

This is what I just described - it does not appear to be a good way to derive this distance.  Consider what you can observe against the tape measure in the Wichita photo instead and forget 'stations' for a moment - see if you get closer to 23" from the forward coaming / patch rivet line to the rivet line at (or near) STA 320 by actual measurement as I did.

The horizontal length of the artifact is 24 3/8 so the artifact fits within the horizontal dimension of the patch with half an inch to spare - assuming all of our assumptions are correct.

I think those assumptions are measurably off for reasons cited.  It appears now to me, that the horizontal dimension of the patch, if STA 320 was picked up and if the forward row of rivets is as we've believed it to be, would be closer to just under 23 1/2".  This is because the two rivet rows, being 23" inches apart, would normally have an edge distance for the fasteners (fore and aft rows) from hole center to the edge of the skin of 2 1/2 to 3 rivet diameters: 3/32nds rivets x 2.5D x 2 edges = min. edge distance of 15/32nds / or round up to a half inch if you prefer - call it a patch length of 23 1/2".

If the assumptions are correct, the line up of the tear and "ghost" vertical stiffener with Station 307 is problematic.  307 minus 295 1/8 = 11 7/8 but the distance on the artifact from the edge that presumably failed against an underlying structure at 295 1/8 is 13 inches from the line of the "ghost" vertical and tear - an inch and an eighth too much to line up with Station 307.  Maybe the tear and "ghost" stiffener are not associated with Station 307, or maybe our assumptions are off - but it certainly doesn't disqualify the artifact as the patch.

I'm not sure what that vertical mark is from but it does not appear to relate to the STA 307 structure, given how the artifact would have to be laid on to work at all.  It has always been odd to me that if of the Electra that it was never riveted.  I think it has to be thrown out somehow as irrelevant to fitting the Electra.  It is interesting, but more as some enigmatic fact of something we've yet to understand, if we ever do.  In of itself it is not disqualifying, nor is it qualifying at all in my view.

I have a far deeper concern with the overall dimensions as I've found them on the Wichita photo by the scaling applied there and regret that I did not look more closely at the time:

- The photo tape appears reliable as it also accurately reflects the 1 inch spacing that we know of on the artifact in various places.

- The tape applied directly to the Electra skin above the artifact clearly validates the measurements I've given here from skin aft edge near STA 293 5/8 to STA 307 rivet line to STA 320 rivet line (visual actuals - not presuming to use station assumptions) - count the 'ticks'.  The tape is a little fuzzy there, but the 320 line may be a smidge over 12.5" from the 307, so add 1/4" perhaps.

- If the patch picked up the same forward row as the coaming, and picked up STA 320 rivet line, the distance is only 23" (or 23 1/4" with a nod to the fuzzy tape around 320).

If this is the case - and I invite you and others to inspect this work, of course - then it may be more problematic to 2-2-V-1 that we're not seeing a few surviving rivet holes remaining from those rows somewhere near one extreme end or the other of the artifact. 

I am concerned that this may be a disqualifier.

I still have doubts about the patch having picked up STA 320, but we may never know and I now don't think it matters, given what I have been able to share here.  But perhaps we'll learn more.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 21, 2014, 09:24:15 AM
There are an awful lot of issues concerning the dimensions of the Miami patch and whether or not 2-2-V-1 can fit within those dimensions.

I disagree.

  The 2-2-V-1 thread has already gone 73 pages.  I think that it will take quite a few more pages to resolve the fitment issue.

I think the fitment issue is already resolved for you.

 
I would respectfully suggest that you start a new thread, something along the lines of “Miami Patch Dimensions” and transfer our last few exchanges to that thread.

I respectfully decline. 

Did you make the same minor error when making your calculations that suggested you had a half an inch to spare?

No.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 21, 2014, 10:15:35 AM
I invite you and others to inspect this work, of course - then it may be more problematic to 2-2-V-1 that we're not seeing a few surviving rivet holes remaining from those rows somewhere near one extreme end or the other of the artifact. 

I am concerned that this may be a disqualifier.

I understand the case you're making but it's based on a number of assumptions that may not be correct. We know the dimensions of the artifact because we have the physical object.  We can measure it's dimensions with some precision. We don't really know the dimensions of the patch because all we have to go on are fuzzy photos, so the dimensions of the patch become a matter of assumption and interpretation.

Our identification of the artifact as the patch with a high degree of certainty is based upon the preponderance of evidence - the laundry list of factors that argue in favor of it being the patch. One of those dozens of factors is what Diego likes to call "fitment." We have an artifact that even our most fervent critics admit is extremely close to fitting within the dimensions of the patch.  Arguing over tolerances of less than an inch when the available imagery doesn't support that kind of precision is pointless.

When I was at MIT I discussed the investigative process with Prof. Eagar at some length.  He has been an expert witness in literally hundreds of court cases involving aircraft accidents.  One of his most memorable observations was (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember his exact words), "In these cases it's fairly standard find something that doesn't seem to fit the rest of the evidence, at least at first. The important thing is to look at the entire body of evidence, including the context."

If someone is intent upon disqualifying the artifact I would suggest that they find and test an alternative hypothesis for what aircraft this piece of metal came from and how it ended up where we found it.

 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 21, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
I'm not intent on 'disqualifying' the artifact.  I am intent on clarifying what is before our eyes by TIGHAR's own helpful lens -

The Wichita photos with your tapes on them are not assumptions -

- The tapes you and Glickman applied clearly shows the artifact length you are talking about (24 7/16")

- The tapes you and Glickman applied to the fuselage clearly shows the length from the skin edge near 293 5/8 to the rivet line at 320 to be 24 1/2"

- The 'assumption' of the forward rivet line in the coaming, and therefore the patch as has been 'assumed', is 1 1/2" - which you, I and others have derived for good reason - and until we know of the patch having differed from the coaming we have no good reason to deviate

- The observable distance, in the Wichita photo - by your own measuring tape thereon, from the 320 rivet line to that point where the offset rivet line (forward coaming / patch) would be (1 1/2" aft of skin edge) is 23"

These, save the one assumption as to where the patch's forward rivet line truly was - if it differed from the coaming for some reason, are not 'assumptions'; they are observable in your own photos and measurable by the device you and Glickman applied in Wichita.

- The import of these things - which you understand as you've said, and I appreciate - is "if 2-2-V-1 is a remnant of the patch, and the distance between those vertical rivet lines (fore and aft) was only 23", why are there not some surviving rivet holes near the extreme ends (one or other or both) of 2-2-V-1?"

Make of it what you choose.  I am a big fan of the idea of 2-2-V-1 being 'the patch'; I've written on it and conjectured favorably to brainstorm a fit that might help prove it to be, in fact.  I'm a believer in the application of deliberate science, too.  Science cannot take shade behind 'preponderance', and now, the math and lens of our own hands in Wichita, unfortunately, trumps all the preponderance for me.  So I believe it is an observable error to ascribe my concerns to 'intent to disqualify' or to 'assumptions'.

Of course I'm content to leave the balance of the preponderance to you and others - that is all one can do here.  But if the scientific process is to be respected, I also highly suggest a review of those photos before chalking this off to some 'intent to disqualify' or 'assumptions'.

Respectfully -
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Alfred Cramer on December 21, 2014, 11:17:27 AM
Arguing over tolerances of less than an inch when the available imagery doesn't support that kind of precision is pointless.

Ric,
I just want to say that when the Wichita research bulletin was released, I was very excited by the yellow tape, and right away I tried to make sketches of the patch and its apparent fit to the aircraft using the measurements.  (I was grateful for the higher-res image you posted at Greg Daspit's request later on!)  Not surprisingly, it was too difficult a task for me. Clearly it's a difficult task in general.

I'm not skeptical, and in fact I tend to think that skepticism is not appropriate until one has understood a claim quite deeply. Rather, my hope was to confirm and understand more about the nature of the fit that you observed by direct physical comparison.  In other words, since obviously I wasn't there to witness the "physical comparison" between 2-2-v-1 and the aircraft, I was hoping to use the numbers supplied by the yellow tape to reproduce what you have called "direct physical comparison" on paper. (Also, having a record of detailed measurements would save the trouble of hunting down that Electra again if new information were to come forward.)

Because, as you note, tolerances are an issue, any summary or diagram of measurements ought to come with appropriate error bars.  Science usually works that way.

My sense is that others contributing to this thread, yourself included, have thought of all this, and that some are wondering whether part of Jeff Glickman's reports will detail the measurements or whether someone else ought to try to take it on.  In any case, I appreciate Jeff Neville's efforts to ascertain whether the yellow tape was in precisely the right place on the Wichita Electra and I see it as a productive line of inquiry--provided it includes error bars! 

LTM,
Alfred Cramer
TIGHAR #4314A
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 21, 2014, 12:17:48 PM
Ric,

A question that I've wondered about but haven't seen asked: We can see rivet lines on the fuselage around the patch but not on it.  I'm guessing this is something that you may have discussed with Jeff Glickman--did he have an explanation?

-Hal

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Hart on December 21, 2014, 12:50:58 PM
I have no expertise to give to this discussion but as an interested observer thought of something you may wish to consider.  I don't know how hard it would be to accomplish from mechanical standpoint, being a lowly pilot, but it has been on my mind for some time.  Your analysis may have already considered and rejected this notion. If so, sorry for the spam.

I look at the closeup picture of the window before it was removed and wonder about the ~2 inch piece of skin between the aft end of skin at station 293 5/8 and the window combing.  If the window attachment were used for the patch and it was laid over this small segment of skin there would be this clear 1.5-2 inch separation between the line of skin at 293 5/8 and the front of the patch.  That is not clearly evident in the post patch pictures.  It also would have resulted in a potential for airflow to separate the forward edge of the patch as it overlays this small section of skin.  This would not be a concern for a window combing but a patch would concern me from an aerodynamic standpoint.  One rivet pops and you have airflow under the patch.  I would think it would be preferable to remove that small segment of skin (would require a piece of skin to be removed or overlaid on the upper part of the patch), drill out the rivets on station 293 5/8, slide the forward edge of the patch under the skin at 293 5/8 and re-rivet on sat 293 5/8.  That would provide a smooth edge for your hinging action to separate against.  It also would explain your patch length without existing rivet holes on the fore edge.  I think it would also help you align the flat sheet of aluminum to the curvature of the fuselage during installation.

Again, no fabrication expertise to determine if this is feasible or if your examination has already eliminated this possibility, just a thought.  More power to you.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Brad Beeching on December 21, 2014, 03:44:24 PM
Is it possible that when the patch was installed, a "Backing Strip" was rivited along the seams to stiffen the joint? If I've followed all this correctly, there is a matter of a few inches shy of reaching a stiffener or stringer. Could the installer have rivited a strip of .032" material to make up the distance or stiffen the seam?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 21, 2014, 04:10:28 PM
A question that I've wondered about but haven't seen asked: We can see rivet lines on the fuselage around the patch but not on it.  I'm guessing this is something that you may have discussed with Jeff Glickman--did he have an explanation?


We can see some of the rivet lines on the patch in the Miami Herald taxiing-out photo.  Jeff Glickman has found evidence of the other rivet lines that correspond to the artifact by means of a proprietary analytical process that I'm not competent to explain but I've seen the result.  We hoped to get a more direct look at the rivet lines on the patch via the Albasi photo but the resolution is not as good as the Miami Herald photo.  To answer your question, I haven't discussed it with Jeff but it's my impression that we can't see rivet lines on the patch in the Albasi photo because the patch is so shiny and reflective.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 21, 2014, 04:36:42 PM
If the window attachment were used for the patch and it was laid over this small segment of skin there would be this clear 1.5-2 inch separation between the line of skin at 293 5/8 and the front of the patch.  That is not clearly evident in the post patch pictures.

I think there are some legitimate questions about what the front edge of the patch looked like.  For example, in the Miami Herald takeoff photo we see a hard line along the bottom edge of the patch but on the front edge.  Is it just the lighting or is something else going on?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 21, 2014, 05:40:41 PM
Thank you for the reply, Ric,

I misstated my question somewhat due to some last-minute editing.  In the case of all the photos besides one, the resolution is poor, so it is no surprise that no rivet lines are seen.  But the photo taken outside the hangar at Darwin (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/14) strikes me as being well-resolved enough to see rivet lines on the patch.  As I said in my last post, we can see vertical and horizontal rivet lines ending at the patch, but none are apparent on the patch.  I think it is definitely worth making the trip to Purdue you mentioned a few days ago to get the best copy of this picture available.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Hart on December 21, 2014, 08:03:38 PM
My thinking was they would have kept with the standard overlap top to bottom and fore to aft.  This makes sense to shed rain from above and provide a smooth path for airflow from forward.  To install the patch, remove the small segment of skin aft of 293 5/8 and cut out the small piece on the upper corner of the window opening above it.  Put the top of the patch under the skin above and the front of the patch under the skin at 293 5/8.  Use the holes as guide to drill and re-rivet.  Overlay the patch over the lower and aft skin riveting to the existing window attachments.  Underlap top and front, overlap aft and bottom.  This would explain the smooth edge on the top and front of the patch and rough edges bottom and rear as the top/front would tear from under the overlapping skin instead of rivet heads. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 21, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
As I said in my last post, we can see vertical and horizontal rivet lines ending at the patch, but none are apparent on the patch.  I think it is definitely worth making the trip to Purdue you mentioned a few days ago to get the best copy of this picture available.

I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Lucas on December 22, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
That thin metal (.032) laying on the surface of the outside skins is gonna play havoc with trying to figure
out the forward and rear edges due to lighting in those photos. The Miami photos are probably
influenced by the lighting as far as forward and rear edges go.

Bill
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 22, 2014, 09:09:28 AM
That thin metal (.032) laying on the surface of the outside skins is gonna play havoc with trying to figure
out the forward and rear edges due to lighting in those photos. The Miami photos are probably
influenced by the lighting as far as forward and rear edges go.

No doubt ...and that's my point.  We're arguing over fractions of an inch when our estimation of where the edges of the patch were could be off by at least a couple inches.  We've confronted this problem many times in many different contexts.  It's always tempting to grasp for precision that isn't there.  I'm reminded of a favorite expression of TIGHAR board member Capt. Skeet Gifford "Measure with micrometer. Mark with chalk.  Cut with an axe."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 22, 2014, 04:13:26 PM
I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines.

It’ll be interesting to discover what can be seen in a better version of the Purdue photo.  I wonder if Purdue might have some information about the source of the Darwin photo.  I am guessing George Putnam donated it to Purdue; perhaps he provided some notes explaining who the photographer was, who sent it to him?  As I recall, Earhart mailed photos back home as she flew around the world, but I don’t think this is one of them, because the same photo appeared in an Australian Newspaper:  http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/1903/rec/6
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 22, 2014, 04:16:00 PM
I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines.

I should have taken more care in wording my question— in that Darwin photo we can see rivet lines on the fuselage around the patch, but none on the patch (as you note) and that is the problem I wondered if Jeff Glickman had considered.  Rivet lines below the level of the patch are not so easy to see, but at the level of the patch, and above it, they are more apparent.  I will attach a cropped image of the area of the patch with arrows pointing to some of the rivet lines external to the patch, some which terminate at the patch.  I’m not sure how well they will show up in the resolution of the photo I can upload.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 22, 2014, 05:31:41 PM
in that Darwin photo we can see rivet lines on the fuselage around the patch, but none on the patch (as you note) and that is the problem I wondered if Jeff Glickman had considered.  Rivet lines below the level of the patch are not so easy to see, but at the level of the patch, and above it, they are more apparent.

In the attached photos is have numbered your arrows and numbered the corresponding rivet lines on a standard Lockheed 10 (c/n 1052 at the New England at Museum).

Your rivet lines 1 & 2 are present on the standard Lockheed 10.
Your line 3 is the vertical line at Station 307.  It should not be present on the patch and it isn't.
Your line 4 is the rivet line at Station 320 and it is right where it should be.
Your line 5 doesn't exist on the standard Lockheed 10 and I suspect it doesn't exist in the Darwin photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 22, 2014, 06:28:54 PM
Ric,

I realize that my wording still is a bit ambiguous so let me try asking it a different way:

I understand that the rivet lines you’ve marked 1 to 4 don’t extend across the patch.  But if we can see rivet lines 1 to 4 in the Darwin photo why don’t we see the three lines of 3/8 inch rivets, and one line of 5/8 inch rivets that are on 22v1?

That was what I was wondering about— can Jeff Glickman think of reasons why the 22v1 rivet lines on the path would be less visible than nearby rivet lines on the fuselage.

Sorry this was so confusing, hope it is clearer now.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 22, 2014, 06:31:09 PM
I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines.

It’ll be interesting to discover what can be seen in a better version of the Purdue photo.  I wonder if Purdue might have some information about the source of the Darwin photo.  I am guessing George Putnam donated it to Purdue; perhaps he provided some notes explaining who the photographer was, who sent it to him?  As I recall, Earhart mailed photos back home as she flew around the world, but I don’t think this is one of them, because the same photo appeared in an Australian Newspaper:  http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/1903/rec/6

By the way, TROVE, the Australian Digital Newspaper Archive, has the July 3, 1937 issue of the Melbourne Argus.  two additional Darwin photos, one in the Purdue Archive, one not, are on the back page of that issue.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 22, 2014, 06:43:19 PM
That was what I was wondering about— can Jeff Glickman think of reasons why the 22v1 rivet lines on the path would be less visible than nearby rivet lines on the fuselage.

Look at the double row of rivets just above Ric's #5 as shown on Ric's photo of CN 1052.

Why doesn't that row show up on the photo?

My guess: lighting, lens, grain.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 22, 2014, 07:10:57 PM
I understand that the rivet lines you’ve marked 1 to 4 don’t extend across the patch.  But if we can see rivet lines 1 to 4 in the Darwin photo why don’t we see the three lines of 3/8 inch rivets, and one line of 5/8 inch rivets that are on 22v1?


Apologies.  Apparently I too am having difficulty communicating.  My point is that we can't see some rivet lines in the Darwin photo that we know are there and you saw at least one line that almost certainly isn't there. Bottom line: the Darwin Refueling photo is not a reliable source for determining where there were rivet lines.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 23, 2014, 07:02:00 AM
In the attached photos is have numbered your arrows and numbered the corresponding rivet lines on a standard Lockheed 10 (c/n 1052 at the New England at Museum).

Your rivet lines 1 & 2 are present on the standard Lockheed 10.
Your line 3 is the vertical line at Station 307.  It should not be present on the patch and it isn't.
Your line 4 is the rivet line at Station 320 and it is right where it should be.
Your line 5 doesn't exist on the standard Lockheed 10 and I suspect it doesn't exist in the Darwin photo.

Actually, line 5 does exist on the standard Lockheed 10, as is visible in the Darwin ramp photo (especially as it continues aft along a consistent waterline), and it corresponds to the double row that stitches the skin lap together for skins 42 and 43.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 23, 2014, 08:03:09 AM
Actually, line 5 does exist on the standard Lockheed 10, as is visible in the Darwin ramp photo (especially as it continues aft along a consistent waterline), and it corresponds to the double row that stitches the skin lap together for skins 42 and 43.

To my eye, Hal's Line 5 is too far down to be the double staggered row that stitches skins 42 and 43 - but let's assume you're  right.  What may be a double row of rivets at Line 5 looks much like the known double staggered row that aligns with the bottom edge of the patch. If Line 5 is a double staggered row of rivets it does not appear to extend across the patch.  That's consistent with the artifact. What we can't see in the Darwin photo is the single row of rivets that runs horizontally roughly half way between the two double rows of rivets aft of the patch.  If we can't see horizontal lines of single rivets that we know should be there, why would we expect to see horizontal lines of single rivets on the patch?

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 23, 2014, 09:45:36 AM
Not to argue, but I can see the double row rivet line at "5" just as clearly as I see the one at the bottom of the 'patch' - plus can discern a suggestion of a faint shadow along the bottom of the lower double row where the skin lap well might produce such an effect. 

I believe your impression that "5" is not at the right height is an understandable misread - it is easy for the eye and mind to resolve things a bit out of scale for their own subjective reasons.  Consider, for one, that the reason the lower double row may be more visible is the shadowing along its lower edge - that adds emphasis that the upper row ("5") does not have.

I agree that I do not see the single midline row (between upper and lower double rows) you point out as not visible - unless I look between stations 331 and 343 on the Purdue site at the 'original' - there it becomes faintly apparent.  It is true that this one is faint or disappears, although "2", "3" and "4" are single rows and are visible - their being in somewhat more favorable light possibly being the reason.  The midline row, being a single row, also lacks the bulk of the double rows - but it also suffers from lying in a less favorable light plane, I think.  The double rows in this area may have enough mass to make up for that loss of favorable light just sufficiently to be seen, whereas the single row may simply not quite make it. 

I can also easily see another longitudenal single row below the patch / below the lower double row, between 298 5/8 and 307 - a slightly different area, of course - but low and not up in the light that tends to highlight the other higher areas.

I agree that I do not see rivets along the face of the patch, possibly for the same reason you suggest, or possibly because they aren't there.  If they are there and are discernable, it is beyond my reach to detect them - and the same reason as for the midline single row may well be the reason.  If anything bothers me about that, it would be simply that there are more rows on the artifact - 4, in fact, so out of those 4 perhaps a line or two might emerge?  But I can't say that any one of the four would with any certainty, of course.

And as you've pointed out before, we're not experts at this kind of analysis, so perhaps we're missing something anyway.

That said, many of the rivet lines that do show up clearly enough can be validated as corresponding to known L10 structure; in that others do not where we know they must be is also, as you point out, somewhat telling about expectations for other locations in the same plane of light.

As to the Darwin ramp photo -

This particular picture remains vexatious to copy effecitvely: it is a bit grainy and light seems a bit scattered and much can be lost, I've noticed, even when working with a high-quality copy in tiff format if not careful.  My belief is that more can be seen if it is simply viewed directly at the Purdue site (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/393), and not at much enlargement at that - much over 50% starts costing noticeable detail.  But, if a high-quality copy - like in tiff, is made at around 50% enlargement, contrast can also be sharpened slightly to bring out some detail as well.

Just for fun while we're gazing -

I have found, as an enthusiast, that it helps to study this photo and others like it as an astronomer might study the faint heavens at night - with 'averted vision' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision).  Allow the eye to relax and not stare directly at the chosen detail, and much information can be realized and resolved than by trying to enlarge and pinpoint things among the pixels.  Simply enlarge and soon you're chasing lots of tiny, false images.  That 'star gazing' technique may work for some, all I can do is suggest it.  It works well for me.  Soft ambient and screen lighting helps. 

I've used that technique a great deal since learning it as a boy to great effect in many situations, including this one.  It's not exactly a science, and the results of course can be quite subjective if one is not careful - but it's an interesting technique and one might be surprised at what one can discern.  I suggest avoiding the cloud bunny effect if one goes down this path - it is exceedingly easy to see what one's mind wishes to see if not careful.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 23, 2014, 10:50:30 AM
Ric/Marty,

I agree with Jeff Neville that my line 5 is that double staggered row on the fuselage; it looks to me to be in the correct position relative to the patch, about 1/6th of the way between the upper and lower left hand corners of the patch.  As Jeff also noted, viewing the image directly at the Purdue web site provides a bit better resolution than what I uploaded.  Take a look at line 5 in the Purdue image—I think you can quite clearly see it there and quite clearly follow it all the way back until it is blocked by a piece of the tail in the foreground; if line 5 isn’t that double row of rivets, what do you guys think it is?

Ric, you said “If Line 5 is a double staggered row of rivets it does not appear to extend across the patch.  That's consistent with the artifact.”  The point I am making is that we can see line 5, as well as lines 1-4, and other rivet lines I didn’t number as well, yet we don’t see any rivet lines on the patch, even when they would be within an inch or two of visible external rivet lines. The fact that we can’t see rivet lines on the patch while nearby external rivet lines are quite apparent is precisely the problem that is not consistent with the artifact.  External rivet lines are indeed more difficult to see around the lower portions of the patch, so it is easier to understand why we cant see riveting on lower portions of the patch, but on the upper portions of the patch it seems more problematic that we don’t see the 22v1 rivet lines. 

Incidentallly, in the mark-up of my photo you posted yesterday, it looks to me as if your black line denoting the upper edge of the patch is placed a bit too high—I can see the STA 307 rivet line, and the bright upper edge of the patch, beneath your black line.  Although it is best to look at the Darwin photo at the Purdue site (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/14).  I will upload another cropped image of that image here, hoping that it is a bit better resolved than the one I posted yesterday.

Happy Holidays to all Forum Members!


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 23, 2014, 11:22:16 AM

320 line may be a smidge over 12.5" from the 307


Questions regarding Station Lines:
Jeff noted that the Wichita plane appears to be less than 13" between Sta. 320 and Sta.307 which if accurate seems odd to me.
Why wouldn’t they be 13” apart? The Station lines are 13” apart? Construction tolerance? Restoration of the plane?
What are the Station Lines supposed to be to? The center of the original form work for the Circumferential stiffeners?
The center of the structure or the center of the rivet lines?
I thought maybe that if one of the circumferential stiffeners with a “Z” shape was put in backwards it could change the distances between rivets.  But from the interior pictures of the Wichita Plane, both 320 and 307 stiffeners seem to be oriented the same, with rivet lines forward of the former.
I did notice that on some interior photos of other L-10 planes, the rivet lines seem to be forward of the former, but in one picture of AE’s plane the rivet lines seem to be aft of it. Do any of the available drawings show details of the Lav window area and reference the station lines with rivet lines?

Regarding the “ghost stiffener” near 307. If the patch installer didn’t want to remove existing rivets above the patch to splice it in, they may have spliced it to vertical part of the Z on the aft side instead. Another possibility is that the added horizontal stiffener was so close to the existing horizontal frame of the window, it made I difficult to attach it at all to the existing Circumferential stiffener.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 23, 2014, 11:46:37 AM
The point I am making is that we can see line 5, as well as lines 1-4, and other rivet lines I didn’t number as well, yet we don’t see any rivet lines on the patch, even when they would be within an inch or two of visible external rivet lines. The fact that we can’t see rivet lines on the patch while nearby external rivet lines are quite apparent is precisely the problem that is not consistent with the artifact. 

What is your theory for how the patch remained in place for roughly 21,000 miles in the air (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline)?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on December 23, 2014, 11:52:23 AM
Ric/All,

If you enlarge Hal Beck's picture on "Reply no. 1110" and concentrate on the double rivet line along the lower edge of the patch you may be able to see  the "off set" rivet that appears on the artifact.  Let your eyes (in peripheral vision as Jeff suggested) focus about a third of the way aft of the forward edge of the patch.

Perhaps Glickman can enhance the photo a little more in order to prove or disprove what I think I am seeing.

If that "off set" rivet is in fact there it's one heck of a vote for the  patch being from AE's bird.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on December 23, 2014, 01:44:46 PM
Some time ago, it was mentioned that a/some drawing/s of the patch installation method may be posted, I have a mechanical background and am interested in such things. I am not questioning the fit, I am mostly interested in the manner of patch installment. In this report;

In the artifact analysis report;

2-2-V-1 Sheet

The sheet was a comparatively large piece (23 inch x 19 inch) of 0.032 inch thick aluminum alloy, shown in figure 1, with a pronounced curvature across the short dimension. The sheet had four rows of evenly spaced 3/16 inch diameter rivet holes and one row of 5/32" holes along its long dimension. Measurements determined that the rivet rows were not parallel but rather showed a slight convergence. Nominal spacing between rows was about 4-1/4 inches at one end of the sheet and 1/8 to 1/4 inch closer at the other end. The skin around these holes was, in general, dimpled inward toward the concave side of the sheet suggesting that the sheet had been area loaded from the concave side while the rivets and underlying structure were intact. The remains of a solid brazier-head rivet were found in the hole denoted by arrow "R" in figure 1. The manufactured head of the rivet was on the convex side of the sheet and was marked with a single round dimple in the center of the head, as shown in the right center photograph of figure 1. The dimple usually signifies a 2117 aluminum alloy rivet. The length of the undeformed rivet shank (distance between the manufactured head and the formed head) indicated that the skin had previously been attached to an approximately 0.06 inch thick underlying member. The faint outline of 1/2" tall letters "AD" were noted on the convex side of the sheet in the circled area in figure 1A and are shown at 2X in figure lB.

0.06 seems to be the maximum stringer/underlying fixture thickness that this artifact could have been attached to; .....stringer thickness from the Idaho wreckage was also measured at 0.06

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html


The procedure outlined below; shows the use of shims ( original skin thickness) to bring the patch flush as to avoid a concave indentation in the center of the panel when the rivets are bucked, and would seemingly eliminate voids near the patch ends making it difficult to buck up the rivets there.  It seems by the remaining rivet shank undeformed distance ,along with the Idaho stringer thickness information, that 2-2-V-1  seemingly wouldn't have room to have shims installed .....possibly, there are other repair methods that would allow one to attach the panel directly to the stringer and perform the repair ,in a timely manner, as a scab,.. Greg, Jeff, I spoke with you fellows about this before, but, would you have any drawings that would show a procedure by which that could be done?

The drawing in the attachment shows a typical installation regarding fuselage scab patch installations


A  patch installation procedure; page 99 ,.... pg 102 left hand side in this manual
http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/4128-structural-repair-manual-for-the-model-dc-3


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 23, 2014, 03:23:46 PM

320 line may be a smidge over 12.5" from the 307


Questions regarding Station Lines:
Jeff noted that the Wichita plane appears to be less than 13" between Sta. 320 and Sta.307 which if accurate seems odd to me.

"Stations" and "rivet lines" are not necessarily the same.  What I hoped to respectfully point out was that if one merely examines the tape measure in the picture, one may determine, simply, what the actual distances are between rivet lines.

Why wouldn’t they be 13” apart? The Station lines are 13” apart? Construction tolerance? Restoration of the plane?
What are the Station Lines supposed to be to? The center of the original form work for the Circumferential stiffeners?
The center of the structure or the center of the rivet lines?

All good questions.  You're getting there - rivet lines may be offset from a 'station' for any number of reasons - some of which you have touched on here / below.  "Stations" are more about a design reference point than they are physical stuff like rivet lines; a rivet line may lie right on a called station, or it may be off by fractions or more of an inch for some reason.  A 'Z' channel with a flange offset toward the forward end of the ship might explain what we see at the 'station 320' rivet line - rivets that apparently lie ahead of, not on and not behind, the station line.  Station 307 on the other hand may (I am not certain this is true) have a rivet line that is true - I think those fasteners go into a vertical channel (examining the interior of the Wichita bird should refresh on this).  Those are guesses as to how the rivet lie - all I can say with certainty is that the tape doesn't lie, and the tape tells of some different distances between fastener lines than we might assume were we depending on station numbers and math alone to determine, e.g. "320 - 307 = 13, so obviously it is thirteen inches from these rivets to these other rivets - WRONG: the tape tells us closer to 12 1/2", maybe 12 3/4".  Same from the skin edge to 307, e.g. "307 - 293 5/8 = 13 3/8" - so either the rivet line at 307, or the skin edge NEAR 293 5/8 is NOT on the station - because the actual distance from 307 to that skin edge is 12".

I thought maybe that if one of the circumferential stiffeners with a “Z” shape was put in backwards it could change the distances between rivets.  But from the interior pictures of the Wichita Plane, both 320 and 307 stiffeners seem to be oriented the same, with rivet lines forward of the former.
I did notice that on some interior photos of other L-10 planes, the rivet lines seem to be forward of the former, but in one picture of AE’s plane the rivet lines seem to be aft of it. Do any of the available drawings show details of the Lav window area and reference the station lines with rivet lines?

You've explored it well and only an examination of the drawings and layout of these details could fully answer how the true stations lie relative to the rivet rows.  It simply occurred to me that what is prime for our need is to understand the physical landmarks we're talking about, and the actual measurements between them, etc. and I came to realize that assumptions about stations providing distances was not accurate.

Regarding the “ghost stiffener” near 307. If the patch installer didn’t want to remove existing rivets above the patch to splice it in, they may have spliced it to vertical part of the Z on the aft side instead. Another possibility is that the added horizontal stiffener was so close to the existing horizontal frame of the window, it made I difficult to attach it at all to the existing Circumferential stiffener.

I think the 'ghost stiffener' near 307 is an unintentional herring with no relationship to the Electra - to match it up rivet-line-wise at 307 requires the artifact to ride too far forward for it to remain a candidate, in my own view.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 23, 2014, 03:29:33 PM
The point I am making is that we can see line 5, as well as lines 1-4, and other rivet lines I didn’t number as well, yet we don’t see any rivet lines on the patch, even when they would be within an inch or two of visible external rivet lines. The fact that we can’t see rivet lines on the patch while nearby external rivet lines are quite apparent is precisely the problem that is not consistent with the artifact. 

What is your theory for how the patch remained in place for roughly 21,000 miles in the air (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline)?

I would say at a minimum that it was riveted around the periphery. 

Once again I am plagued by trying to copy from the Purdue photo, so pardon please, but this is contrasted a bit that you might see more easily what I see and am trying to convey - a suggestion of rivet lines along the periphery of the patch.  They appear similar to other rivet 'trails' we're seeing in this photo.

I also added a color-toned photo but it doesn't save as well here as it looks on my machine for reason - I get tons of nice contrast out of it on my laptop before uploading it.  Not sure what I'm losing - but it's not too bad here.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 23, 2014, 03:57:32 PM
I would say at a minimum that it was riveted around the periphery. 

Now we're talking about the patch being just a plain, unbraced sheet rivet around the periphery?  Not one experienced mechanic we've talked to (including you until now) has suggested that anyone would be so foolish as to do that. 

The Miami Herald photo has far better resolution than the currently available copy of the Darwin photo. At least two rivet rivet lines on the patch that match the location of rivet lines on the artifact are discernible to the amateur eye in the Miami Herald photo.  Glickman, who is not an amateur, has found evidence of the other lines.  They too match the artifact.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 23, 2014, 04:09:16 PM
All I noted was that I could see what appear to be rivets around the periphery; I simply don't see similar evidence in the mid-field.  Make of it what you will.

No, I would not cover that area without some bracing if I had a choice.  Nor, actually, would I really choose to brace it in the manner suggested by 2-2-V-1 but would prefer to match the original bracing, if possible.  But I wasn't there, either.  We were also looking at an artifact with holes across the center that might be related to such an effort - to explain same, if that artifact were indeed the cover.

I too have held that the Miami photo was compelling, but now having had a better study of the Purdue-Darwin ramp photo must say it might help if you and Jeff can help us see more clearly what you see in the Miami photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on December 23, 2014, 04:20:57 PM
The point I am making is that we can see line 5, as well as lines 1-4, and other rivet lines I didn’t number as well, yet we don’t see any rivet lines on the patch, even when they would be within an inch or two of visible external rivet lines. The fact that we can’t see rivet lines on the patch while nearby external rivet lines are quite apparent is precisely the problem that is not consistent with the artifact. 

What is your theory for how the patch remained in place for roughly 21,000 miles in the air (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline)?

Well, judging from the Darwin photo, and that is the matter we are discussing, I would not conclude that the patch remained in place for 21,000 miles thanks to four horizontal rivet lines in the positions we see them on 22v1.

I agree with Jeff that the riveting was around the periphery; looking at the Darwin photo at the Purdue web site I do see indication of riveting just inside of the patch edges.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 23, 2014, 04:33:47 PM
Regarding the rivet line just below the top edge of the patch in the Miami Ramp photo. I see that one clearly as well as one other one, but it was not as clear. I thought one possible reason the top one was so much more evident, was that it was the bigger 5/32” row of rivets. Of course the angle of lighting is another reason. If the darker top row was the 5/32" row, then the orientation of 2-2-V-1 would be tab up. It seemed possible to me, that a tab up orientation also fit with a previous study drawing (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31928.html#msg31928) I did to explain a possible scenario for the direction of the tears in 2-2-V-1(away from center).
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Lucas on December 23, 2014, 05:39:33 PM
Just as an FYI:

Stations are simply a measurement along an axis that runs down the centerline of the fuselage (front to rear) from
some origin point but not necessarily the nose of the aircraft (although it's been said here that for this aircraft station zero is the nose).
On some modern aircraft station zero could be some imaginary point out in front of the nose. It depends on how the production tooling is set up.

A bulkhead or any other structure for that matter at say station 320 means it's 320 inches from the origin which is in our case the nose.
Bulkheads generally being SQUARE to the centerline axis. (so bulkhead 320 would measure 320 inches at any spot on that bulkhead.)

Don't forget: any station measurement is a measurement from the origin point that is PARALLEL to the centerline axis of the fuselage.
That's why you could have rivets that measure 10 inches apart on an actual piece but their station measurements could be say 9 1/2 inches
apart (their in/out or "Butt-line" measurements would be different of course because that part would be installed at an angle to the centerline axis)

Waterline measurements (up/down) are perpendicular to the centerline axis mentioned above and also of course have an origin point.

Butt-line measurements are the in/out measurements that are also perpendicular to the centerline axis and are expressed as LBL (left butt-line)
and RBL (right butt-line). These are the measurements taken from the aircraft centerline axis.

In the 3 dimensional cad world that I'm part of .... an aircraft structure is defined based on an X, Y & Z axis. These axes are all square to each other. This X, Y & Z axis
never moves and is permanent. The Z axis forms the centerline of the fuselage (stations), the Y axis is for waterline measurements and the X axis is for
the Butt-line measurements.

I hope my explanation didn't confuse anyone.

Bill
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 23, 2014, 06:32:18 PM
Very good, Bill.

'Station Zero' is referred to as the 'datum'.  It can be anywhere the manufacturer designates.  Often that is something like "the forward face of bulkhead thus and so" - but canalso be an imaginary point so many inches forwaed of the tip of the nose, etc.  point being it is the datum by which all stations are measured, as you described so well.

Thanks for describing lateral stations (butt lines) and waterlines.  It is an old system, but very good.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on December 23, 2014, 06:56:47 PM
Why doesn't anyone concentrate on the artifact's lower double row rivet line and see that there is an "off set" rivet that has to be taken into account when trying to line up the patch to pictures of AE's airplane?
I have tried to point out that if this "off set" rivet aligns with any photos we've got, there is very little argument it's from AE's plane.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on December 24, 2014, 01:09:57 AM
Ric -

   One part of the fitment issue that has long puzzled me is the Glickman overlay (attached).  You have suggested that the Miami patch was approximately 24 7⁄8  inches in length.  The artifact was measured at 24 3⁄8  inches, leaving them only ½ inch apart in length.   One would think that the Glickman overlay would therefore show the two objects to be very close to the same size.  Yet the size difference between the two objects in the Glickman overlay is very large, obviously much greater than ½ inch. 

   Using the artifact as a known scale at 24 3⁄8 inches, the patch in the Glickman overlay appears to be well over five inches longer than the artifact (5.36” longer when I do the scaling measurements and the math).  This suggests that the patch would have to be almost 30 inches long, which we know can’t be true.  It would seem that the patch layer would have to be shrunk down by about five inches in order for the overlay to accurately reflect the posited ½ inch difference between the two objects.

   How can the large size disparity that we see in the Glickman overlay be reconciled with the idea that the objects are only ½ inch apart in length? 

   Wouldn’t changing the size of either object layer in order to properly reflect their posited sizes also destroy the alignment of the rivet lines seen by Mr. Glickman? 


Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ron Lyons on December 24, 2014, 09:14:11 PM
We know the patch we have pictures of was lost out there somewhere.  Fact.  Maybe it was 200 miles away, or maybe it was right there on the beach.  Almost everyone is in agreement on that.  The plane went down, the patch was lost with the plane.

We know of no other piece of sheet metal missing in the area off of a plane, and certainly know of no other piece of sheet metal that's the same thickness, and that's within 1 inch of the size we're GUESSING the patch was.

Be back later, have to go sharpen my razor.

Sincerely,

William of Ockham
 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 25, 2014, 06:57:27 AM
Some time ago, it was mentioned that a/some drawing/s of the patch installation method may be posted, I have a mechanical background and am interested in such things. I am not questioning the fit, I am mostly interested in the manner of patch installment. In this report;

In the artifact analysis report;

2-2-V-1 Sheet

The sheet was a comparatively large piece (23 inch x 19 inch) of 0.032 inch thick aluminum alloy, shown in figure 1, with a pronounced curvature across the short dimension. ...
0.06 seems to be the maximum stringer/underlying fixture thickness that this artifact could have been attached to; .....stringer thickness from the Idaho wreckage was also measured at 0.06

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html


The procedure outlined below; shows the use of shims ( original skin thickness) to bring the patch flush as to avoid a concave indentation in the center of the panel when the rivets are bucked, and would seemingly eliminate voids near the patch ends making it difficult to buck up the rivets there.  It seems by the remaining rivet shank undeformed distance ,along with the Idaho stringer thickness information, that 2-2-V-1  seemingly wouldn't have room to have shims installed .....possibly, there are other repair methods that would allow one to attach the panel directly to the stringer and perform the repair...

The drawing in the attachment shows a typical installation regarding fuselage scab patch installations


A  patch installation procedure; page 99 ,.... pg 102 left hand side in this manual
http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/4128-structural-repair-manual-for-the-model-dc-3

Jerry,

Thanks for this, but it actually highlights a problem with calling the nav window covering a "patch" in the first place: we have no idea, other than by conjecture, that the "covering" was a "patch" in the structural sense at all. 

It may well have been nothing more than an expedient "cover" that was simply applied over the existing modified structure for the purpose of closing off the window opening.

And for all that has been wondered about the adequacy of the window mod and the "big hole" it created in the overal structure, we really don't have a big obvious reason to question the strength of the bird with that "hole" in it.  The primary bending forces in the fuselage with a heavy fuel load, for example, would be absorbed by the upper and lower surfaces - compression above, and tension below.  This puts the window (similar to other windows) in something approaching a more neutral zone in terms of stress. 

The side skins behave more like diagonal bracing during vertical bending; in those terms it is not clear to me that the missing material, where the window was, is that significant.  My personal view is that had some event resulted in damage leading to a last minute alarm and reinforcement of this area, more would be evident.  It has been speculated that seam damage can be seen at the lower end of the 293 5/8, but I believe we're only seeing ordinary shadowing at the skin lap there; in any case, were real damage there, I would expect to see some diagonal wrinkles throughout the area, not isolated joint distress as has been suggested about that lap joint shadow.

Consider too just what was - or, if you prefer, what was not removed to create the window opening: approximately a 23x17 inch section of skin, involving a 1x23 inch approximate lap joint with a u channel stiffener, and another 23 inch long section of u channel stiffener.  No major structural members like heavy stringers, etc.  We can't see what was added behind the outer skin except for the telling rivets near the top of the coaming at the forward end which suggests some internal addition for reinforcement.  It is reasonable, however, that given the thought we see in this mod by that one tell-tale feature that the need for some reinforcement may well have been addressed.  Finally, the window - although larger than the ordinary cabin windows, is still a similar installation: a look at how those openings were reinforced is not particularly remarkable.  It appears to me that the side skins of the L10 were well calculated to tolerate windows without a great deal of fuss.

All of which simply means that trying to rationalize the covering as a structural patch may be an overreach in conjecture; we may simply be seeing a cover with little, if any, features in terms of beef-up.  All we can really do is see what the visual record can tell us and should probably use care to avoid forcing an answer to make the artifact fit the picture we might tend to create ourselves.

Merry Christmas to all -
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on December 25, 2014, 07:15:15 AM
We know the patch we have pictures of was lost out there somewhere.  Fact.  Maybe it was 200 miles away, or maybe it was right there on the beach.  Almost everyone is in agreement on that.  The plane went down, the patch was lost with the plane.

We know of no other piece of sheet metal missing in the area off of a plane, and certainly know of no other piece of sheet metal that's the same thickness, and that's within 1 inch of the size we're GUESSING the patch was.

Be back later, have to go sharpen my razor.

Sincerely,

William of Ockham
 

That's where this kind of started out, and some of us did a great deal to try to eliminate other possible sources.  In fact I believe I was an early trouble-maker who thought he saw potential for this artifact to be a possible fit for the nav window, once it was realized that the window was covered expediently in Miami - so my heart is with you.

And true - to this day we don't know of another 'direct fit' source out there. 

It has even been suggested that 2-2-V-1 stands until someone can identify another source.  I understand the sentiment and once felt very strongly the same way, but the problem is we still have an obvious migration possibility.  We have seen it with the B-24 navigator's bookcase, and apparently with other still-unexplained shards of metal that have turned up: the islanders had a knack for getting that stuff, God only knows where from.

There's a lot of hair on that hide - we looked at what we could see, and now the uppers of a PBY have been examined.  We looked in bomb bays, wheel wells, flooring and interior bulkheads where we could get at them, and of course all the accessible outers in Dayton on every type we could think of.  Did we miss some crucial floor section, or a bulkhead hidden from our view?

Having wanted to see the double #5 row along the 'bottom' of the artifact as relating, it now seems a stretch when I look at that light skin lap on the L10, for instance: who would take a whole string of #3 rivets up to #5 in a light skin joint like that?  We have to consider the possibility now that 2-2-V-1 might relate to an installation where it covered a large area of light structure, but picked-up a row or two of heavier members where those #5 rivets were - not an easy match on the Electra.

So slash away by all means, Razor - but it is a large and strange world. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on December 25, 2014, 12:39:56 PM
Jerry,

Thanks for this, but it actually highlights a problem with calling the nav window covering a "patch" in the first place: we have no idea, other than by conjecture, that the "covering" was a "patch" in the structural sense at all. 

It may well have been nothing more than an expedient "cover" that was simply applied over the existing modified structure for the purpose of closing off the window opening.

All of which simply means that trying to rationalize the covering as a structural patch may be an overreach in conjecture; we may simply be seeing a cover with little, if any, features in terms of beef-up.  All we can really do is see what the visual record can tell us and should probably use care to avoid forcing an answer to make the artifact fit the picture we might tend to create ourselves.

Merry Christmas to all -

Thanks Jeff,
              The mechanical thinking portion of my mind keeps coming back to the installation process; It seems 2-2-V-1 was laid out rather well, regarding rivet pitch and rivet line spacing, seems some time was spent in it's fabrication. My thought is , how would it be installed as a cover/patch ( structural or otherwise), and include all the features of a standard repair procedure, regarding scab patch applications.
           It seems most repair methods include the use of shims the thickness of the surrounding original skin to bring the underlaying layers flush to the outermost surface, so as to allow one to solid buck the entire rivet line along the repair. Absence of them would seem to create a concave indentation in the center of the panel ( the original skin thickness) , in this case 0.025, ......granted, half the thickness of a dime, so looking down the fuselage line it may not be very noticable....however, when working to the outside edges of the patch, the void between patch/stringer ( caused by the entrapment of the original skin) would seemingly prevent a rivet there from being bucked tight, without  some skin dimpling or possible tearing.
It also seems the problem of forming the sheet to a desirable shape near the top of the fuselage may be further compounded by this indentation.I am basing this idea on the thought that the added stringer thickness was 0.060. My reasoning would become moot if added stringer thickness was 0.035 ?????  ..( kinda thin) and a 0.025 shim was added. Your thoughts?  Below , I tried to draw my view of this; ( definetly not as good an example as greg's ).

Black = stringer
Maroon = patch/cover
Gray = original skin

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 26, 2014, 11:16:29 AM
It has even been suggested that 2-2-V-1 stands until someone can identify another source.

That's not likely to happen.  Another source must not only match the materials and rivet pattern but the aircraft had to come to grief somewhere in the Central Pacific in a way very much like we have hypothesized NR16020 met its end - and then you have to somehow get this unique piece of debris to wash up on Nikumaroro.

2-2-V-1 is not a smoking gun and does not have the potential to be a smoking gun.  It is a "preponderance of evidence" artifact.  At present the preponderance is pretty darned preponderant.   2-2-V-1 stands as highly-probable Earhart-relatd artifact unless and until someone shows that, despite all of the many aspects of the artifact that match the patch, there is some aspect of the artifact that conclusively disqualifies it as the patch.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on December 28, 2014, 11:36:49 PM
In search of images relating to the patch/cover....I came across this at the Purdue site, ...Interior photos of the lavatory compartment are rare it seems , I do have one more, however; this view seems to give us a peek at the  interior side of the added window. The lavatory door is either off or open to allow a glimpse, ...I don't know that it's installation would tell us much regarding the way it was later covered, however; curiousity about how it looked beforehand compels me to search harder, in case something relevant may present itself. Would Jeff Glickman be able to remove the shadowing/ darkness in this photo, to allow a clearer look?

http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/336/rec/107

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 29, 2014, 08:41:00 AM
Would Jeff Glickman be able to remove the shadowing/ darkness in this photo, to allow a clearer look?

Nice catch Jerry.  Increasing the brightness of the image in Photoshop seems to reveal the presence of a diagonal structure below the window that is not present in the standard Electra.  Is it real?  I'll ask Jeff Glickman to take a look.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Gary Vance on December 29, 2014, 09:20:18 AM
Has anyone tried to locate a high quality print or scan of this picture?  It is located on the "Official Website of Amelia Earhart".  It apparently shows the patched side of the Electra. It is in the Carole L. Osborne photo archive:

http://www.ameliaearhart.com/about/aecophoto.html

I searched Tighar.org  before I posted it, hoping to not re-post older information.  If it is already here, my apologies!

Gary


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 29, 2014, 09:41:52 AM
Has anyone tried to locate a high quality print or scan of this picture? 

Doesn't help us.  That photo was taken circa September 1936, long before the special window was installed.  The photo was probably at Floyd Bennett Field, NY prior to the start of the Bendix Trophy cross-country race.  Note the painted cowlings and the R (rather than NR) registration number on the vertical stabilizer.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on December 29, 2014, 11:43:43 AM
In this critical past video , http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675063655_Amelia-Earhart-Putnam_Fred-Noonan_aircraft-takes-off_transatlantic-flight, .... one can also catch a glimpse looking out the added lavatory window at 208-210, the lavatory door seems to removed for some reason in this video and in the following attachment image below.
The lavatory interior is visible to the storage door, ..light from the added window can be seen illuminating that storage door. It also appears the toilet hopper is against the door , unable to tell what is lid of the hopper is resting against. I was wondering if the bracing or possible bracket that may be in that first image may be similar to the one mounted below the navigators table that manning is using.

 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 29, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
Jerry, the link is to a video clip that does not include the shots of Manning inside the plane.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 29, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
Would Jeff Glickman be able to remove the shadowing/ darkness in this photo, to allow a clearer look?

From Jeff Glickman:
"The negative that was either scanned, or printed and then scanned, was heavily scratched. The diagonal line that appears to be within the interior is most likely an emulsion scratch as it is consistent with other scratches seen in the image."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on December 29, 2014, 12:52:57 PM
Jerry, the link is to a video clip that does not include the shots of Manning inside the plane.
I wasn't sure who the fellow seated at the Navigators station at around 208-212 was , ...the absence of the lavatory door seemed as if the time frame may have been closely related in all research items,....the two attachments and the video.
I was interested in the lavatory interior , as to whether it was lined as was the cabin,....seems a bulkhead is visible, along with upper bracing for the storage wall/door,... looking for stringers, but hard for me to identify them in that interior view.
Is there a bracket under the patched over window?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on January 01, 2015, 06:57:24 PM
Ric,

  In response to Jerry Germann's photo of Paul Manning taking navigational readings in front of the lavaratory door...it occurred to me that is it possible that the reason the lavaratory window was removed wasn't mainly because of being broken, or privacy issues...but because of weight? I know from my research that she had left items behind prior to her second attempt from the inventory list she had due to saving on fuel. So help me out on this....but how much weight taken off would make a difference in say fuel consumption. Let's say for example that Paul Manning had gone with them on this voyage...how much extra fuel would they need for him alone being on the plane? Also, I never got to see the Electra in Newton, Kansas....But, was the lavaratory in the same location as the one installed on Amelia's Lockheed Electra? Anyway, help me out on this weight thing...thanks?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 02, 2015, 07:19:53 AM
  In response to Jerry Germann's photo of Paul Manning taking navigational readings in front of the lavaratory door...it occurred to me that is it possible that the reason the lavaratory window was removed wasn't mainly because of being broken, or privacy issues...but because of weight?

Earhart's first navigator was Harry (not Paul) Manning.  I don't think the difference in weight between a window and a patch would be enough to prompt a change.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dave Thaker on January 02, 2015, 01:37:40 PM
Ric,

How is Jeff Glickman's report on his photo analysis of 22v1 and other issues coming along?  Any chance this will be coming out soon?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: John Ousterhout on January 02, 2015, 01:47:46 PM
Ric opined "I don't think the difference in weight between a window and a patch would be enough to prompt a change."
That would be true of a plexiglass window, but Manning might have demanded a distortion-free optical glass window.  The ones I've seen were quite thick and very heavy, but I don't know what was available back in the 1930's. 
It sure would be nice to find the engineering drawings of the window.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 02, 2015, 02:16:38 PM
Dave et. al, keep in mind TIGHAR is not Jeff Glickman's day job. He fits it in as he can, when he can, in the midst of trying to make a living in a very arcane profession. If TIGHAR had to pay for this type of expertise, we'd still all be staring at blurry enlargements that had been photoshopped beyond all comprehension.

LTM, who says the next check is in the mail,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 02, 2015, 11:29:09 PM
Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. (http://lehightesting.com) was recommended to TIGHAR by Prof. Eager at MIT as the best lab for trying to learn more about 2-2-V-1 (and other aluminum artifacts) through materials analysis.  By pure coincidence, LTL is located in Wilmington Delaware about 45 minutes from TIGHAR HQ. I contacted LTL and dropped Tom Eagar's name.  They responded with enthusiasm and today we set out a program of testing that should give us the answers to a number of important questions.  Those answers could confirm our fondest conclusions about 2-2-V-1 or they could blow them out of the water....

.... I won't try to list the alphabet soup of technologies LTL will be using to do this work.   They're doing this pro bono because such is TIGHAR's reputation in the scientific community that they consider it an honor to be asked to help with our investigation. What they'll be doing represents thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dollars worth of work if hired at commercial rates.  The results we'll get will be scientifically sound, whether or not they're what we want to hear.

Ric - Would it be possible to have LTL confirm the gauge of the aluminum?  I believe the NTSB is the only one that measured it at .032, and I think at least one of their other measurements was slightly off (the convergence of the rivet rows?).  It would be helpful to know for sure what the gauge is.  Just a suggestion.

Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 03, 2015, 12:05:42 PM
I believe the NTSB is the only one that measured it at .032.

Your belief is in error. The thickness of the sheet has been checked many times by many people.  All it takes is a micrometer.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 03, 2015, 02:55:28 PM
I believe the NTSB is the only one that measured it at .032.

Your belief is in error. The thickness of the sheet has been checked many times by many people.  All it takes is a micrometer.


Ric - Alas I have no micrometer at my disposal at the moment nor access to the piece and am therefore dependent upon the written reports of others in this regard.  Could you please direct me to a source(s) that describes and documents any of the many gauge measurements that were made (other than the NTSB report already mentioned), preferably one that includes a description of the tolerance levels involved.  Thank you.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 03, 2015, 03:52:23 PM
Ric - Alas I have no micrometer at my disposal at the moment nor access to the piece and am therefore dependent upon the written reports of others in this regard.

Okay.  Here's a written report especially for you. I have a micrometer and I have access to the piece and I have measured it numerous times.  It's .032".  You can choose not to believe me and wait for the LTL report which will include much more detail.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Randy Conrad on January 03, 2015, 07:11:24 PM
Ric,

   Several months ago members of the forum were discussing what would happen if the Electra had drifted off the reefs edge from the tide and eventually sank to the bottom onto the ledge as noted in the anamoly from the last underwater expedition to Niku. With the artifact patch at hand, my question is...Let's say for example that the patch was still attached to the plane and went down and blew off later from the pressure....would it eventually have the capability of floating back to the top, even though its filled with rivet holes? Same scenario...we have a patch here laying on the reef, and the tide picks it up and throws it around on the beach for several days...would it eventually float for quite sometime or would it sink?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 03, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
Randy, aluminum is metal. It does not float.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Palshook on January 07, 2015, 10:17:23 AM
There is no "O" on the artifact.  There is a letter "D" preceded by a letter "A".
On another part of the artifact there is an identical letter "D" followed by "24".
The dark green stuff is organic material (we had it tested).  Some kind of marine growth.


Ric,

The "D followed by 24" you posted about ... Does this labelling look like

D24

or

D(space)24

??

Was this additional labelling on 2-2-V-1 found by the hyperspectral imaging effort?

Any chance you could post an image showing this recently-found labelling?

Jeff P.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 07, 2015, 10:59:08 AM
The "D followed by 24" you posted about ... Does this labelling look like

D24

or

D(space)24

??

There's about a 1/2" space between the D and the 24.

Was this additional labelling on 2-2-V-1 found by the hyperspectral imaging effort?

No.  Mark One eyeball, but it's really tricky to see.  You have to hold your mouth just right but it really is there..

Any chance you could post an image showing this recently-found labelling?

I'd be happy to if I could get it to show up in a photo.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Palshook on January 07, 2015, 03:03:50 PM
Thank you for the info, Ric.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 14, 2015, 12:06:01 AM
Ric –  Some of the photos that appear in “The Window, the Patch, & the Artifact” are only about 75 KB file size and are a bit blurry under magnification.  Could you please post the largest file size possible for photos of “23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior.”   Thank you.


Diego

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2015, 01:46:46 PM
It has come to my attention that former Forum member Bob Lanz claims to have a high-resolution version of the Darwin Hangar Photo courtesy of Elgen Long.  Lanz has posted to a public forum:

"Captain Long was gracious enough to go to a high end photo shop in Reno, NV and get me a very high resolution scan of the photograph; a full size B&W copy and a CD. The original is 10" x 12” and the scan is 8500 x 6550 in TIF format. It is a 214 megabyte file so I am unable to post the full photo on this site. Clearly there are no lines of rivets on the patch."

If Lanz has a high-resolution photo of the Darwin Hangar Photo he should make it available to anyone he wants to convince - most of all us.
Right now he's preaching to the choir of people who already think we’re wrong about 2-2-V-1.  Maybe we are.  We’re doing all we can to find out as much as possible about the artifact and the patch.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified that’s okay but we’re not going to take Bob Lanz’s word for it.  I invite him to share his photo.  He says it's a 214 MB file.  That's easily transmittable via Dropbox or several other systems.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 14, 2015, 02:08:07 PM
Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2015, 02:12:04 PM
Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

We can do that.

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.

Purdue has given us permission for Jeff Glickman to take a hi-res copy photo of their Darwin Ramp photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 14, 2015, 02:33:42 PM
Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

We can do that.

Cool.  Jeff Glickman is a great guy with skills to boot, but seems like these things are better served by putting them to disinterested third parties sometimes.  Good 'high road' thing to do, I would agree.  I hope Bob will work with you on that.

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.

Purdue has given us permission for Jeff Glickman to take a hi-res copy photo of their Darwin Ramp photo.

That's great news!  But the same thing might apply - should we consider having a third party examine that, including how to format from Purdue's own 'best copy'?

BTW, yes - it is true some (including now me) have doubts about 2-2-V-1 for reasons of our own discovery.  My own were not painless as I was, as you know, an early and long-standing enthusiast of this artifact.  It rose to great stature - and such things simply get to where the independent review might best serve at times.  TIGHAR never stands taller than when she stands up to that in my book - it's far more important than proving a desired outcome true, in fact.  As I read your words above I am heartened that you are saying that very thing, I believe - that we'll take the truth as it emerges.

Thanks for your reply, and I truly hope you and Bob come to something workable: we seem to have the 'better picture' we'd long sought.  I also hope the Ramp photo might tell us more and simply suggest that it could become a great instrument to do so if in independent hands on TIGHAR's behalf: whatever the outcome it would speak clearly to integrity.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 14, 2015, 02:46:23 PM
I am remiss - must put money where mouth is:

Ric, I will pledge $100 toward an independent analysis if TIGHAR goes for that for the Darwin Ramp and Hangar 'best version' photos.

I suggest that some agreeable but 'blind' criteria be developed as to what is needed - identification of landmarks such as rivet lines, absence of same, contours, patch edge definition, etc. of course.

I challenge others here to pledge toward this however they can as well if they'd support this effort.  I suggest that it is very important to TIGHAR's process of investigation.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jeff Lange on January 14, 2015, 03:29:34 PM
I will accept that challenge Jeff! Count me in for $100.00 towards that effort!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2015, 05:10:17 PM
Look....it is abundantly clear that some Forum members will not accept anybody's expert opinion. They want to put their own finger in the wounds.  If we get a hi-res copy of the Darwin Hangar photo and no rivets are visible to we lowly laypersons AND if Jeff Glickman agrees that there are no rivet lines there THEN we will agree that 2-2-V-1 has been disqualified.  If Glickman sees rivet lines we will spend money on an independent expert if we can raise the money (and it will cost more than a couple hundred bucks).  If the expert agrees with Glickman some Forum members will still not be satisfied.  So be it.

I say again, as I've said all along, I have no problem with 2-2-V-1 being disqualified if it can be legitimately disqualified.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on January 14, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
I'll be quietly disappointed, but if 2-2-V-1 is disqualified it only proves the legitimacy of TIGHAR's processes. And, the bonus is that it would create yet another mystery:)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 14, 2015, 06:04:10 PM
I'll be quietly disappointed, but if 2-2-V-1 is disqualified it only proves the legitimacy of TIGHAR's processes. And, the bonus is that it would create yet another mystery:)

Think of it this way. We will never be sure that 2-2-V-1 is from NR16020 unless we find the rest of NR16020 intact and can fit it back in place like a jigsaw puzzle piece - not likely to happen.  We might, however, find something that would let us be sure it is NOT from NR16020 in which case we could stop worrying about the damn thing - except, as you say, it would create another mystery.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 14, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Regarding the Darwin images:
 I don’t see rivet rows in the middle of the patch either, but I also do not see rivets at the lower horizontal stringer that was cut out at the window, but should still exist forward and aft of the window. I see a suggestion of  rivets at what remains of the  upper stringer that was cut, but consider it has a double rivet row, and has a skin edge, so may be easier to see than the lower single rivet row, which has no skin edge. The middle rows in the artifact are single rows and obviously there are no skin edges in the middle of the artifact. Horizontal single rivet rows may just be harder to see at that angle and along that curvature of the fuselage.

In the Darwin Hanger picture, the patch still looks a little brighter (less oxidized), so there may be two different levels of contrast when trying to see rivets in the patch as compared to the rest of the plane.

The Darwin hanger picture appears to show the patch extending back to the rivets at station 320. (There appears to me to be a hint of a rivet row below what looks like the lower left corner of the patch.)

These are admittedly all amateur observations. I hope Bob can make a better image available to both amateur and expert.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 14, 2015, 11:50:47 PM
Ric –  Some of the photos that appear in “The Window, the Patch, & the Artifact” are only about 75 KB file size and are a bit blurry under magnification.  Could you please post the largest file size possible for photos of “23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior.”   Thank you.
 

.... If Lanz has a high-resolution photo of the Darwin Hangar Photo he should make it available to anyone he wants to convince .…
We’re doing all we can to find out as much as possible about the artifact and the patch.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified that’s okay but we’re not going to take Bob Lanz’s word for it.  I invite him to share his photo.  He says it's a 214 MB file.  That's easily transmittable via Dropbox or several other systems.

Ric – I fear that perhaps my request above was inadvertently overlooked, coming as it did just before a rapid fire string of new posts.  For all of the reasons that you cite why Bob should share his hi res photo, I am hoping that you will post your higher resolution (larger file size) photos of "23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior."  I would think that something about a 4 MB size or so (each) could just be posted here on the forum and would probably suffice.  Thank you.

Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Craig Romig on January 15, 2015, 02:11:07 AM
Please post a link to the darwin photo that is deing discussed. Any size.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on January 15, 2015, 04:28:46 AM
I have a question regarding the fabrication of the patch and to some folks suggesting that there are no rivets across it.....is it even likely that a aircraft technician would fab this patch without additional stiffeners installed ??

It just doesn't seem logical to have that much un-supported skin on the side of the plane.
 
I know it is possible that it was fabbed that way, but whoever ordered the patch installed and whoever fabbed it, approved it, etc...had to know the importance of it staying in place and being structurally sound was quite important to the continuation and completion of the ATW flight.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 15, 2015, 05:45:05 AM
Please post a link to the darwin photo that is deing discussed. Any size.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2015, 06:21:51 AM
Look....it is abundantly clear that some Forum members will not accept anybody's expert opinion. They want to put their own finger in the wounds.  If we get a hi-res copy of the Darwin Hangar photo and no rivets are visible to we lowly laypersons AND if Jeff Glickman agrees that there are no rivet lines there THEN we will agree that 2-2-V-1 has been disqualified.  If Glickman sees rivet lines we will spend money on an independent expert if we can raise the money (and it will cost more than a couple hundred bucks).  If the expert agrees with Glickman some Forum members will still not be satisfied.  So be it.

I say again, as I've said all along, I have no problem with 2-2-V-1 being disqualified if it can be legitimately disqualified.

Who cares about those who refuse to accept abundant proof (either way)?  Some never get it - agreed, but why play games to get them aboard.

I don't see the point of Glickman except for TIGHAR's own satisfaction.  No disrespect, but if you want 2-2-V-1 in the clear (either way), independent is the way to go.  Sorry, but you're too close to Glickman for my comfort - not that it is intentional, but it can be a bit too optimisitic at times in my view.  Just being honest, however brutal.  At the very least some large assertions have been made about 2-2-V-1, and that requires a large amount of proof: unfettered objectivity is required in my view, for what it is worth.

I am well aware that this will cost more than a couple of hundred bucks - don't insult me.  That was 'seed', which frankly I could do without spending at the moment - but will if this happens.  You have a lot of stir here over this thing - if people want real truth, they need to pony up too (as Monty has pointed out time and again about what we do).  Bob would be crazy in my opinion to just turn this thing over to you and Jeff Glickman for the reasons I cite above - I surely wouldn't do it.  Again, that's not to attack you, it's just to put it into the most objective perspective possible - to me that would have to be the standard.

I am not happy about the possible disqualification (or my existing doubts) - this was a very exciting artifact.  But like you, truth counts the most and the 'process' here is either valid or not.  I pray it will be demonstrated fully that the first case stands - valid, above all else (agreeing with Mark Appel in this).

Respectfully -
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2015, 06:26:04 AM
I'll be quietly disappointed, but if 2-2-V-1 is disqualified it only proves the legitimacy of TIGHAR's processes. And, the bonus is that it would create yet another mystery:)

Think of it this way. We will never be sure that 2-2-V-1 is from NR16020 unless we find the rest of NR16020 intact and can fit it back in place like a jigsaw puzzle piece - not likely to happen.  We might, however, find something that would let us be sure it is NOT from NR16020 in which case we could stop worrying about the damn thing - except, as you say, it would create another mystery.

Whoa...

What are we going out to Niku for if not to find the carcass of NR16020???  If it's there, there should be a fair shot at finding enough of it to validate this 'fit' or not.

I DO agree that finding the wreck is a longshot.

As to finding out if it's not of NR16020 by other means, not crazy about that - but let chips fall where they may: it's our 'process' as we've said.  I don't care about the remaining 'mystery' if it is proven to be not of NR16020 anymore than I care about what B-24 the bookcase came from, nor should anyone else, rationally.  We're not 'random junk' conservators, we're supposed to be 'historic aircraft' finders and conservators, I think.

Respectfully,
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2015, 06:42:42 AM
I have a question regarding the fabrication of the patch and to some folks suggesting that there are no rivets across it.....is it even likely that a aircraft technician would fab this patch without additional stiffeners installed ??

It just doesn't seem logical to have that much un-supported skin on the side of the plane.
 
I know it is possible that it was fabbed that way, but whoever ordered the patch installed and whoever fabbed it, approved it, etc...had to know the importance of it staying in place and being structurally sound was quite important to the continuation and completion of the ATW flight.

My thought is we have already beat all this to death in this string - and I have stuck my own neck out with conjecture about it.  I "wouldn't" put that cover on without some bracing, but I wasn't there. 

It is entirely possible that it was installed that way (without intermediate bracing) in that it could have been, in my opinion, simply regarded as a weather cover for the opening, a means of simply closing off the window. 

Despite all the conjecture about structural deficiencies due to this 'large window', I don't buy that: the window lies in a fairly neutral plane along the side of the fuselage - the major bending forces are absorbed by compression in the upper skins and tension in the lower in this construction.  We see normal windows with no extraordinary bracing around them along the sides of other L10s.  In Earharts case, one additional skin lap and its accompanying stiffener were interrupted in addition to the mid-window stiffener that is normally interrupted for the other windows, that is all.  It may be considered that the window coaming itself could well offer enough material and stiffening effect to offset that fairly minor loss.  To refer to that cut-out as 'taking out a major stringer' is wrong, in my view.

So you have my further conjecture on the thing, for what it is worth.

End of my conjecture on 2-2-V-1 now, because -

Now we have the 'better picture' we've always said we needed. 

Bob Lanz is a very smart guy with a lot of technical and even medical experience (was a Vietnam war trained combat 'Devil Doc' in USMC), knows how to research and happens to be outstanding with graphics work as well, IMO.  He was in that business for years and has outstanding software and equipment, apparently.  Elgen Long apparently held the golden photo - I guess that was how he got the picture into his book (but obviously not as good a quality - the 'WIX' posted picture is outstanding itself). 

Bob has actually done us a favor, however distasteful the outcome might be.  He probably hates me for butting into this in this forum as it is... but why not reach out to him and cut to the chase?  We can't demand it of him - he can do as he pleases with it.  Maybe he'd consider the third party, maybe not - he's in the driver's seat on this version of the photo, like it or not.  I just think we ought to offer it.  Personally, from the 'middle', I can't see less than a third party (disinterested) effort. 

I hate to admit it, but I'm personally afraid Bob's right, he's no fool about studying this kind of material - and as I look I don't see bracing fasteners.  Nor it happens does my personal expert, but that's my business and holds no sway here, I understand.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Patrick Dickson on January 15, 2015, 08:00:17 AM
good points Jeff, I appreciate the response.
 
Basically, the patch was just doing (structurally speaking) the same thing that the window did....just riding around.
No real need to brace it then (at least for now).
 
Hopefully the ramp pic will reveal the answer.
 
Pat
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 08:08:05 AM
For all of the reasons that you cite why Bob should share his hi res photo, I am hoping that you will post your higher resolution (larger file size) photos of "23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior."  I would think that something about a 4 MB size or so (each) could just be posted here on the forum and would probably suffice.  Thank you.

For all of the reasons that you cite why Bob should share his hi res photo, I am hoping that you will post your higher resolution (larger file size) photos of "23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior."  I would think that something about a 4 MB size or so (each) could just be posted here on the forum and would probably suffice.  Thank you.

I agree, but Forum software won't allow a 4 MB file.  "“25_artifactexterior."” is attached as a 3.3 MB file.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 08:12:35 AM
"23 artifactinteriorwall" attached as a 2.6 MB file

I hope you find these adequate for your purposes.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on January 15, 2015, 08:17:38 AM
I should think that if the carcass of NR16020 is found then 2-2-V-1 would be all but irrelevant. Afterall, IT wasn't what took TIGHAR to Niku in the first place.


I know this may be a stupid question, but what are the chances of the patch having been installed and used (flown with) rivet holes and all, without the stiffeners? What would the effect be of flying with a panel that had un-filled rivet holes? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 08:50:32 AM
All this blather about how TIGHAR should take the high road is frankly insulting.  There is no high road.  There is only good scientific investigative procedure.  We have always striven to maintain that standard.  That's the only road there is.  We have, on many occasions, disqualified artifacts that once looked promising - the navigator's bookcase is a good example - but WE did that, not our critics.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified WE'LL do it, not our critics. 
We frequently use disinterested third parties to check our findings - the State Dept. photo analysts checked Jeff Glickman's findings on the Bevington Object and five MIT professors checked our findings on 2-2-V-1.  We're currently working with Lehigh Testing Laboratories on metallurgical analyses of artifacts we've found on Nikumaroro compared to known Lockheed Electra and WWII metal.  We'll report those results when they're complete.

We have always said that the Earhart Project is a vehicle for exploring and demonstrating how we go about figuring out what is true.  It's a learning process and 2-2-V-1 is a prime example.  Much about the artifact appears to match the patch and no one has offered a serious alternative explanation for its presence on an island where so much other evidence suggests Earhart ended up - but if there is proof that the artifact cannot be the patch, so be it.

If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2015, 08:53:15 AM
I should think that if the carcass of NR16020 is found then 2-2-V-1 would be all but irrelevant. Afterall, IT wasn't what took TIGHAR to Niku in the first place.


I know this may be a stupid question, but what are the chances of the patch having been installed and used (flown with) rivet holes and all, without the stiffeners? What would the effect be of flying with a panel that had un-filled rivet holes? 

You're right, of course, Tim.  Finding the carcass would render all other pursuits to footnote status.

I am afraid it is also the only true solution - the public will never buy in without the wreck - or some clearly identifiable portion thereof, being found.  If you found Earhart's skeleton with a picture locket around its neck and a bottle with a note in it next to her on Niku, there would be some that would say the Japanese fetched her from her sinking plane and dumped her there, a thousand miles from where she ditched...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2015, 09:00:05 AM
All this blather about how TIGHAR should take the high road is frankly insulting.  There is no high road.  There is only good scientific investigative procedure.  We have always striven to maintain that standard.  That's the only road there is.  We have, on many occasions, disqualified artifacts that once looked promising - the navigator's bookcase is a good example - but WE did that, not our critics.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified WE'LL do it, not our critics. 
We frequently use disinterested third parties to check our findings - the State Dept. photo analysts checked Jeff Glickman's findings on the Bevington Object and five MIT professors checked our findings on 2-2-V-1.  We're currently working with Lehigh Testing Laboratories on metallurgical analyses of artifacts we've found on Nikumaroro compared to known Lockheed Electra and WWII metal.  We'll report those results when they're complete.

We have always said that the Earhart Project is a vehicle for exploring and demonstrating how we go about figuring out what is true.  It's a learning process and 2-2-V-1 is a prime example.  Much about the artifact appears to match the patch and no one has offered a serious alternative explanation for its presence on an island where so much other evidence suggests Earhart ended up - but if there is proof that the artifact cannot be the patch, so be it.

If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.

Then offer to use the third party and that we all wait for the third party's own report as a matter of SOP.

I don't think Bob has refused to make the material public.  In fact he's given it to one very public entity - Cochrane, at Smithsonian.  He has clearly, so far, obviously restricted his willingness to pass it around.  As a thought, I don't know that you can really know his intent without talking to him, if you want TIGHAR to have access to it.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on January 15, 2015, 09:10:47 AM
Here are the photos Bob Lanz posted on the WIX Forum, low resolution copies of the high resolution photos he apparently has.

Andrew
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 15, 2015, 11:07:44 AM
I’m not finding the argument that rivets aren’t visible on the patch in the Bob Lanz photo and therefore they are not there to be convincing when I cannot see a rivet row right next to the patch that we know is there.
I think it is simply that the single rows of rivets, without edges, are harder to see in that area of the fuselage.
 Again the patch artifact has single rows.

I still would like to see the best image available from Bob.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 15, 2015, 11:42:23 AM
I hope you find these adequate for your purposes.

Muy amable.  Muchas gracias. 

Diego
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on January 15, 2015, 11:42:39 AM
Greg,

I agree 100%.  Until we get a photograph of sufficient detail and resolution to show what is KNOWN to be there in the vicinity of the window cover, it is impossible to say with any certainty what ISN'T there.

If others say they have a photograph of sufficient resolution to show both what is and is not present, then it behooves them to put it out there for  examination and comment by all interested parties. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 15, 2015, 11:57:40 AM
You're wasting your time, Greg, you need the better quality photo.  You'll also find more of what you speak of in the Hangar photo.  But then we're amateurs anyway - this one is for the pros.  And I don't say that out of rancor, it's simply true: Bob Lanz himself made that point.

---

Ric,

Apparently you talked to Bob - I'm glad.  I'm disappointed that you couldn't come to terms, however -

Quote from: EagleFlight
Quote
If anybody needs a lecture about the scientific process it's who people claim to have important source material but refuse to make it public.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35838.html#msg35838

Allow me to make this perfectly clear.  If Mr. Gillespie is talking about me in the above quote, I have not refused to make the photo public; because he nor anyone else has asked me to.  I have offered to Mr. Gillespie that we select a third party who he nor I have any influence over, to examine the Darwin Hangar photo, and no one else pending the report from the selected expert.  It is Mr. Gillespie's contention that in the interest of fairness I make the photo available to everyone.  That in my opinion would open up a Pandora's Box for those who are not capable to analyze the photo in a proper scientific way or with the right equipment to do so.

I am not being obstinate, I am being cautious as to who has the photo and that it be analyzed by someone who has the credentials to do it properly.  This is no reflection on anyone in particular and, that said,  I do not believe an in house expert of TIGHAR's or myself for that matter should be the one allowed to analyze the photo until the third party is finished and have reported their findings.  I will then be happy to give everyone access to my Dropbox to retrieve the photo for their own perusal.

This plan was rejected by Mr. Gillespie this morning.  So for now, The Darwin Hangar Photo is in limbo and safely tucked away on a thumb drive, next to a pair of my prized possessions.  Don't let your mind wander too far on that one folks.

Respectfully,

Bob Lanz

It may be democratically noble to want this released to all of us, but I recall TIGHAR herself taking care to restrict releases in the past of similar photographic materials -

The Cook Photo (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1202.msg25019.html#msg25019) was one case - the owners had to be consulted for permission. 

The NZ photos (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1222.msg26381.html#msg26381) was another such case - and some of us paid $125 for the then newly created 'Researcher' level membership to get access, and were sequestered to the EPAC forum for any discussion of same until such time as you saw fit to release the material more widely.  Lower resolution versions were available to rank and file, higher 'tif' to researchers.

I believe 'Bevington Photo' had some similar restrictions as well - and we certainly were not privvy to the level of detail you and Jeff Glickman had until you, Glickman and U.S. State had done your analysis as I remember.  I belive it was unveiled in Washington D.C. at the State Department event, and then at the symposium in June 2012.

Further, none of us are 'expert' photogrammetry people, we're 'amateurs' -

So it seems this decision is contrary to TIGHAR's own demonstrated standard for handling releases of such material when a qualified review is desireable before general release.  In this case, I believe it would be an ordinary protocol to restrict it to the 'third, qualified party' until a report is made: this to avoid spinning by amateurs and tainting perceptions, etc.

Not to 'insult', but we either live to a scientific standard or we don't.  If we do, I don't see the problem with Bob's terms as he's now stated them on WIX.  Why don't we drop the arguments and cut to the chase - take Bob's terms and put this in the hands of someone who can give us a clearly impartial report.  That seems more like sound science to me.

I have to say - this pursuit of 2-2-V-1 has given me the closest look I've had to date of how TIGHAR operates.  Like many organizations, much I admire; other things leave me cold.  Frankly, if we can't step up to this condition then I don't think we can truly say that we're putting science ahead of public appeal / promotion.  Doubly true since we've imposed the same standard ourselves for similar reasons of science and integrity in the past.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 01:54:42 PM
This is a tempest in a teapot. Bob Lanz phoned me and we discussed the photo.  He said he would release it to me and a disinterested third party expert but that he did not want Jeff Glickman "within ten feet of it."  Mr. Lanz has a low opinion of Jeff Glickman's expertise and a high opinion of his own.  If the hi-res version of the photo is ever going to be released publicly - as I think we would all insist - I don't know how I can agree to his condition that Jeff Glickman never see it. 

I see other problems with Lanz's proposed deal. Who chooses the disinterested third party expert and what criteria must he/she meet to qualify as an expert in photogrammetry?  Should they be board certified (as Glickman is)? Should they have certification and experience as an expert witness in litigation (as Glickman has)?  I couldn't agree to an expert with lesser qualifications than the one we already have.  Let's say we find a qualified expert and he/she looks at the photo and says, "No rivets."  Do we not give Glickman a chance to agree or rebut?

I'm not going to quibble with Jeff Neville over what we've done in the past nor will I respond to his offensive innuendo about how TIGHAR operates.   I understand that there are those - Tim Mellon among them - who disagree with Jeff Glickman's findings and feel that he is "too close" to TIGHAR to be objective.  I'm not saying that Jeff Glickman is always right but I've worked with Jeff for 20 years and I know him to be honest and diligent in his pursuit of accurate photo interpretation. Where we can, his findings have been "ground truthed" to be true.   I see no rational reason why Glickman should not be allowed to give us his own interpretation of the photo. I'm willing to try to seek out a second expert with equal or better credentials to look at the photo before it is released publicly. Perhaps the two experts will agree.  Perhaps not.  What do we have to fear? But I won't cut a deal that I can't live up to.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on January 15, 2015, 02:25:09 PM

I see other problems with Lanz's proposed deal. Who chooses the disinterested third party expert and what criteria must he/she meet to qualify as an expert in photogrammetry?  Should they be board certified (as Glickman is)? Should they have certification and experience as an expert witness in litigation (as Glickman has)?

Surely the appropriate management body of the professional association should have a list of suitably qualified experts who can be chosen from?  Why not choose three or throw it open to other international bodies.

I'm sure if TIGHARS view prevailed the other side would then be free to open the photo up to their own chosen professionals.

Sure this is far to simplistic a view but works as an idea for me.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 15, 2015, 02:30:40 PM
I'm not going to quibble with Jeff Neville over what we've done in the past nor will I respond to his offensive innuendo about how TIGHAR operates.

I find it hard to endorse a view of science which says, "No one on an investigative team can be objective.  All experiments must be conducted by a third party."

That's not how scientists work.

They have their labs and their co-workers.

When they think they have a discovery, they publish the results of the work that they did in their lab with their co-workers.

Then other folks get to review the data, method, insights, and claims.

I've known Jeff through TIGHAR for eleven years.  I've broken bread with him at EPAC meetings.  I think he is a very honest man and a diligent worker.  We are privileged to have had the benefit of his expertise for these many years.  More power to him!
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 04:38:42 PM
I've known Jeff through TIGHAR for eleven years.  I've broken bread with him at EPAC meetings.  I think he is a very honest man and a diligent worker.  We are privileged to have had the benefit of his expertise for these many years.  More power to him!

To my knowledge, neither Jeff Neville (who says Glickman is a great guy) or Bob Lanz (who says Glickman does terrible work) has ever met Jeff Glickman.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 04:42:39 PM
I apparently misunderstood Mr. Lanz.  In response to my post on the Forum, he has posted to the WIX group:

"I am sorry, Mr. Gillespie has selective hearing. Let me say this again clearly. I will not give Richard E. Gillespie nor Jeff Glickman access to the photo. I will give access to an accredited forensic photographic analyst that Mr. Gillespie and I can agree on. So if you are so rigid as to Jeff Glickman and yourself seeing the picture in advance, then there is no more to talk about . And I don't care what you think "we would all insist"! The ball is in your court for a fair and unbiased analysis. Either put up Mr. Gillespie, or shut up! NOW, is that clear enough?"

Yes, it's clear enough.  Does anyone out there think we should have dealings with this person?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on January 15, 2015, 05:16:16 PM
So I take it he wants an "accredited forensic photographic analyst" of HIS choosing, since he doesn't trust the one that you've been working with.  Why are people who are so confident in their "science" always so afraid to have someone else review it?  One thing I've always appreciated about TIGHAR is it's willingness, even enthusiasm, for honest peer review of its theories and findings.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 05:28:55 PM
So I take it he wants an "accredited forensic photographic analyst" of HIS choosing, since he doesn't trust the one that you've been working with.

He doesn't actually say that.  He says he wants "an accredited forensic photographic analyst that Mr. Gillespie and I can agree on."  Given his emotional, belligerent approach to the subject, I think the chances of us agreeing on anything are pretty slim.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on January 15, 2015, 05:47:33 PM
That's just it, Ric.  From his tone, when he says someone you and he can agree on, he's really not interested in your approval, only his own.  It's a sad commentary on his objectivity and scientific integrity.  With that kind of atmosphere, I can't imagine any forum he's in charge of, or even a part of, producing much that's scientifically credible.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 15, 2015, 05:59:50 PM
To my knowledge, neither Jeff Neville (who says Glickman is a great guy) or Bob Lanz (who says Glickman does terrible work) has ever met Jeff Glickman.

Jeff Neville was in Philadelphia for the weekend conference a few years ago where Jeff Glickman did the presentation on the Bevington Object.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 15, 2015, 06:01:08 PM
Oh, what the heck. To quote Monty Python, "I've had worse."

I'm in. What do we have to lose? If Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Lanz can agree on an expert, all Mr. Lanz has to agree to do is pay 50 percent of the cost, if it's not done gratis. TIGHAR's half is covered.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who is thinking seriously about getting onto the cart,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 06:01:45 PM
Jeff Neville was in Philadelphia for the weekend conference a few years ago where Jeff Glickman did the presentation on the Bevington Object.

Ahh yes.  Thanks. I had forgotten about that.  He's right of course.  Glickman is a great guy.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 15, 2015, 06:06:46 PM
TIGHAR's half is covered.

Thanks Monty.  Your generosity is exceeded only by your optimism.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Craig Romig on January 15, 2015, 07:15:24 PM
Please post a link to the darwin photo that is deing discussed. Any size.

  • Here is how to search TIGHAR's website (http://tighar.org/info/) for your self.
  • Here is how to provide a link to a web resource (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) (page, video, image, e-mail address, etc.).
  • Here is the link you asked for (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284).

Thanl u marty. I did try searching but kept coming up with only text results.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on January 16, 2015, 01:46:26 AM
OK why wait for Bob L and TIGHAR to come to some mutal agreement when surely all TIGHAR has to do is the same as Bob L and ask Elgin Long for a copy (or is that bridge burnt?).

Then TIGHAR have their analysis, Bob L has his.  Possibly both agree but more likly they don't then its down to each side to prove that they are right.  One way would be then to send both sets of analysis to a third (or even fourth/fifth) neutral party.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 16, 2015, 05:47:16 AM
One way would be then to send both sets of analysis to a third (or even fourth/fifth) neutral party.

When one publishes research, the work is available to all for "peer review."

Here is an unassailable truth, one with which you cannot rationally disagree: "People disagree."

Photo analysts are people.

They often disagree.

Such is life in the real world.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Chris Johnson on January 16, 2015, 06:04:15 AM
Then get a copy from Elgin Long, let Mr Glickman do his stuff, publish and be damned!

Is this too simple? Because what I think your saying is people will disagree on any and all analysis.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on January 16, 2015, 06:49:57 AM
Here's a thought - move on as though the photo doesn't exist (which, at this point, it looks like it pretty much doesn't for TIGHAR) and let the opposition do their own analysis and present their findings if refuting TIGHAR's hypothesis is so important to them. Surely there are other things to pursue? Work with what ya got until ya get more.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 16, 2015, 07:53:02 AM
Then get a copy from Elgin Long, let Mr Glickman do his stuff, publish and be damned!

Yes, that is what I would recommend.

Quote
Is this too simple? Because what I think you're saying is people will disagree on any and all analysis.

Not necessarily on "all."  But disagreement already exists very strongly in this case.  Who is the Master Analyst whose judgment will silence all objections?  Even setting standards for the meaning of "neutral" is something about which people are likely to disagree.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 16, 2015, 08:14:33 AM
OK why wait for Bob L and TIGHAR to come to some mutal agreement when surely all TIGHAR has to do is the same as Bob L and ask Elgin Long for a copy (or is that bridge burnt?).

There was never a bridge to burn.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 16, 2015, 08:30:41 AM
I've known Jeff through TIGHAR for eleven years.  I've broken bread with him at EPAC meetings.  I think he is a very honest man and a diligent worker.  We are privileged to have had the benefit of his expertise for these many years.  More power to him!

To my knowledge, neither Jeff Neville (who says Glickman is a great guy) or Bob Lanz (who says Glickman does terrible work) has ever met Jeff Glickman.

I met Jeff Glickman and sat and talked with him and Marty at the Earhart Symposium at Washington D.C. June 2012.

I think Jeff is a great guy. 

Since you've implied a lukewarm endorsement on my part, I will elaborate:

I think he has talent and ability.  While I admire much that he has done, I was frankly disappointed in the level of technical presentation of the Bevington Object and felt that Jeff's "2D" overlay of graphics to illustrate the components and positional relationships was, frankly, poor for a man with such highly promoted skills.  It did not do justice to what may be in that photo.  Where was the "3D" model that someone of his standing should be able to provide?  That's not to take away from his base abilities as a photogrammetry technician, or his sincerity, but it does suggest a man of very limited resources when it comes to this level of pursuit.

Then comes the hyper spectral imaging effort.  At first I wasn't sure this would benefit us on 2-2-V-1, but at Dayton I had come to believe it was warranted.  As that developed, however, questions arose in my mind that I never voiced here but watched for answers for.  When it emerged that Glickman was to have his inaugural experience with this discipline in your home over a bief period of time, my confidence plummeted.  Why would this great guy, a sincere professional, subject himself to a first-time experience under such constraint and allow you to run with the results as you did?  He's a nice guy, but I find that effort wanting and it does not give me confidence in what you two do together. 

Then emerged your own use of some color images - of Glickman or not I cannot tell (but you are an amateur at photo work like myself, so apparently by Glickman) to dramatize what you pressed as being 'landing damage' at Miami.  This to suggest reasons for the 'patch'.  More of that emerged later under a gauze of 'Glickman and I' as you got aboard with 'deformations' in the 'patch' (after criticizing another poster for putting up a graphic that resembled a voting district map in Kansas).  Contour mapping and matching was then coming into play, now fizzled, mercifully.  Brainstorming is great, but using that kind of leading effort to support a hypothesis such as contour matching is highly promotional, and it's a bit concerning that Glickman allows his efforts to be used that way.  That's not to criticize him personally so much as to simply note that you, Ric, are not the scientist in this exercise, but the promoter - but you tend to blend the two.  That doesn't rob Glickman of his abilities, but it necessarily does cast him as an arm of the promotional organ of TIGHAR.

Promotion has its place, no bucks, no Buck Rogers.  You are an aggressive promoter, bravo - without that there would be no TIGHAR.  TIGHAR has much good about her, but the promotional aspects, in my view, sometimes overrun the science we claim to hold first.  Glickman is a great guy, but my belief is that he is not the go to guy when this sort of objectivity is clearly needed: if we are to pursue this Darwin Photo under the circumstances at hand, we need oversight that is blind to Glickman, Gillespie and Lanz.  Even Lanz has admitted that.

You know as well as I that there are professionals of Glickman's caliber or higher who can do this and who can be vetted and agreed to.  If properly approached, the price might even be quite favorable as this might find empathy as a historic pursuit.

Do I agree that Glickman should never be allowed within 10 feet of 2-2-V-1?  No, I don't - not any more than I would agree with some of the bannings you've laid on a few folks instead of simply contending with them in open deDebate.  But I am not surprised at some of the reactions Glickman gets at times - any more than your own frustrations with the more vexatious trolls at times.  But why oh why did a serious practitioner like Glickman ever allow himself to somehow become associated with the pursuit of Bigfoot for God's sake?  I thought that was a joke until I saw it had truly happened.  I can 'get' the clinical view - that he was providing a 'service', but it is not a fortunate association in the eyes of some.  That's not a swipe - it's just an observation of an unfortunate background issue that suggests a practitioner who may have at least one eye planted firmly on that which is more promotional than scientific at times.  Well damn, most of us have things in our past we could live without.

Is a professional review truly necessary?  Not for my satisfaction.  I've seen the photo and believe any lay person can discern the slick skin and rivets in adjacent skins.  But I am an amateur, no one should take my word - and I respect the concern that these things tend to get a lot of amateur churn if released before serious professional view is complete.  In a court it would amount to how the jury pool is treated.

So I hope this is abundantly free of innuendo, as you felt I used before.  And I truly appreciate your allowing me to engage so frankly - it is to yours and TIGHAR's great credit to have done so.  Bottom line, whatever I do here I have a better TIGHAR in mind, Ric.  Much has been done better than the critics admit.  But there are times when we should step up. 

The Bully Pulpit is a life reality, too, but be careful not to be a bully if you'd take it.  We should have enough faith in the base theory of a Gardner arrival that a given share of aluminum would hardly matter if proven wrong, in my view.  The churn I see here in the past couple of days doesn't have much science or faith in it, but much defensiveness. 

Why not turn the wick down and consider whether you even care enough about this artifact at this point to deal with Bob or not; if you do, then consider just getting to the humble basics.  Maybe in there somewhere some goodwill can emerge and everybody can cut some personal slack and allow the science to go forward.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 16, 2015, 08:32:29 AM
Who is the Master Analyst whose judgment will silence all objections?  Even setting standards for the meaning of "neutral" is something about which people are likely to disagree.

I think we're coming around to the realization that absent an "any idiot photograph" the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is or is not the Miami Patch will not be settled by photographic interpretation.  Whether Elgen Long's Darwin Hangar photo is an "any idiot photo" is, of course, unknown until somebody presents it for inspection by all of us idiots. 

Long is not likely to do that.  Remember, he's the one who kept the CalTech study secret, releasing it only to investors in the for-profit deep water searches. (When it finally became public it was transparently GIGO). Colin Cobb's for-profit Stratus Project is doing the same thing.  He and Gary LaPook have figured out where the airplane is - but they ain't sayin'.

Compare and contrast with TIGHAR and our public release of exactly where we're going to search and why.

I agree with Tim Collins.  If the hi-res Darwin Hangar photo is not publicly available it effectively doesn't exist and we should move on.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 16, 2015, 08:44:22 AM
Since you've implied a lukewarm endorsement on my part, I will elaborate:

I wish I had time to correct multitude of errors and misimpressions in your indictment of Glickman, but I don't and besides - it would appear defensive.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 16, 2015, 08:48:22 AM
Who is the Master Analyst whose judgment will silence all objections?  Even setting standards for the meaning of "neutral" is something about which people are likely to disagree.

I think we're coming around to the realization that absent an "any idiot photograph" the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is or is not the Miami Patch will not be settled by photographic interpretation.  Whether Elgen Long's Darwin Hangar photo is an "any idiot photo" is, of course, unknown until somebody presents it for inspection by all of us idiots. 

Long is not likely to do that.  Remember, he's the one who kept the CalTech study secret, releasing it only to investors in the for-profit deep water searches. (When it finally became public it was transparently GIGO). Colin Cobb's for-profit Stratus Project is doing the same thing.  He and Gary LaPook have figured out where the airplane is - but they ain't sayin'.

Compare and contrast with TIGHAR and our public release of exactly where we're going to search and why.

I agree with Tim Collins.  If the hi-res Darwin Hangar photo is not publicly available it effectively doesn't exist and we should move on.
Not a bad summary, Ric.  As I said above, if we have faith in the base theory of a landing at Gardner, one shard of aluminum doesn't matter.  It is a shame that a very fine photo  -  and I believe it to be the best we're likely to find - might slip away, but so be it if it is not to be.

Long, Cobb and LaPook, and Gillespie and others all have their ideas.  Each should promote and search with all the professional vigor they can muster and let the chips fall as they will.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 16, 2015, 09:04:48 AM
Long, Cobb and LaPook, and Gillespie and others all have their ideas.

You're making the same mistake that Smithsonian made.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 16, 2015, 09:21:32 AM
Long, Cobb and LaPook, and Gillespie and others all have their ideas.

You're making the same mistake that Smithsonian made.

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Mark Appel on January 16, 2015, 10:35:37 AM
Lots of history. Divergent opinions. Difficult conversions conducted civilly. In an open forum. Tough stuff under any circumstances.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 16, 2015, 10:59:40 AM
Since you've implied a lukewarm endorsement on my part, I will elaborate:

I wish I had time to correct multitude of errors and misimpressions in your indictment of Glickman, but I don't and besides - it would appear defensive.

Please do so. Until you do, your statement amounts to a defensive and unsubstantiated implied indictment of my opinions.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 16, 2015, 11:17:37 AM
Despite all the conjecture about structural deficiencies due to this 'large window', I don't buy that: the window lies in a fairly neutral plane along the side of the fuselage - the major bending forces are absorbed by compression in the upper skins and tension in the lower in this construction.  We see normal windows with no extraordinary bracing around them along the sides of other L10s.  In Earharts case, one additional skin lap and its accompanying stiffener were interrupted in addition to the mid-window stiffener that is normally interrupted for the other windows, that is all.  It may be considered that the window coaming itself could well offer enough material and stiffening effect to offset that fairly minor loss.  To refer to that cut-out as 'taking out a major stringer' is wrong, in my view.

So you have my further conjecture on the thing
In regards to the possibility that the added opening in the fuselage for the Lav. window is an area of weakness:
Consider the fuselage a beam that spans between the landing gear in a 3 point/ stall landing.
The most deflection in a uniformly loaded beam of consistent depth is L/2(the middle of the beam), If the beam is tapered (like a fuselage) the area of most deflection, would likely move aft where the depth of the beam is less.  We don’t know what structure or reinforcing may have been added but based on these general principles alone, it seems to me the added window was placed where a lot of deflection can be expected in a hard 3 point/ stall landing.

In regards to the added Lav window being compared to the standard window:
It is not only that an additional stringer was cut for the lav. window. Please also consider where the lav. window was located horizontally in fuselage. It is in the area where the depth if the "beam" is less than any of the other windows. As a percentage the hole in the “beam”(fuselage), the Lav window is about 31% of the depth. The nearest standard window only takes up about 20% of the depth.  Also consider where the window was placed vertically in the fuselage. It is closer to the top than the standard windows. In comparison to the standard windows this is not the same proportions and leaves less area to resist compression. This compression is in an area where a lot of deflection might be expected in a hard landing which happend shortly before the work was done.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on January 16, 2015, 11:33:42 AM
And the door wouldn't have posed a similar risk to begin with? Or was that compensated for in the original design?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 16, 2015, 11:44:22 AM
And the door wouldn't have posed a similar risk to begin with? Or was that compensated for in the original design?
In my opinion yes to both parts of your question. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 16, 2015, 11:59:28 AM
In any case I submit that we lack adequate knowledge to criticize the window installation as inadequate.  I further submit that we lack evidence to support that the covering was needed as a reinforcement feature.

All of which means that we may lack a rational reason for supposing much about the nature of bracing, etc. except as to how we believe it reasonable to stiffen such a panel, were we to install it.  We also must realize that we were not there to supervise.  And, as inadvisable as it may be as a practice, we also have to accept that we may have a case of no such bracing having been installed in this instance.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 16, 2015, 12:50:17 PM
In any case I submit that we lack adequate knowledge to criticize the window installation as inadequate.  I further submit that we lack evidence to support that the covering was needed as a reinforcement feature.

All of which means that we may lack a rational reason for supposing much about the nature of bracing, etc. except as to how we believe it reasonable to stiffen such a panel, were we to install it.  We also must realize that we were not there to supervise.  And, as inadvisable as it may be as a practice, we also have to accept that we may have a case of no such bracing having been installed in this instance.
I submit we lack adequate knowledge to claim the patch had no bracing. I see evidence of a rivet row in the Miami take off picture. Some see no evidence of rivets in any picture. I offered the contrast between new and existing skin as a possibility that the patch is washing out evidence of rivets. 

Since we don’t know why the patch/cover was done for sure, I think all possibilities should still be considered until we do know. It may help find a better picture or an answer either way. I think all questions are important. When  it was done, where it was done, who did it, why it was done are important because they are avenues for investigation. I think the "when" and "where" are resolved and "who" did it is limited to a strong candidate.

 My previous post referred to the possibility that the window was an area of weakness and pointed out some things you did not mention but to consider when comparing the standard window to the added window. I’m open to it being  a simple cover which I have no problem with. If the stringers are where they are in the artifact, I don’t think they fully fixed the structural  problem I think might have existed anyway. I do think the work done is related to the hard landing based on timing. It might be a gap that caused a leak and needed a special joint at the top, a cracked window that needed to be covered, or something else. Again, I’m considering all possibilities.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Roger London on January 16, 2015, 01:33:55 PM
Have we taken in the significance of the sharp, in focus, fingerprints on the Lanz Darwin Ramp.jpg? Are these on the negative (or another secret)?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 16, 2015, 01:36:29 PM
Have we taken in the significance of the sharp, in focus, fingerprints on the Lanz Darwin Ramp.jpg? Are these on the negative (or another secret)?

My bet is that they are human, and decades old, but no - I've not seen the negative or direct evidence of what I wager on.

Seems everybody's had their thumbs on Earhart for a while sometimes...
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on January 16, 2015, 02:00:47 PM
And the door wouldn't have posed a similar risk to begin with? Or was that compensated for in the original design?

Tim,
            Here is a skin thickness diagram,....the skin thicknesses are sited, a bit heavier surrounding and under the cabin door. In some examples, I see a large increase in skin thickness around such openings. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Tim Collins on January 16, 2015, 02:04:37 PM
Interesting, thank you.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 17, 2015, 09:23:45 AM
Leon raises some very valid points about the relative value of a particular negative. TIGHAR ran into the same thing with the newly-discovered Miami photos. Turns out the negatives the University of Miami library had were the negatives of the pictures they had taken of the original contact prints. Soooo ... if you start with crap, there's no way you're going to end up with a golden nugget at the end, Jeff Glickman's amazing talents nonwithstanding.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 17, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
I don't think you guys have a good handle on the level of knowledge and sophistication Jeff Glickman brings to photo interpretation.  I would think that it will be relatively easy for him to sort the original image from "ghost images" and fingerprints. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Frank Hajnal on January 17, 2015, 04:03:51 PM
Hopes of arranging for an agreed-upon ‘independent’ photoanalyst(s) to examine Bob Lanz’s Darwin Hangar photo seem to be fading, but all the same I would like to suggest that if Tighar and Lanz can somehow overcome their differences, that independent analyst should examine three photos: the Darwin Hangar photo, the Purdue Darwin ‘Ramp’ photo, and the Miami photo that Jeff Glickman is working on.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Frank Hajnal on January 17, 2015, 04:12:09 PM
Have we taken in the significance of the sharp, in focus, fingerprints on the Lanz Darwin Ramp.jpg? Are these on the negative (or another secret)?

What may be significant is the fingerprints are on the Purdue image as well and look like the same fingerprints. The Purdue archive notes the size of the print it scanned as 14x21 cm or about 5.5" x 8.3".

Zoom in enough on the fingerprint to estimate its size and location in relation to reference points, then enlarge the image on your computer screen to 14x21cm to see if the fingerprint is consistent with the Purdue photo print size. 
Could the fingerprints be on the Purdue image and that image be the original source of the image Bob Lanz has, or did they share the same negative?

I think Lanz started with the digital photo available from Purdue.  I see not only the fingerprint, but the same dust specks, which I think were most likely introduced when the print was made.  In his WIX post (http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=53085&start=255) Lanz speaks of obtaining the hangar photo from Elgen Long, he doesn't provide a story about the 'Ramp' photo, and my guess is that he would have said something about its origins if it was from any place besides Purdue.  But since Lanz apparently reads Tighar Forum posts and respondes to them over at WIX, he can clear this matter up, and I suspect he will.



Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 17, 2015, 04:16:34 PM
independent analyst should examine thee photos: the Darwin Hangar photo, the Purdue Darwin ‘Ramp’ photo, and the Miami photo that Jeff Glickman is working on.

In a perfect world we would have at least three credentialed photo analysts doing pro bono examinations of the three photos you mention plus every other photo of the Electra in which the patch is visible.  Alas, the Wonderful World of Earhart Research is peppered with people who lack any fundamental understanding of how science-based historical investigation works.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Frank Hajnal on January 17, 2015, 04:41:32 PM
independent analyst should examine thee photos: the Darwin Hangar photo, the Purdue Darwin ‘Ramp’ photo, and the Miami photo that Jeff Glickman is working on.

In a perfect world we would have at least three credentialed photo analysts doing pro bono examinations of the three photos you mention plus every other photo of the Electra in which the patch is visible.  Alas, the Wonderful World of Earhart Research is peppered with people who lack any fundamental understanding of how science-based historical investigation works.

I would have thought that part of any science-based historical investigation would include having funds available to analyze the things that are collected during the investigation, not just to collect them.  But what do I know, I lack your fundamental knowledge in this area ::).

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 17, 2015, 04:59:05 PM
I would have thought that part of any science-based historical investigation would include having funds available to analyze the things that are collected during the investigation, not just to collect them.  But what do I know, I lack your fundamental knowledge in this area ::).

I heartily agree!  Make your check payable to TIGHAR or donate online at http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=43
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on January 17, 2015, 05:58:52 PM
 I looked at the photo in question and didn't see the "ghost images" described. I zoomed in, however and let my imagination do its thing.  I saw an old woman, a chubby boy frowning, a dog etc.   Its difficult to say if what I am seeing is the result of overlapping negatives or an overactive imagination.  That's the problem when you don't have the negatives or original print in your hands.  As has been discussed before,  its very easy for our minds to "see" what they want to see, especially on an image that is decades old, many times reproduced and then  displayed on a computer screen.  Now that you pointed it out, I see something different every time I look at it and I suspect others might as well.  Matrixing is a curious phenomenon and it takes someone with solid experience in photo analysis to determine if a phantom image is the result of the poor storage of negatives or a "camel in the clouds."   I trust Glickmans  skills and expertise. He has a monumentally complicated job. Im fairly confident that if any of these "ghost images" were significant to the search, he would have made it known. 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 17, 2015, 07:19:10 PM
Why not offer to have it examined and analyzed by an independent professional?

I wouldn't overlook the Darwin Ramp photo version he posted either - although still from that tough-grained original, it's the clearest I've seen.  The 'patch' definition and original rivet lines are striking.

Jeff, Can you link the specific "Ramp photo version" that you referenced in this post?

Greg - I believe you are probably referring to this one: http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/393
It is the one that I believe is generally referred to as the Darwin ramp photo (as opposed to the Darwin hangar photo).  The Darwin ramp photo is in the Purude archives.  It is described on their site as:  "Amelia Earhart’s Electra plane being refueled in Darwin, Australia, before leaving for Lae, New Guinea, ca. June 1937"

If you are talking about the one Lanz posted at Warbirds, here is the link:  http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=53085&start=255

I believe it is just a duplicate of the Purdue one and not at any higher res, although I  don't know for sure about that.

Apologies if either or these is not the one you were talking about.


Diego

 

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 17, 2015, 08:07:44 PM
I don't think you guys have a good handle on the level of knowledge and sophistication Jeff Glickman brings to photo interpretation.  I would think that it will be relatively easy for him to sort the original image from "ghost images" and fingerprints.

I certainly agree that the finger prints and ghost images are child's play to Glickman and you have my empathy, I can see why you dread 'Amateur Hour' in these things.

With all due respect, I believe that may be a large part of the concern with unleashing that fine copy of the hangar photo enmasse, similar to what I recall of your concerns with the NZ photos, for one example.

Bravo for pointing out the 'perfect world panel of three' - a good standard.  I would LOVE to see that kind of investigative framework seriously promoted here if we're going to ever lean heavily on an artifact as providing truly high-gravity evidence: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Thanks -
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on January 17, 2015, 09:08:20 PM
I've seen the photo and believe any lay person can discern the slick skin and rivets in adjacent skins. 

Frankly, and with all due respect, this lay person can't discern what these photos on Warbirds do or do not show in the way of rivets.  The camera is simply too far away for me to see it.

The quality of the photos seems typical for their vintage, no better.

In any event, I never felt the photographic analysis of 2-2-V-1 was the strongest part of the case.  That distinction belonged, in my opinion, to the analysis of expected thickness (.032") by Aris Scarla, and the metallurgical analysis by Dr. Thomas Eagar.

That said, I think the warbirds, in the words of HAL 9000, need to calm down and take a stress pill.

And knock off the ad hominem attacks.

FWIW, IMHO

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 17, 2015, 09:14:33 PM

I think Lanz started with the digital photo available from Purdue.  I see not only the fingerprint, but the same dust specks, which I think were most likely introduced when the print was made.  In his WIX post (http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=53085&start=255) Lanz speaks of obtaining the hangar photo from Elgen Long, he doesn't provide a story about the 'Ramp' photo, and my guess is that he would have said something about its origins if it was from any place besides Purdue.  But since Lanz apparently reads Tighar Forum posts and respondes to them over at WIX, he can clear this matter up, and I suspect he will.

Your wish is apparently Bob's command -  he's posted at WIX. (http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=53085&p=545844#p545844)
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ted G Campbell on January 17, 2015, 10:04:38 PM
All,

Reference the “patch” and all the pictures and photo analysis that have or could take place – the proof lies in finding the main airframe and seeing if the “patch” is still in place or fits where we think it does.

Getting all wound up on “could be”, “what if” and “might be” does not add much to the investigation – it only breeds animosity among all of us that are seeking the truth.

I would rather all of us to consider “why” the patch was installed in the first place: e.g.

   -    to cover up a broken window to keep it from leaking/fluttering while airborne

-   to add privacy while on the ground – highly unlikely

-   to provide structural strength in a compromised airframe area

-   to reduce cabin heating because of  the change in (West to East) direction of  the flight on the second attempt

-   to support the installation of additional compartment structures such as shelving, book storage, hardware racks, etc.

-   to provide a heat shield for survival gear i.e. water, canned goods, etc.

Bottom line – why install a “patch” over an area that was judged as of no use in the second attempt?

Was the “patch” installed to correct an existing structural problem, a potential structural problem or a convenience for the crew?

Let’s all think along these lines.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 17, 2015, 10:05:39 PM
I've seen the photo and believe any lay person can discern the slick skin and rivets in adjacent skins. 

Frankly, and with all due respect, this lay person can't discern what these photos on Warbirds do or do not show in the way of rivets.  The camera is simply too far away for me to see it.

The quality of the photos seems typical for their vintage, no better.

In any event, I never felt the photographic analysis of 2-2-V-1 was the strongest part of the case.  That distinction belonged, in my opinion, to the analysis of expected thickness (.032") by Aris Scarla, and the metallurgical analysis by Dr. Thomas Eagar.

That said, I think the warbirds, in the words of HAL 9000, need to calm down and take a stress pill.

And knock off the ad hominem attacks.

FWIW, IMHO

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER

To each his own as to his own abilities, and as you've noted, you are a lay person.

The skin thickness was not only 'predicted' by Aris Scarla but explained by others, including myself in this forum as within the range of acceptable practice (next size thicker) according to guidance which has stood in various forms since at least Earhart's time.  That alone is a mere pointer as something that could be consistent with such a covering, and cannot be viewed as conclusive.

The metallurgical analysis by Eagar, while interesting and also possibly supportive of some interesting thoughts about what might have happened to the Electra if the artifact proved to be of that bird, also cannot itself be conclusive as to proving provenance to the Electra.

Those two points combined also cannot provide conclusive evidence as to provenance to the Electra.

As for myself, I am sorry to say that the dimensions of 2-2-V-1 and absence of forward /aft edge rivet holes finally weighed in too strongly to ignore.  In the Wichita photos, we see an artifact that is jammed against the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8, which the cover clearly did not do in the Purdue Darwin ramp photo, for one.  For another, that would necessitate the patch having to pick up STA 320 to explain the absence of rivet holes at the aft edge of the artifact - and the artifact's overall length.  It is realized that even were this true (picking up STA 320), that the aft holes wouldn't be there because the artifact, were it the patch, would have apparently been cut short of that rivet line on removal.  But then where are the forward edge holes that should be in evidence at the most forward extremities of the artifact, were it the cover?  It is amply long enough for some of the forward edge fastener holes to remain in evidence: the Wichita photo has the artifact placed such that such rivet holes should appear along the extreme forward end. 

Take this as you will, but a number of reviewers - people experienced in this type of construction, including me, have seen this.  We have considered it independently from each other and found the fitment wanting in very similar ways.  It amazes me that more don't get this, but I guess lay people who lack sheet metal construction experience really don't understand the importance of it.  I wish they would at least look at the tape measure lay out on the external Wichita shot, and the lay out of 2-2-V-1 against that skin edge at STA 293 5/8 - then at the several photos, actually, that show the patch forward edge as offset from the STA 293 5/8 skin edge - not abutting the skin edge at STA293 5/8, and get their bearings in this.  I suggest doing the math for yourself.

Our opinions simply differ as to the photos and what is discernible, and of course you've not seen the full resolution version.  The point is, rivets are discernable where we know rivets should be on the stock areas of the Electra adjacent to the window area, so if any rivets exist in the mid field of the patch, we should hope to see some trace of at least a few.  Out of the posited 4 rows that the patch would bear were 2-2-V-1 the grail, we do not see any.  The full resolution picture can only be striking, BTW, as the version we have seen certainly is better than others I've seen.

Conversely, we have been laboring with a claim that rivets are visible in the mid field of the patch in a photo of considerably less quality - the Miami photo (take your pick - on ramp or on take-off at Miami).  The assertion that rivets can be seen there seems more questionable now, but perhaps someone can elaborate as to how that is so.  I do see lines there, and have even fended off contrary arguments that they might be reflected bands of cloud or something - but now realize that it really hasn't been explained how the differentiation was made; I had taken it as a matter of confidence in the analyst.  Now, we have a better picture it seems.

This really isn't easy for me for the very reason that I was among the more vigorous defenders of rivets vs. clouds, etc. in that picture out of confidence in what we were told and what I believed I could see, but now I must admit that clouds or similar reflections are quite possibly the source.

Since you quoted a rather benign statement of mine but go on to complain about ad hominem remarks after having cited things that don't suit you about WIX, I take it you were referring to something nasty there and not my own post.  I can only suggest that you direct your complaint to the moderators in that place if you hope for traction.  In one sense, some of that is the price paid for a more open debate.  Negatives can be tuned out, however, considering that not all indulge themselves thus, and perhaps they are best ignored and not dignified by too much complaint.  In fact there are a number of honest thinkers in that place - however they may differ with some things here.  One thing about it: TIGHAR is not known for driving neutral commentary. 

Not that I would ever condone ad hominem attack, heavens no.  If one really must do that, it would be far better to simply ring the recipient's doorbell.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on January 18, 2015, 06:44:25 AM
To each his own as to his own abilities, and as you've noted, you are a lay person.

You noted that you were also a lay person.  The full quotation was "I've seen the photo and believe any lay person can discern the slick skin and rivets in adjacent skins.  But I am an amateur, no one should take my word."  I believe when you say you are an amateur, you are referring to your experience as an analyst in photogrammetry, correct?   Regarding your experience in aircraft construction, I would consider you far more advanced than an amateur, and rightly so.

 
The skin thickness was not only 'predicted' by Aris Scarla but explained by others, including myself in this forum as within the range of acceptable practice (next size thicker) according to guidance which has stood in various forms since at least Earhart's time.  That alone is a mere pointer as something that could be consistent with such a covering, and cannot be viewed as conclusive.

 ;D You will be relieved to know there's no need to explain that.  I understand we're not dealing in concluded things.  When I say something is the "strongest part of the case," I simply mean it's a good argument.  Good arguments don't always win cases; in fact, they very often lose cases.  I get this.  I wonder sometimes why the battle vulture forums don't get that I get this.   I suspect it may be they haven't had the chance to experience  Socratic method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method).

 
The metallurgical analysis by Eagar, while interesting and also possibly supportive of some interesting thoughts about what might have happened to the Electra if the artifact proved to be of that bird, also cannot itself be conclusive as to proving provenance to the Electra, with what is known today.

Agreed.  I'd like to see him someday elaborate his case even further.  I know his time is taken up by more than just this.

 
Those two points combined also cannot provide conclusive evidence as to provenance to the Electra.
The battle vulture forum does what I like to call the "straw ad hominem" attack.  Take every tentative assertion, put forth to elicit more arguments to winnow the best case, and repurpose the assertion as a statement of finality borne of ignorance and frailty of mind.  Given this environment, I can understand and sympathize with the need to make it absolutely clear, as you do, that these two points cannot provide conclusive evidence.

 
 and of course you've not seen the full resolution version.
Would you be willing to share that full resolution version at some point?  It's not entirely fair, in my opinion, to cite a source that I'm not privileged to see as evidence in an argument by which you presumably would hope for consensus.  Or, would my lack of training in aircraft engineering prevent me from understanding the photo in any case?  If so, I apologize.  If you are prevented by personal fealty from disclosing the photos, I respect that, but should the photos enter into serious consideration without an open viewing, I fear the attention given them sounds almost like special pleading.

 
Conversely, we have been laboring with a claim that rivets are visible in the mid field of the patch in a photo of less quality
Assessing the quality of a photo in a scientific sense should probably be left to the photo analysts.  Granted, you are only responding to my raising the issue of photographic quality in the first place, and I will grant I was stating a personal, not a professional opinion, in raising that issue.  We need an expert to state a professional opinion on relative quality of the photos.  Neither of us is that expert.

 
This really isn't easy for me
I understand, and can well feel a sympathetic bond with these ups and downs as you're experiencing them.  I think I could better understand what you are stating if a formal report were presented at some point, for the layman, with the photos in all their great detail, to show why those who have seen the new photos now believe 2-2-V-1 indeed cannot be the patch.

 
Since you quoted a rather benign statement of mine but go on to complain about ad hominem remarks after having cited things that don't suit you about WIX, I take it you were referring to something nasty there and not my own post.
You are correct, and I really should not have left so much room for confusion.  Such are the perils of posting before bedtime.  I'm familiar with the various remarks brought up against me and against so many others here.  I hesitate to add that even you, Jeff, have come in for a bit of ad hominem here and there on other forums.  In these and other cases, I think the best remedy is to follow your example, take them as compliments if need be, and ignore them to the extent they are untrue, and to the extent that they might be true, however small that extent may be, learn and profit from the advice.  I'm remembering a comment by Randy Pausch I heard once.  When your critics stop talking about you, that's a really bad place to be because it means they've stopped caring.  Whatever the critics say, I would never accuse them of not caring, and it's a start.  From among some of those people, common ground will emerge, and that should be, and ever must be, the focus of the pursuit.


Not that I would ever condone ad hominem attack, heavens no
Of this I have never been in doubt.  If anyone can be styled an exemplar of civil debate, it is yourself.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 18, 2015, 07:51:24 AM
I don't 'have' the full resolution copy.  It is not 'mine' to share.  I have 'seen' a fine enough version to see the stark contrast of rivets in areas adjacent to to the patch, and a patch that bears zero evidence of rivet lines, that by all logic should be as apparent as the rivets in nearby areas.

Yes I am an 'amateur' at anything to do with photo analysis.  I have a relative who is a professional.  I use him for my own edification and as a sanity check, much as Ric might use, say, Glickman.  I make no representation other than that of my own experience, such as it is - and as one who tried to champion a professional review and more openness after that I am simply interested in the full evidence being brought into focus.

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.  That includes in the case of this much and overly bandied point of independent review of this picture, to get it reviewed by an agreed third party and then gaining a report from same - and then deciding for themselves.

Same as to the Wichita evidence: look closely at the things I have cited and decide for yourself.

In sum, however, I do humbly submit that one needn't always be an expert to see the obvious in a clear photo, nor an expert in sheet metal to compare reasonble images and visible measurements to see that a thing does not fit.  They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on January 18, 2015, 08:46:15 AM
I don't 'have' the full resolution copy.  It is not 'mine' to share.  I have 'seen' a fine enough version to see the stark contrast of rivets in areas adjacent to to the patch, and a patch that bears zero evidence of rivet lines, that by all logic should be as apparent as the rivets in nearby areas.

Yes I am an 'amateur' at anything to do with photo analysis.  I have a relative who is a professional.  I use him for my own edification and as a sanity check, much as Ric might use, say, Glickman.  I make no representation other than that of my own experience, such as it is - and as one who tried to champion a professional review and more openness after that I am simply interested in the full evidence being brought into focus.

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.  That includes in the case of this much and overly bandied point of independent review of this picture, to get it reviewed by an agreed third party and then gaining a report from same - and then deciding for themselves.

Same as to the Wichita evidence: look closely at the things I have cited and decide for yourself.

In sum, however, I do humbly submit that one needn't always be an expert to see the obvious in a clear photo, nor an expert in sheet metal to compare reasonble images and visible measurements to see that a thing does not fit.  They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective.

We can agree to disagree on some minor points.  No problem there.  Is the photo you've seen the same one I'm looking at, the one on warbirds?   We should try to be clear there, I think.

I have no problem at all in having the photo analyzed by third party, but it's up to the owner of the photo to decide to do that.  TIGHAR doesn't own the photo; it would be indefensible for them to decide how to proceed anyway.  Am I missing something?  They want TIGHAR to fund their photo without the ability to see it?

If I should be availing myself of the best information possible, have I had access to that?

Why has warbirds been so emphatic that TIGHAR agree or disagree with the need for the photo's analysis by qualified persons?  If I were a warbird, I wouldn't wait for permission when it's my photo.  The photo would be in the mail to that photo analyst, even now.

They merely need to avoid the obfuscatory effects of hopeful discourse and become more brutally objective

Avoiding discourse isn't my style, Jeff.  Discourse is the incubator and marketplace of ideas.  Ideas are what drive an intellectual pursuit.  You may label my discourse as hopeful.  Perhaps it is sometimes; I'm an optimistic fellow.  I've never categorically stated anything as undisputed fact.  Of this, the critics complain.  Then they complain I've used the word "may" or "might" too much.  It's hard to please them. 

I can accept 2-2-V-1 has been fully ruled out in a heartbeat, but I would need to see the full evidence disclosed first. 

If it is ruled out, somewhere in a formal report, on the record, it should be stated exactly why.

If differences of opinion persist afterward, which is reasonable in open discourse, somewhere in a formal report, on the record, in the clear, it should be stated exactly why.

As far as the statement I do not think for myself, I would only say that defending against that is a little bit like defending one's own objectivity.  How does a reasonably intelligent person do that?  Instead, I will argue, as Socrates, and later a person I admired, James O. Freedman, said and that is that one must proceed with the attitude that is never quite so certain it is right.  Only in that is any learning at all possible.

So I'll continue learning.  Thanks for trying to educate me.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 18, 2015, 09:52:59 AM
Yes I am seeing the same version you've seen over at WIX.  There are some here at Tighar, in fact, who have remarked privately how clear that version is.

"Warbirds", I presume you mean the forum at "WIX", has no position; that entity merely hosts a broad and interesting forum on the title subject which includes side bars on vintage aircraft and sundries.  One beauty of the place as some might see it is that WIX per se has no position to guard, so discussions are rather freely expressed.  That said, it can at times resemble a saloon of the old west, so the gentleman thinker would do well to choose his drinking partners wisely and keep a thick skin - a form of self-moderation, as it were.

It isn't the 'owner' who insists on further analysis as I see it, but the owner's response to Tighar's desire to have this photo fully revealed.  I thought the terms were very reasonable, especially given Tighar's own similar treatment of a proprietary level of photo quality many times in the past, despite Ric's recent declining to consider that point as precedental.

The 'owner' simply appears to have a concern about Tighar applying some proprietary interpretations and seems to believe that it would be more appropriate to await the review and report of a third party, if Tighar insists on seeing this in full glory.  I hardly see what could be more fair, especially given Ric's noble concession to the blue ribbon perfect world idea (his own) of a blind three judge panel, so to speak.  Ric even solicited donations to support such a creature, right here in this string.  Only one such judge is asked in this case, if Tighar would like to see the results.

Should Tighar really not care that much, then fine - I don't see why she can't ignore this and move on in the strength of what she already possesses.  That's risky for reasons other than the photograph, if Tighar intends to hold fast to the veracity of 2-2-V-1 as 'the patch' at 99%, but such is life: choose your table and roll the dice, so to speak.

Nor do I shun discourse - I believe the record is long and clear on that.  But there comes a time when that which has become more than evident deserves little more discourse because there is so little new to be said.  So the topic of 2-2-V-1 seems to have become for some.  Others may, of course, differ.  I wish them well.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 18, 2015, 11:53:08 AM
Scanning introduces distortions.  That's why Jeff Glickman and I went to England, New Zealand and Miami to get best-possible copy photos - and it's why Jeff will go to Purdue to see what can be discerned from the Darwin Ramp photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 18, 2015, 01:33:44 PM
GENTLEMEN - and GENTLELADIES!

There, now that I have your attention. We're here in this forum to find out what happened to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Nothing more or less than that.

Anything else can devolve into the personal and belongs off-forum or in private messages. To do otherwise distracts our focus, dissipates our limited energy and resources, and diverts us down blind alleys that end in very painful brick walls. Let's all work to keep it real and keep it focused, OK?

And that's all I have to say about that.

LTM, who has a limited amount of emotional energy to expend,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 18, 2015, 04:30:13 PM
And scanning introduces more then distortion - it subtracts.

It also adds.  Case in point:

Our first look at the Bevington Object was in a casual copy-photo Pat took when we visited Eric Bevington in 1992. When Jeff Glickman noticed the object in 2010 it was just a blur in the copy-photo.  We asked the archivist at Oxford University to send us a scan of the photo. The best they could do was 600 dpi.  When we got the scanned image there was much more detail visible than we had seen in the casual copy-photo.  In April 2012 Jeff and I went to England and Jeff took a max-resolution copy-photo.     We discovered that much of the detail that we had seen in the 600 dpi scan was not really there, it had been inserted by the scanner software. 
It's entirely possible that the absence of rivet lines in the scanned version of the Darwin Hangar photo (if there is such absence) is an artifact of the scanning process.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 18, 2015, 05:41:10 PM
Leon,

You are over-reacting.  No such thing was intended, nor do I see it.

What I do see is that many just don't grasp a rather obvious fitment problem with the artifact, and I can only surmise that they don't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals well enough to see why it matters.  That's not derogatory or patronizing, it is an observation after watching this sail past many good folks.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on January 18, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
Isn't the Miami Patch photo a copy of a ~300 dpi digital scan printed with a dye sublimation printer?  In an earlier post by Ric (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.255.html) he wrote:

"The rear of the Miami Herald print bears the labeling “Kodak Electronic Imaging Paper”.  Kodak entered the electronic imaging market in 1987.  There was a series of Kodak printers that were compatible with this paper, including dye-sublimation printers.  For example, the Kodak XL-7700 dye-sublimation printer was introduced in 1989.  I located the manual for the Kodak XL-7720 dye-sublimation printer and its resolution was 203 DPI, a standard dye-sublimation printer resolution for the era.  Other standard dye-sublimation resolutions included 314, 320, 480, 540, 720 and 1,440 DPI.  Measurement of the frequency of the raster band artifact that is observed on the Miami Herald photo at 6,400 DPI optical resolution shows a rate of 20:1, suggesting that the resolution of the imaging system was 6,400 DPI / 20 = 320 DPI, which is consistent with a known resolution for dye-sublimation printing."...

..."The banding seen in the Miami Herald photographic print on “Kodak Electronic Imaging Paper” is consistent with dye-sublimation printing.  What I can now reasonably assert is that the Miami Herald photographic print is not a print from a negative: It is probably a print from a dye-sublimation printer that may have been retrieved from a photograph archival system.  Whether an original print or negative was used during the storage recording process is currently unclear, nor is the recording method currently known. I anticipate that the band artifacts will slow down, but not prevent, analysis of the image."
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 18, 2015, 06:19:06 PM
Isn't the Miami Patch photo a copy of a ~300 dpi digital scan printed with a dye sublimation printer?

No it is not. It's a print, not a scan. Big difference.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 18, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
What I do see is that many just don't grasp a rather obvious fitment problem with the artifact, and I can only surmise that they don't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals well enough to see why it matters.

Aris Scarla was with us in Wichita. He had the opportunity to assess the fit in person.  Do you feel that Aris doesn't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on January 18, 2015, 10:04:06 PM
Using an independent "Third Party" is usually a measure taken when two parties can't agree on something.

Part of the problem I have the the Lanz/WIX "Third Party" approach is that in fact we don't even have a "Second Party" in the game yet, all we have is Lanz's analysis of the photo he has, and it has not yet been made available to the "second party" for analysis.

Doesn't make sense to insist on a Third Party when the Second Party hasn't even had a chance to review and comment on the matter at hand.

It is possible that a TIGHAR analysis concludes the same as Lanz, in which case no third party is needed, but without that opportunity it seems odd to insist on a outside analysis before giving us the chance to analyze the photo he has.

I don't have a problem with having an "independent" analyst examine the photo, but at the same time TIGHAR should be allowed to examine it as well. 

Insisting that we not be allowed to the source material is counter productive to the scientific process and acceptable peer review.

If Lanz is correct in his analysis, the best way to prove it is to release the hi res version of the photo and show the TIGHAR membership that he's right.  Keeping the photo under cover will only prolong the dispute.

A McKenna

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 19, 2015, 05:21:23 AM
What I do see is that many just don't grasp a rather obvious fitment problem with the artifact, and I can only surmise that they don't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals well enough to see why it matters.

Aris Scarla was with us in Wichita. He had the opportunity to assess the fit in person.  Do you feel that Aris doesn't grasp sheet metal construction fundamentals?

I think he missed this fundamental point out of lack of understanding of the whole picture.

Of course Aris has a wonderful understanding of sheet metal.  Does he have an understanding that the cover did not abut the skin edge at STA 293 5/8 as you placed it in that photo in Wichita?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 19, 2015, 08:42:07 AM
I was looking at the 'hangar photo' scanned 'press' reproduction very briefly (whatever it is that Lanz posted). 

Rivet review of the supposedly higher res image would face some interesting challenges perhaps.  The largest image in the reflection on that panel is the top and trailing side of the right wing.  I believe the right wing surface is made from riveted aluminum, which would mean those rivets could appear in the reflection on the shiny panel on the side of the plane. I'm sure some expert can resolve that by comparing the size of the rivets on the plane to the size of the rivets in the reflection . . . depending on the compression used on the electronic image.

But is Mr. Long going to step up and get an analysis of his PRINT? How about it Mr. Long?

Leon

What has Elgen Long got to do with this?  Odd.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Hal Beck on January 19, 2015, 10:48:10 AM
Isn't the Miami Patch photo a copy of a ~300 dpi digital scan printed with a dye sublimation printer?

No it is not. It's a print, not a scan. Big difference.

What Jeff Glickman photographed, as I understand it, is a dye-sublimation print of a scanned (digitized) image. I can’t find anything on the forum at the moment, but I thought that the original ‘analog’ images (original prints or negatives) taken that day in Miami were gone and all that is now available are the prints made from digitized versions of those images.   

In the post I linked to above, Jeff Glickman says “Whether an original print or negative was used during the storage recording process is currently unclear”; I am understanding ‘storage recording process’ to mean digitization (by scanning), and I also take it from what Glickman said that it isn’t clear if the digitized image was made from a negative or an original print.   

As I understand it, Glickman is also saying that the resolution of the dye sublimation print that he photographed was ~320 dpi: “Measurement of the frequency of the raster band artifact that is observed on the Miami Herald photo at 6,400 DPI optical resolution shows a rate of 20:1, suggesting that the resolution of the imaging system was 6,400 DPI / 20 = 320 DPI, which is consistent with a known resolution for dye-sublimation printing.”   From Glickman’s brief history of scanning technology (see the url I posted previously), it would seem that the scanner that was used to digitize the Miami patch image probably had a resolution of more than 1000 dpi.  Unfortunately the dye sublimation print of that digitized image only had a resolution of ~320 dpi, according to Glickman.

So, if the limitations that you and Leon indicate apply to the two Darwin photos would also apply to the Miami photo, isn’t that true?…

On a related topic, I’m curious if the ‘other’ Miami photo of the Electra shortly after take-off (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32224.html#msg32224) will be examined for signs of rivet lines.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bill Mangus on January 19, 2015, 11:56:12 AM
What the heck, I might as well throw in my two cents.

We would do well to think about the camera and film technology which existed in 1937.  The Darwin ramp photo, as I understand it, was taken by an amateur photographer and subsequently used in various newspapers.  I'm guessing the photographer was at least 100' away, maybe more, from the a/c when he took the picture.  It doesn't seem to be a telephoto lens, I'm guessing anywhere from 45 to 50mm.  I don't know what the 'standard' lens for general/newspaper work might have been or the type of camera that might have been used.  Heck, from that distance even today's digital cameras using a 55mm lens might have trouble discerning rivets/lines.  Just a guess though.

For Jeff Glickman or others, I'm wondering if the emulsion grain of the typical and/or best black-and-white film of the day, with a good quality lens, would even be small enough to pick our a 3/32" rivet or line of rivets from that distance.  I'd think the film emulsion grain on the film would be larger than any individual rivet at that distance.  It appears to have picked up the lines of the double-rivets between the skin section but probably not the individual rivets within the line.  Is the grain in the film emulsion fine enough to pick up a line of single rivets?

The Darwin hanger photo appears to have been taken from a closer vantage point but with all the reflections, and shadows, from sunlight and work lights, I don't see how you can trust anything in the photo smaller than 3 or 4 inches.  The 'oil-canning' referred to may be nothing more than a strange confluence/combination of shadows from multiple light sources.

If the film grain isn't fine enough, it doesn't matter how large a print you make, even from the original negative; the fine detail won't be there.  Digitizing/scanning that print from Elgen Long would only make things worse, as referred to above.

I'm not a camera/film expert so perhaps someone who is will weigh-in here.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 19, 2015, 01:11:05 PM
Jeff,
Sorry for any confusion. I read the following on WIX, accompanied by the two pictures.  I believe the 'indoor' picture is the one that Mr. Long has.

Mr. Lanz:
"In my research I found the picture in Elgen Long's book of the Electra in the Darwin hangar. I knew that there had to be a better version. A few months ago, I found one on the Internet that I had a friend post on the TIGHAR forum. However, that picture was in a JPEG format and though the cleanest picture I found, it was not the quality or size I needed to work with. I decided to go to the source; low and behold, Captain Elgen Long had the original copy of the photograph that was given to him some 25 years ago by Norman King. King was an A&P mechanic for Quantas in Darwin who worked on the Electra and was also an amateur photographer. Wing Commander Stan Rose RAAF facilitated getting Captain Long the photo and also worked on the radios in the Electra."

I think it would be great to have an analysis of the print Mr. Long has, as long as Tighar doesn't pay for it.

L

Thanks, Leon, I can see how you got there.

My understanding from what Bob has posted is that Long has turned this hi-res copy over to Bob in the sense of our current discussion.  Since Bob dropped the shoe with Elgen's blessing, I think Bob's the guy.

The problem with me and you thinking it would be great to have an analysis as long as TIGHAR doesn't pay for it, is here we sit at TIGHAR wishing that.  Bob doesn't have to wish that if he is satisfied that he sees what he sees: that is the extent of his claim, it is based on his own (considerable in my opinion) experience - TIGHAR does not have to accept it at all.  However, if TIGHAR would like to refute it, it seems some reasonable terms are necessary.  I am among those who would love to see the copy released - beyond this immediate topic, it is also a lovely historic picture of the Electra - an odd perspective, but that somehow makes it more haunting to moi.  But, I believe we must respect Bob's wishes.

That said, I have a high degree of respect for Andrew McKenna's post above (as I typically do with Mr. McKenna) and have some hope that a way might be found.  Again, however, notice it is we who would like all this, and Bob doesn't have to like all this.  Maybe time will tell.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve D. Burk on January 19, 2015, 02:43:14 PM
Tighar has investigated the patch on-and-off for decades.  It now has been claimed that Elgen Long has a photo showing the patch that is higher resolution than any analyzed to date.  Bob Lanz contacted Long and was permitted to make a copy for himself---a copy which he refuses to make public.  Given the interest and effort that Tighar has already expended on the 'patch/artifact', shouldn't Tighar (Ric?) check whether Long might also permit Tighar to make a copy of his photo?  I know that Bob Lanz has his axes to grind with Tighar, but is there some reason why Long would allow Lanz to make a copy but not extend Tighar the same courtesy? 
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 19, 2015, 03:26:11 PM
... is there some reason why Long would allow Lanz to make a copy but not extend Tighar the same courtesy?

There is the small matter of TIGHAR publicly and emphatically shredding Long's assertion that The Patch came from the top wing of a PBY, by using things called "facts." Other than that, nothing comes to mind.

Well, then there was the book review ...

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Steve D. Burk on January 19, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
If Long is upset with TIGHAR, perhaps his sweetest revenge would be to allow TIGHAR to see for themselves that there are no rivets on the Patch in his picture (if that really is the case). It would be a shame to just assume what Long's response will be and therefore do nothing.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 19, 2015, 04:15:15 PM
Could be something to that, unfortunately.

Bob also seems to have chased it down and asked.  Might we have humbly done the same in our quest for the best possible pictures?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 19, 2015, 04:57:53 PM
   It seems most repair methods include the use of shims the thickness of the surrounding original skin to bring the underlaying layers flush to the outermost surface, so as to allow one to solid buck the entire rivet line along the repair. Absence of them would seem to create a concave indentation in the center of the panel ( the original skin thickness) , in this case 0.025, ......granted, half the thickness of a dime, so looking down the fuselage line it may not be very noticable.
 Below , I tried to draw my view of this; ( definetly not as good an example as greg's ).
Thanks Jerry
I finally had time to sketch something to illustrate the concern you referenced. The area I sketched is the upper right corner of the patch since it is near two layers of lapped skin and the concave indentation effect you refer to may be more pronounced there.  I’m thinking the transition and area that may get highlighted is closer to the edge if there actually were stringers. It may be what we see in the Hanger photo.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 19, 2015, 05:05:39 PM
Scanning introduces distortions.  That's why Jeff Glickman and I went to England, New Zealand and Miami to get best-possible copy photos - and it's why Jeff will go to Purdue to see what can be discerned from the Darwin Ramp photo.
A check is in the mail to help support this effort.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bruce W Badgrow on January 19, 2015, 06:50:41 PM
I have a low resolution photo of AE and FN standing beside the Electra. In this photo the rows of rivet heads in the fuselage are quite noticeable. In the Darwin hanger photo posted at the WIX web site the fuselage looks to be flush riveted. Has anyone noticed this?

Bruce W Badgrow
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 19, 2015, 07:21:19 PM
If Long is upset with TIGHAR, perhaps his sweetest revenge would be to allow TIGHAR to see for themselves that there are no rivets on the Patch in his picture (if that really is the case). It would be a shame to just assume what Long's response will be and therefore do nothing.

Mr. Burk, what you say makes perfect sense, and that would probably be the outcome in a perfect and rational world.

But this is the World of Earhart - and The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial ComplexTM does not entertain or allow rationality to exist in the World of Earhart.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 19, 2015, 07:56:56 PM
If Long is upset with TIGHAR, perhaps his sweetest revenge would be to allow TIGHAR to see for themselves that there are no rivets on the Patch in his picture (if that really is the case). It would be a shame to just assume what Long's response will be and therefore do nothing.

Mr. Burk, what you say makes perfect sense, and that would probably be the outcome in a perfect and rational world.

But this is the World of Earhart - and The Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial ComplexTM does not entertain or allow rationality to exist in the World of Earhart.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

I am really not sure how Elgen Long got dragged into this except perhaps it was Leon White's 'challenge' to Long, which was likely just a misunderstanding as to who had control of the copy - and which I attempted to rectify.  If I inadvertently fueled that by my tongue-in-cheek response to Monty earlier (affirming supposed reasons why Long might enjoy this) then I regret that.

I am informed that all Elgen Long did was provide Bob Lanz a copy of a terrific photo given him years ago, and copied in the manner Bob specified, as a courtesy.  I am further informed to please assert that Mr. Long has no particular interest in this effort.  He simply agreed to let Bob have the right to a very fine copy of a very fine photo.  As is said at times, Long 'has no dog in this fight'.

Most of us know at least some of the history between Long and Ric.  That has no bearing here.  Seems it is time to move on from Mr. Long and simply focus on what is relevant - that Lanz holds the copy of interest.

I merely pass this on out of respect for Elgen Long and as this was conveyed to me.

So, back to BOB LANZ and his exceedingly nice COPY..
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on January 19, 2015, 08:43:50 PM
Jeff,

I had a chance to sit down and study your arguments comparing 2-2-V-1 to the ramp photo.  I realized that you had invited me to study the more technically-based parts of your supplied comments when you said:

Quote

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.

I know I stated I do think for myself, but the question really became whether I'd paid the required attention to what you were saying regarding these technical matters.  And I realized that while I had read what you wrote, I hadn't tried to make sure I understood it all in entirety.  I realized I owed it to you to do so given the generosity of your time to explain it.

I was wondering if you could take a look at some observations and questions I had.  Mostly, I was just seeking to learn if I'm understanding all of this properly, since, unfortunately, I lack the background you have in aircraft design.  Here goes:


Quote
As for myself, I am sorry to say that the dimensions of 2-2-V-1 and absence of forward /aft edge rivet holes finally weighed in too strongly to ignore.
This looks to be a lingering doubt not based on photos, but based on the prior study of the fit between the stock Electra in Wichita and the artifact itself.  True?


Quote
In the Wichita photos, we see an artifact that is jammed against the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8, which the cover clearly did not do in the Purdue Darwin ramp photo, for one.
What would the Purdue Darwin ramp photo look like if the cover had been jammed against the aft edge of the skin near STA 293 5/8?  What should I look for in that photo to see what you see (or you do not see, as the case may be)?

Quote

For another, that would necessitate the patch having to pick up STA 320 to explain the absence of rivet holes at the aft edge of the artifact - and the artifact's overall length.  It is realized that even were this true (picking up STA 320), that the aft holes wouldn't be there because the artifact, were it the patch, would have apparently been cut short of that rivet line on removal.  But then where are the forward edge holes that should be in evidence at the most forward extremities of the artifact, were it the cover?  It is amply long enough for some of the forward edge fastener holes to remain in evidence: the Wichita photo has the artifact placed such that such rivet holes should appear along the extreme forward end. 

The apparent poor fit of the edges of the artifact as they lined up with the structures in a stock Electra was explained in the bulletin (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_StepbyStep_2.html) as an optical illusion "from two radius curves that are intended to overlay upon each other, but instead have been separated."  The artifact was held closer to the camera than its actual position on (as) the skin would have been; therefore, the artifact looked bigger.  I know you've probably accounted for this in your measurement of the patch, but this is a key point, so it's important to be clear:  Are you saying that if the artifact were flush with the skin of the Wichita Electra, it (the artifact) would still be long enough such that forward edge fastener holes (fastener holes are like rivet holes, I presume?) ought to be present on the artifact for correct fit and they are not present?  Do I have that right?

Quote

Take this as you will, but a number of reviewers - people experienced in this type of construction, including me, have seen this. 

Mark Pilkington, David Billings, and Bob Lanz, I think.  Is that correct?

Quote

The point is, rivets are discernible where we know rivets should be on the stock areas of the Electra adjacent to the window area,  so if any rivets exist in the mid field of the patch, we should hope to see some trace of at least a few [in the ramp photo].  Out of the posited 4 rows that the patch would bear were 2-2-V-1 the grail, we do not see any.

This is a very densely packed statement.  Let me see if I can unpack it a bit.
I think you mean here that you and others (Pilkington, et. al.) can clearly see in the Elgen Long photo that there are rivets in the area outside the boundary of the patch, in places where you know rivets ought to be (based on comparisons with the well documented stock Electra in Wichita), and this means that the key area of interest (patch area and environs) of that photo is providing extremely accurate information on the placement of rivets.  The patch area in this photo which abuts clearly visible riveted locations lacks rivets altogether, rivets which must be visible for there to be a match to the artifact.  Do I have that right?

Quote

Conversely, we have been laboring with a claim that rivets are visible in the mid field of the patch in a photo of considerably less quality - the Miami photo (take your pick - on ramp or on take-off at Miami).  The assertion that rivets can be seen there seems more questionable now, but perhaps someone can elaborate as to how that is so.  I do see lines there, and have even fended off contrary arguments that they might be reflected bands of cloud or something - but now realize that it really hasn't been explained how the differentiation was made; I had taken it as a matter of confidence in the analyst.  Now, we have a better picture it seems.


This does raise an excellent point that had occurred to me as well.  There exists no photogrammetry report on 2-2-V-1.  A scientific explanation of the differentiation of rivet lines in the Miami photo would be useful to have and a terrific justification of the existing analysis on 2-2-V-1 and a defense against the competing claims from alternate photos.  But I wonder if that kind of science-based analysis of that photo or any photo of this vintage is even technically possible.  If it is not, then are potentially ALL comparisons between the relative richness or poorness of data in alternate photos of the Electra (including the Miami photo on which TIGHAR undergirds its argument) possibly pointless, or, if not pointless (this may be too strong a word), lacking a quantifiable basis by which to measure that comparison?  In that event, it all could come down to subjective assessments of photo quality. 

Is there a completely objective standard of photo quality?  I know there are standards of grain, original neg vs. print, etc. that can help, but to what extent?  Can a 'lesser quality' photo have more data at times than one of 'higher quality'?  I could take a 10th generation carbon mimeograph of an Electra photo, yet if I'd held the camera 1 meter from the skin, that photo, within reasonable tolerances of the skill and equipment of the photographer, would be more accurate than the sharpest negative held at 15 meters.  Is the photo analysis of any photo completely objective?  Who gets to decide?

At the same time, when I take your statements and collapse them down to bullet points I can grasp, your arguments now seem to be comprehensible to myself, a layman, if indeed my transliteration of them has not been error prone, as it might have.  You can correct if so. 

While I cannot say I am fully pursuaded by the logic of these statements, for that would await further consideration --thinking for myself!  :) -- upon the further clarifications I might encounter, I can see why many might find them sufficient to meet the standards they would apply to rule out 2-2-V-1's relevance to the Earhart mystery.  I am not yet ready to take that step but reserve that I might.  (This should not be taken to imply I think the artifact had ever been conclusively 'identified' as the patch, either.) This may sound like paltry progress, but actually it is not, because now at least I understand the dimensions of the arguments pro and con.  Or, do I not? 

It would be nice to have a new report that spells out in graphical detail all of these new ideas - for the layman, such as myself.  It would label the photos, as the current reports do.  Visual explanations in a report sometimes work better for comprehension than words.  Would you consider writing one at some future date?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 19, 2015, 09:28:05 PM
Ric –

Thank you for your recent help in making higher resolution photos from Wichita available, that was very helpful.  Along those same lines, I would appreciate any help you could provide with the following.  I will break the request into two posts in order to fit.

1)   Could you please provide larger file sizes for the following photos as you did with the Wichita photos.

20_Miami Takeoff
Patch 6-1
Window in Miami
artifact held

(continued on next post)

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 19, 2015, 09:33:03 PM
(continued)

2)  Could you please identify the attached photos, including if possible description, date, place, the original source, where original is now held, etc.  If you have larger file sizes available for them could you please post them as well. 
Java in Flight
Earliest window Burbank
06twowindows
Luke field crash (night)
Luke field full

3)   I thought I ran across a daytime photo of the Luke Field crash, similar to the Luke Field photo above but with a full view of the window as it existed at the time.  As bad luck would have it, Internet Explorer crashed just as I was trying to save it and I could not find it again in my search string  >:(.  Perhaps it was just the same as the one above and I was just imagining it.  Are you aware of any such daytime photo at Luke that showed a better view of the window? 


I know this is a lot to ask for.  Please take your time and as always, thank you very much for your help.


Diego


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Jerry Germann on January 20, 2015, 10:11:22 AM
   It seems most repair methods include the use of shims the thickness of the surrounding original skin to bring the underlaying layers flush to the outermost surface, so as to allow one to solid buck the entire rivet line along the repair. Absence of them would seem to create a concave indentation in the center of the panel ( the original skin thickness) , in this case 0.025, ......granted, half the thickness of a dime, so looking down the fuselage line it may not be very noticable.
 Below , I tried to draw my view of this; ( definetly not as good an example as greg's ).
Thanks Jerry
I finally had time to sketch something to illustrate the concern you referenced. The area I sketched is the upper right corner of the patch since it is near two layers of lapped skin and the concave indentation effect you refer to may be more pronounced there.  I’m thinking the transition and area that may get highlighted is closer to the edge if there actually were stringers. It may be what we see in the Hanger photo.


Excellent drawing, ....That double skin overlap would seem to pose some significant problems in the attachment process,.....in the attachments below, I circled what seems to be the last rivet hole in that perticular row,....as mentioned, the artifact is closer to the camera than it would be in it's installed position,....how close to the added vertical would you estimate that last rivet hole comes to it? Do we line up the artifact so as to avoid an encounter with what could be a problem in the rivet bucking process, if stringers were left unshimmed? If last rivet hole is too close to the added vertical, and stringer is left unshimmed, I envision a bucking problem,.... a tearing or severe dimple in the skin, or a rivet left improperly done up. Extant rivet, suggests an attachment to an .060 thick object, if what seemed to be the standard procedure, were implemented, and the stringers were shimmed, a stringer thickness of .035 would seem to have to be used to produce smooth skin line....does anyone know if this thickness was available in that era?
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 20, 2015, 04:26:41 PM
 A group of highly-qualified experts (Scarla, Glickman, and the five MIT professors) have agreed that there is a high degree of probability that 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch. We are open and indeed eager for new sources of reliable information but the touted scan of the Darwin Hangar photo does not qualify because scanning software alters the image. 

We are actively pursuing further research in our efforts to learn more about the artifact and the patch.  When we're ready, and not before, we'll issue a report on what more we've learned about 2-2-V-1.  If we find the artifact to be disqualified as being the patch, we'll say so and explain why.  If we find the hypothesis to be supported, we'll say so and explain why.  Everyone will be free to agree or disagree with our findings, but it's clear that nothing will be served by continued amateur bloviation and navel-gazing.  I would encourage everyone to keep their postings concise and informational rather than rambling and philosophical - and no Diego, I am not going to jump through your hoops unless you can produce your credentials as a photogrammetrist.
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 20, 2015, 04:57:07 PM
Jeff,

I had a chance to sit down and study your arguments comparing 2-2-V-1 to the ramp photo.  I realized that you had invited me to study the more technically-based parts of your supplied comments when you said:

Quote

You ignore my plea in large part, Joe - that people should avail themselves of the best information possible, and then think for themselves.

...
It would be nice to have a new report that spells out in graphical detail all of these new ideas - for the layman, such as myself.  It would label the photos, as the current reports do.  Visual explanations in a report sometimes work better for comprehension than words.  Would you consider writing one at some future date?

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ER

Joe,

I can't answer in full without bloviating, as Ric has asked us not to do, so a responsive report has been prepared as you had requested above.  It has a number of illustrations and is rather large, so we need to figure out how to get it to you.  Reach me by PM to discuss. 

I note that Ric is now working toward a new report as well, so it is very possible new light will be shed on some points within.  That would of course be welcome.  I treasure the best that TIGHAR can be in these things.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on January 20, 2015, 05:21:08 PM
Jeff/Ric

You know what they say - if a guy looks around the table and can't tell who the bloviator is, it's bound to be that guy.  Well, I guess it's me.

Ric's right.  Let's all keep an open mind.  This card game isn't up yet.  Jeff, I'm in touch on the PM.

Joe
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 21, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
It's like in the military, we have to hurry up and wait.

In my long years of experience with experts of all kinds, nothing will be gained by trying to prod them and get quicker results. Patience is a virtue, which I am still trying to master.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Diego Vásquez on January 22, 2015, 11:25:52 PM
.... The apparent poor fit of the edges of the artifact as they lined up with the structures in a stock Electra was explained in the bulletin (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_StepbyStep_2.html) as an optical illusion "from two radius curves that are intended to overlay upon each other, but instead have been separated."  The artifact was held closer to the camera than its actual position on (as) the skin would have been; therefore, the artifact looked bigger....

Joe – I'm not sure which photo you were referencing in your recent exchange with Jeff, interior or exterior, but I did note that in the Wichita video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFKCkN6C5JQ&feature=youtu.be&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog) at approximately 08:36 – 08:39, the artifact is pressed closer to the wall than it is in the interior still photo that has been posted.  I have attached a capture from the video.  The artifact is pressed closer to the wall in the attached screen capture than it is in the report photo, but even this screen capture doesn’t really do the video justice.  I recommend that you, and anyone who is interested in whether or not the artifact fits within the vertical rivet lines of the Miami patch, check the video for yourself/yourselves from 08:36 - 08:39.  The video offers sharper resolution plus additional cues from movement and sound, thereby lessening or removing the optical illusion to which you referred.  The video appears to leave no doubt that the left edge of the artifact is in fact pressed against the lavatory bulkhead with no room for a vertical rivet line between the piece and the bulkhead.  At the same time the right edge of the piece extends well beyond the vertical rivet line at Sta 320, with no such vertical rivet line appearing on the piece.  Ric even made the spontaneous exclamation, “Boy that’s tight,” as he wedged the piece in. 

Ric – In the Wichita video from approximately 08:36 – 08:39, the left edge of 2-2-V-1 appears to be pressed up tight against the lavatory bulkhead, leaving no room for the vertical rivet line that was present on the Miami patch.  At the same time, the right edge of 2-2-V-1 appears to extend beyond the rivet line at Sta 320, yet no vertical rivet lines are present on 2-2-V-1. 

How is this apparent disparity in the horizontal fit of 2-2-V-1 accounted for?


Diego V.


Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on January 23, 2015, 01:56:46 AM
Despite a lack of aviation and general engineering experience, I have been trying to follow the evolution of this discussion as best as I can. As far as my interpretation is correct, the doubts would seem to center around the exact positioning of 2-2-V-1 against the fuselage of the Wichita Electra.  Looking at the relevant pictures again, it appears that there is a discrepancy between the position of the tape and the position of the window frame as it appears in the original photographs.

On the original picture, the window frame seems to be a few cm's aft of the bulkhead, whereas the tape on the new picture is positioned at the exact edge of the skin at the bulkhead. I've attached a document showing what I mean.

This would mean that if the patch was installed only to cover the existing aperture of the window, using the rivet lines that the window frame was attached to, we have to reconsider whether or not 2-2-V-1 actually fits.

But then, we don't really know how the patch was fitted exactly, it may well have abutted to the skin edge at the bulkhead...

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 23, 2015, 10:35:34 AM
I think it's time for a quick review.

On March 28, 2014 the members of the Artifact 2-2-V-1 Commission spent the day at the National Museum of the United States Air Force meeting with the Restoration Supervisor and other Restoration staff. We also performed detailed inspections of various aircraft in the collection.  The purpose of the trip was to see if we could find an alternative Aircraft of Origin. Among the TIGHAR group were Jeff Neville and Aris Scarla - both of who are highly experienced in aircraft structures and repair.  We had lots of bright, experienced people working the problem.  At the end of the day we had a consensus that:
"The available evidence now suggests that the artifact is probably not from a WWII combat or heavy transport aircraft and is probably from an airplane smaller and lighter than any of the military types that served in or transited through the Central South Pacific. If the artifact is from a repaired area, the repairs were probably done at the factory. The artifact is, without question, from an aircraft that suffered catastrophic damage somewhere in the Central South Pacific region. At present, of the known losses in the Central South Pacific, only Earhart’s Electra fits all of the requirements. Further research may yield additional information that will either support or refute the criteria."

We were also able to eliminate the hypothesis that the artifact came from a repaired section on the belly of Earhart's Electra.  NMUSAF Respiration Supervisor Greg Hassler and FAA Flight Standards manager Aris Scarla agreed that the repairs could not have involved a change in the rivet pitch as we had previously postulated.  This finding prompted a visit to the New England Air Museum by several 2-2-V-1 Commission members on May 30 to see if we could find someplace on the museum's Electra that had the correct rivet size, pattern, and pitch to match the artifact. 

On June 5, 2014 I reported to the Commission:
"We were not able to find anywhere on the New England Air Museum Lockheed 10 that met the criteria for a match to 2-2-V-1, even if the area was repaired in a way that did not require new engineering drawings.  There were two places where there were parallel rows of rivets and enough length without a crossing row.  One was on the belly in the area we had previously considered the best fit, but the rivet pitch there is 1.5 inches and we learned in Dayton that in a repair the rivet pitch cannot change.  The rivet pitch on the artifact is 1 inch so 2-2-V-1 cannot have come from there.
The section of the belly just forward of there has rivets with a 1 inch pitch but the skin in that area is .040, not .032.  So we're left with a case of "close but no cigar."  

All the other interesting things we've observed about the artifact are still true and we still have no good alternate Aircraft of Origin.  The mystery deepens.  If the paint test comes back positive for aluminum paint on the interior surface of the artifact the mystery will get even deeper.

BTW, we were easily able to match the piece of wreckage from the Idaho wreck to the trailing edge of the starboard-side outer wing panel on the New England air Museum airplane."

In other words, we were out of ideas.  The artifact did not seem to be from an Electra but neither did it seem to be from any of the other known possible Aircraft Of Origin.  Then Jeff Neville sent the following email to the group:

"Good work, Ric (and Lee / whomever was able to attend).

I am wondering again about the late-installed cover for the large nav window which was created and installed in Miami. It was a 'one off' mod / de-mod effort with potential for deviation from mothership details, IMO. Trouble is, no other example exists in true-to-NR16020 form that I know of - unless Finch's L10 at Seattle museum of flight has a faithful duplication of the cover. I've seen that one and it does not match 2-2-V-1- but I'm not sure there's a good record of the details of that job on Earhart's own bird to go by. What I'd give for a clear photo..."

I replied:
"Ya' know ....that's a very interesting hypothesis.  Needs looking into."

As it turned out, I had a speaking engagement at the New England Air Museum on June 15 so I brought 2-2-V-1 along to see if there was any chance it might fit the Miami Patch.  I was dubious and I only had a few minutes between the two presentations I was doing but I quickly taped off the supposed boundaries of the patch and held up the artifact.  I was surprised at how well it seemed to fit.  I grabbed a museum visitor and had him hold the artifact up to the airplane so that I could take a photo. I could only compare the artifact to the exterior of the airplane because the lavatory of the New England Museum Electra is fully restored.

It was clear that we needed to do a serious comparison of the artifact to an Electra. Through a Forum posting we became aware of the airplane being rebuilt in Wichita.  To make a long story short, on October 8, 2014 Aris Scarla, Jeff Glickman, TIGHAR video cameraman Mark Smith, and I met at Wichita Air Services.  TIGHAR paid for everyone's airfare, accommodations, etc.  We didn't exclude anyone who wanted to come. It was an expensive trip but we felt that an in-person comparison by knowledgable experts (Glickman, Scarla, and the folks at Wichita Air Services who have spent years rebuilding the airplane) was the only way to get a real feel for whether the artifact compared favorably with the structure of a Lockheed 10 and the limited information we have about the structure of the Miami Patch.

At the end of the day we all agreed that, based upon what we had seen, and given the "null hypothesis", there is a high-degree of probability that the artifact is the patch.  None of us was there to kid ourselves or try to fool anybody.   What you see in the photos and video are brief moments out of hours of inspection.  Capturing on film what we could see in person was difficult and we were (obviously) not successful in that regard.

Since then, despite warnings that:
"Because the artifact is necessarily several inches closer to the camera than the skin of the aircraft, it appears to be a bit too big to fit. That’s an illusion. As forensic imaging specialist Jeff Glickman explains, “While not intuitive, this is a common optical illusion. It results from two radius curves that are intended to overlay upon each other, but instead have been separated. The origin of the illusion becomes apparent when the two radius curves are looked at in profile and their edges projected down to a 2 dimensional plane.”  We've been bombarded with analyses from people - none of whom is a credentialed photogrammetrist and none of whom has had or taken the opportunity to compare the artifact to an Electra in person, who say the artifact doesn't fit.

2-2-V-1 may or may not be the Miami Patch but it is not going to be disqualified by amateur photogrammetric hair-splitters. 

I just shot a morning compiling this review.  Those who feel that the artifact does not fit the patch are welcome to their opinion but we're not going to waste any more time debating it here.

Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: JNev on January 23, 2015, 11:43:30 AM
Very good re-cap, Ric.

I will always be grateful to you and TIGHAR for a well-organized and thorough 'expedition' to Dayton - it was a privilege to be a part of that team and a great couple of days well-spent.  It was also a great formative exercise in this research.  I am also grateful that you, Aris and Jeff Glickman went to Wichita to ply further into this - excellent effort.

Every TIGHAR in Dayton lent something of positive weight.  It was humbling to be among a diversely talented group like that and to watch the ideas come together.  I am flattered to be considered a fellow among the 'commission' you formed of that group, thanks for that.

I am also grateful for the credit you've given me for pressing the nav window cover possibility for 2-2-V-1.  It was simply too significant an artifact to give up on in my view and the notions I had then still hold true: the photos we see of that rapidly-appearing - then all too soon disappearing, window cover is an enigma that cannot be ignored; TIGHAR was holding an enigmatic artifact with more riddles in it than clear answers.  Wherever it eventually goes it has been a great journey exploring this thing, and I am proud to have been allowed some small role in it.

I respect your concern about how to approach critical commentary.  As I look back at the commission you formed among several of us and the care we all put into that, it comes to me that any further commentary as to critical review deserves the most sincere preparation and presentation to you and the commission.  I'm sure it will receive sincere consideration in return. 

We worked hard to get to what was presented; we deserve a chance to continue that work among ourselves if there is to be consideration of further commentary.  You and the commission - and TIGHAR at large, and the public for that matter, all deserve no less.  I'm sure none of us wants anything less than the very best analysis that can be produced.  In that spirit, anything further I may have to offer will come to you and the commission in full, for consideration.

Perhaps this approach is in the better spirit of what we hope to be.  I also would not care to see 2-2-V-1 bickered into oblivion and appreciate your thought in this regard.

Respectfully,
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on January 23, 2015, 11:43:55 AM
I just shot a morning compiling this review.

Thanks for taking the time to compile this, Ric. It really helped me understand things.

Alfred
Title: Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 23, 2015, 12:17:36 PM
I have locked this topic for the time being.

It seems to me that the basic questions have been raised about 2-2-V-1.

The Forum is not the best place for TIGHAR to develop its report.

I will unlock the thread after TIGHAR has published whatever it wants to publish about its view of 2-2-V-1.  That will be the time to see whether TIGHAR's view is accurate and responsible and to discuss the data and methods used by TIGHAR in the publication.