TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Bessel P Sybesma on October 28, 2014, 07:35:35 AM

Title: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on October 28, 2014, 07:35:35 AM
Moving on from the identification of  2-2-V-1 as the window patch, to the investigation of its failure patterns lead to a discussion about the potential forces and their sources that acted on the Electra from the time of  the landing to when the remains finally came to rest on the reef slope below.

For me, this time period has always been somewhat overlooked in these forums.  We know that the crew were able to transmit messages from the aircraft for up to seven days: the last credible record in Bob Brandenburg’s catalog is #175 at 2018 Gardner time on July 7th.  Yet during the late morning of the 9th , around 36 hours later, Lambrecht was unable to identify the aircraft in the surf.

I think it is safe to assume that as long as the transmissions were being made, the airframe remained substantially intact, with most systems still functioning.  But during the same period, the plane was subject to rising and falling tides twice daily.

This leads me to the conclusion that the airframe was clearly able to withstand the forces relating to the tides.

For the same reason, it is unlikely that the Electra was still on the reef but hidden by the surf when Lambrecht passed overhead.  Waves breaking over the fuselage twice daily would have quickly wreaked havoc with the electrics on board, if not destroyed the structure outright. Waves several feet high that are able to cover a plane of that size with spray, can and do destroy heavily built boats on reefs, let alone much lighter built aircraft, in a matter of days.

This means that on the 9th the plane was no longer on the reef, so sometime before then, a distinct, discrete event must have taken place to remove the aircraft from its landing spot.

A strong possibility would seem to be that the landing gear that held the aircraft in place against the continuous back and forth movement caused by wave action, eventually succumbed to fatigue, letting the plane drift away and sink down the slope, substantially intact. The landing gear itself, anchored in a crack in the reef, would then later become the Bevington object.

Another source of forces is the weather. A squall or any high winds could well subject the Electra to sudden catastrophic forces, either destroying it or causing it to break free from the reef and sink.  However, from the logs of the USS Colorado available on line, it would appear that the weather in that vicinity remained relatively stable during the timeframe under consideration (perhaps more investigation is needed to identify the actual weather patterns at Gardner).

For me, all the above makes me think that the aircraft was not destroyed on the reef, but rather sank in just about one piece after being dislodged from its resting spot.

Which of course gives us no clue whatsoever as to how 2-2-V-1 failed in the way it eventually did…
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2014, 08:04:04 AM
I think that all makes sense.  For the aircraft to be torn apart by wave action requires that it be somehow held in a fixed position  - the immovable object assailed by the irresistible force.  I just don't see that happening.

The failures on 2-2-V-1 paint a complex picture that we don't yet understand.  We'll get some expert help.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Leon R White on October 28, 2014, 09:24:22 AM
perhaps the most shiny part of the airplane was ripped off by natives with primitive tools?  Either the plane in tact, or the remaining tail section after it broke apart - even upon landing?
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 28, 2014, 10:07:16 AM
perhaps the most shiny part of the airplane was ripped off by natives with primitive tools?  Either the plane in tact, or the remaining tail section after it broke apart - even upon landing?

All interesting thoughts, Leon, and all part of the remaining mystery that 2-2-V-1 truly is.

I lean toward the jagged 'shark teeth' as being part of a double staggered row of 5/32 fasteners as we see on the Electra - and the initial failure site (but what do I really know about this sort of analysis, I freely admit). 

There is clearly a cyclic-fatigued area that runs vertically parallel to the 293 5/8" station bulkhead - coincident to where a cyclic bending might easily occur - by man's hand, or perhaps nature.

For that second failure (the cyclic fatigue) to occur the other edges must have been freed from the mothership; the other edges we see surely do not rule out the use of crude tools and rough force.  Even so, if they were cut by something like a machete they seem almost deliberately as straight as one might do with such a tool - makes me think of the carpenter's hatchet in older days when that was an honored country way of rough cutting lumber that would be out of site in a house.

I hope that in time a true expert can ferret out more failure information from 2-2-V-1, just as I of course hope the evidence grows for 2-2-V-1 to be what many of us hope it is.  Wherever this goes, it is a fascinating study to me - I hope others will enjoy and learn from it.  And, who knows...
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kent Beuchert on October 28, 2014, 06:10:56 PM
Certainly the manner in which the patch got separated generates probably the most skepticism
as to its authenticity. I can think of no plausible natural mechanism and actions by humans seems
at this point unlikely as well, unless done  by Earhart herself. I suppose if she wanted the patch,
she could have kicked it loose from the inside (probably just about the only way, certainly the easiest
way she had), which would account for  a lot of the features it displays. That's my theory -Earhart
removed it from the plane because she needed it (As a cooking implement? A signalling device?) 
and it was the only metal she could easily recover from the aircraft. Removal by Earhart is my best
guess. Either that or the artifact is not from her plane.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2014, 06:26:23 PM
Certainly the manner in which the patch got separated generates probably the most skepticism
as to its authenticity.

For you perhaps. For me, the various failures, cuts, dents, and gouges are like a story told in a language we don't yet understand. Until we know the story it's impossible to judge whether it could be the patch's story.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on October 29, 2014, 02:39:57 AM
Well either the patch was removed by Earhart or by someone else. As per my opening post, it seems unlikely that the patch was detached in a general breakup of the airframe while on the reef.

I also am skeptical that a patch of that size, riveted on all sides, could be kicked free from the surrounding structure.

The only other explanation is that the aircraft disintegrated on its way down the reef slope and this panel somehow made its way back to the surface through wind and wave action, to be picked up by the villagers.

Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dave Lima on October 29, 2014, 12:07:51 PM
Quote
I think it is safe to assume

It's not. It never is.

I find a tendency to think our own armchair conclusions are fact. These type of facts might be found after rigorous scientific analysis, and even then, perhaps we can often only arrive at a probable conclusion if not simply a possible conclusion.

Quote
either the patch was removed by Earhart or by someone else.

How do you know? Were you there? The forgone conclusion developing here in this thread is that the panel was kicked out. We don't know that. If you believe that,

Quote
Waves several feet high ... are able to cover a plane of that size with spray, can and do destroy heavily built boats on reefs, let alone much lighter built aircraft, in a matter of days.

Then why would it be so hard to fathom (no pun) the possibility of the surf action removing the panel, perhaps a long time after the landing. Bevington took a photo in late 1937 and Mims got a firsthand account of a native scavenging a plane wreck in or shortly after 1941. So it seems the Electra could have been bashing around the shore for a few years, and might not have simply sank into the depths a week after landing. The panel could have been kicked out by AE or FN, pried out by an islander, torn out by the surf, or maybe some other scenario we cant image (maybe it failed mid-flight and was already loose). Look at the pieces of the Norwich City; I bet one might be inclined to assume that some of those parts could never have disengaged without human intervention.

Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 29, 2014, 01:14:03 PM
Look at the pieces of the Norwich City ...

Some before-and-after pix in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City) and in the article on "Kite Aerial Photography." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kite_Aerial_Photography)
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Nathan Leaf on October 29, 2014, 01:21:00 PM
I see too many possibilities to make this worthy of speculation until Ric & Co. find some expert analysts who can define the parameters of the separation event with a reasonable degree of certainty.

For all we know, the plane lands on the reef, the portside gear catches a rut in the coral, collapsing it.  This sends the port wingtip and prop crashing into the reef, which starts a fuselage spin to port with the port side of the tail assembly dragging along the reef and the starboard gear directing the nose away from the original inertial vector, creating shear stress all along the starboard side of the fuselage. Suddenly, the portside tailfin strikes or catches a rut in the coral (and/or strikes/catches the broken gear), dramatically changing the profile of the physical forces affecting the tail structure versus the forward half of the fuselage.   

This shear stress, along with the violent vibrations and potential buckling of the "crash", tear and/or weaken the patch's fusion points, making it relatively easy to remove.  Or perhaps we even get partial separation and or tearing along a bulkhead of the tail section that weaken the area around or near the patch. 

All kinds of possibilities down this particular rabbit hole begin to appear ... the plane's starboard side remains in tact and elevated enough to run the engine when the tide is low to send radio messages ... the "airplane wreckage" described by villagers was the mangled tail assembly and port side engine nacelle and bent prop (easily masked by the surf during the Lambrecht fly-over), while the fuselage was washed over the edge by the surf a day or two prior to the arrival of Colorado's planes.  Before the fuselage is washed over, the receding surf reveals pieces of scrap from the prop/engine, gear and tail which could be used as tools to pry the patch loose.

My point is, the mind runs wild.  And while letting it run wild is entertaining, it is of little scientific value until we can 'fence in' a defineable space for it to run ... right now, there are myriad possibilities for the separation event, and this will remain the case until TIGHAR locates experts who can begin to define and limit the scope of those possibilities.

Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dan Swift on October 29, 2014, 02:40:05 PM
Once the fuselage had enough water in it to begin sinking rapidly, most likely being pulled down by the weight of the engines and main frame, the incredible pressure builds up toward the tail.  It has to escape and will force it's way out the course of least resistance....the patch....assuming the cabin door was closed and locked as it should be.  I saw a documentary of how the air escaping from the Titanic, especially in the stern section that was filling up with water after the ship broke in two, literally blew out vents and portals with explosive pressure.  Is it possible that the compression of air as the aircraft began to go under literally blew out the patch? 
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: tom howard on October 30, 2014, 12:51:44 AM
This is very interesting item, Mr.Neville looks like he added greatly to the intrigue. I applaud the large amount of work that has been done, especially on rivets, reconstruction, and seeing if it fits.
What I find interesting is no comments from the NTSB or Mr.Glickman on possible visible remnants on the exterior side. We see an "AD" possibly, and conclude it was Alcade aluminum and if a "SAMPLE" section was painted or not. It does not appear to me that the whole piece was tested for paint.
 
My eyes may be pulling a TM on me, and I am seeing things, but does anyone else see two "C"'s right above the "AD"?
I am surprised Mr.Glickman did not comment on it, or photograph under alternative light sourcing given this artifact has seen electron microscopes and a huge amount of sophisticated examination.
Are we missing the forest for the trees?
Could this be "CCCP" and fell from space? Or Part of the long gone lettering residue from the PMB that crashed on Howland?

Just throwing it out there, but there seems to be at least 4 letters or numbers, and the two middle ones defintely look like "C"s. They line up perfectly, and this does not look like nature caused it.
Also it is interesting the converging lines scratched into the AD. It looks like that section was repeatedly subjected to abuse and scarring.
Please forgive me if the image does not come through and correct if necessary
(http://s44.photobucket.com/user/fishbbq/library/)
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 30, 2014, 05:35:44 AM
This is very interesting item, Mr.Neville looks like he added greatly to the intrigue. I applaud the large amount of work that has been done, especially on rivets, reconstruction, and seeing if it fits.
What I find interesting is no comments from the NTSB or Mr.Glickman on possible visible remnants on the exterior side. We see an "AD" possibly, and conclude it was Alcade aluminum and if a "SAMPLE" section was painted or not. It does not appear to me that the whole piece was tested for paint.
 
My eyes may be pulling a TM on me, and I am seeing things, but does anyone else see two "C"'s right above the "AD"?
I am surprised Mr.Glickman did not comment on it, or photograph under alternative light sourcing given this artifact has seen electron microscopes and a huge amount of sophisticated examination.
Are we missing the forest for the trees?
Could this be "CCCP" and fell from space? Or Part of the long gone lettering residue from the PMB that crashed on Howland?

Just throwing it out there, but there seems to be at least 4 letters or numbers, and the two middle ones defintely look like "C"s. They line up perfectly, and this does not look like nature caused it.
Also it is interesting the converging lines scratched into the AD. It looks like that section was repeatedly subjected to abuse and scarring.
Please forgive me if the image does not come through and correct if necessary
(http://s44.photobucket.com/user/fishbbq/library/)

Thanks for the compliment.

I'll leave it those more able than myself to comment on any images that may be there, but having seen this part poured over in person by some of gr at ability, I doubt those are letters you are seeing.

In any case, the presence of a brazier head AD 456 rivet (American) probably rules out Russian space debris...  ;)

I don't know of a military crash at Niku.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on October 30, 2014, 05:52:33 AM

Could this be "CCCP" and fell from space? Or Part of the long gone lettering residue from the PMB that crashed on Howland?


Good grief, we have now arrived at space ships. You can't make this stuff up. Next its aliens, Jimmy Hoffa or early hominid habitation. Tighar is brave to have an online forum in which people can speak openly.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 30, 2014, 08:54:34 AM

Could this be "CCCP" and fell from space? Or Part of the long gone lettering residue from the PMB that crashed on Howland?


Good grief, we have now arrived at space ships. You can't make this stuff up. Next its aliens, Jimmy Hoffa or early hominid habitation. Tighar is brave to have an online forum in which people can speak openly.

I think Hoffa's safely dead; aliens, however...  8)
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: tom howard on October 30, 2014, 09:56:01 AM

Could this be "CCCP" and fell from space? Or Part of the long gone lettering residue from the PMB that crashed on Howland?


Good grief, we have now arrived at space ships. You can't make this stuff up. Next its aliens, Jimmy Hoffa or early hominid habitation. Tighar is brave to have an online forum in which people can speak openly.

YOU said space ships and aliens. Good grief is right!
However, space debris, rocket debris, falls in the Pacific frequently, so the idea of an old soviet booster piece is not out of the realm of possibilities, however unlikely, even using scrapped American aluminum for parts on early rocket designs.
Tighar is exploring the idea that this one piece may have come from a patch on Amelia Earharts plane.
THAT you can accept. The millions of pounds of space junk falling in the ocean is science fiction for you?

I realize I should have not even speculated, by saying space junk or from the PBM crash, someone would jump on that.
The real question I had was if there are visible remnants of two C's visible? Or perhaps two "O"s
 
Let's keep an open mind, if something is staring you in the face with the naked eye, perhaps alternate light sourcing or scrapings could be of use in that area in validating this artifact.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: jgf1944 on October 30, 2014, 10:10:16 AM
Fellow Explorers;
     Betty's Notebook provides apparent evidence that Noonan wanted to leave the aircraft during the radio session Betty heard and transcribed. To wit, three times the man in the Notebook spoke to the woman (ostensibly Earhart), "let me out." The motivation(s) for those words is analyzed in a paper on the Notebook soon to be submitted to TIGHAR. For present consideration, imagine that Noonan urgently wanted to exit but Earhart had forbidden that behavior. In kind, she could block an exit through the cockpit hatchway by simply staying in her seat and disallowing Noonan stepping on her. Earhart could not, however, do that and simultaneously guard the fuselage door. Therefore, if Noonan began kicking out "the patch" area, it appears the door may have been incapable of being opened (FN's simplier exit alternative). One thing that weighs against the Noonan kicking scenario is that he ostensibly had a serious injury, leaving in question his capacity to produce the required forceful behavior. (Of course other kicking scenarios remain that do include Earhart.)
   High kudos to the "patch team" for setting a such a high bar regarding the acquisition of empirical evidence in the Earhart history domain.
j. guthrie ford
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Matt Revington on October 30, 2014, 11:09:11 AM
We know that the crew were able to transmit messages from the aircraft for up to seven days: the last credible record in Bob Brandenburg’s catalog is #175 at 2018 Gardner time on July 7th.  Yet during the late morning of the 9th , around 36 hours later, Lambrecht was unable to identify the aircraft in the surf.


....

This means that on the 9th the plane was no longer on the reef, so sometime before then, a distinct, discrete event must have taken place to remove the aircraft from its landing spot.

A strong possibility would seem to be that the landing gear that held the aircraft in place against the continuous back and forth movement caused by wave action, eventually succumbed to fatigue, letting the plane drift away and sink down the slope, substantially intact. The landing gear itself, anchored in a crack in the reef, would then later become the Bevington object.

Another source of forces is the weather. A squall or any high winds could well subject the Electra to sudden catastrophic forces, either destroying it or causing it to break free from the reef and sink.  However, from the logs of the USS Colorado available on line, it would appear that the weather in that vicinity remained relatively stable during the timeframe under consideration (perhaps more investigation is needed to identify the actual weather patterns at Gardner).



I'm not sure how much use the logs of the Colorado would help
This link is to an article about the difficulties of weather prediction in the pacific region
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/met/Faculty/businger/PDF/HawaiiFcsting.pdf
It seems localized storms and even water spouts ( admittedly rarely) can form with little warning, so it is still possible that a local squall and high tides could have combined to do some damage to the Electra on the reef and yet would not have been observed by the Colorado a few hundred miles away.

For those who are more knowledgeable about aircraft structure: does it seem likely that the area around the patch (especially if some structural damage in that part of the Electra had been done during the the hard landing in Miami) would have been the weakest part of the body?  Is it likely that if the Electra was battered about a bit on the reef after losing the landing gear that this would have been the first site where the planes fuselage would have given out?
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 30, 2014, 03:30:09 PM
All lightheartedness aside, we actually use guidance in my industry for strength in structures to resist the effects of falling space debris, kid you not.

I think the 'A D' we see, for all the controversy it also generates, is a reliable indicator that we're dealing with aircraft aluminum of American manufacture; given the airman quality of the work we see on it and the presence of an AD456 2117 material rivet, also American, we seem to be dealing with something that came from an airplane (THE airplane, some of us hope, hence we continue to research).  It does not seem to have originated from a shipping box, etc.

As to 'how the panel failed', I think while we can conjecture for ideas and fun, we're far from fully understanding this part.  For one thing, the failure evident along the 'shark's teeth' suggests a tensile failure of 2024 material that should withstand nearly a ton of force per running inch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_aluminium_alloy): to initiate the crack we see, someone would have to repeated bang on that thing with sustained forces of something approaching half that, IMO, to initiate a crack in otherwise undamaged metal; after that, they'd need to keep up a very strong effort to keep the crack moving along that edge. 

In fact, the failure edge is a bit more complex than I just described - it isn't in pure tension, but many segments of the failure path are partly in shear - a LOT of force to do that.  The somewhat regular pattern suggests to me (I'm not a metallurgist or a fracture mechanics engineer) one sustained event. 

That all said, my status as an inexpert observer as to this failure should underscore the need we have for truly expert evaluation if we are to understand what happened to cause the failure we see.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: tom howard on October 30, 2014, 07:01:29 PM
ok Jeff the AD establishes it is American aluminum.
Did you check out the area I thought contained two letters?
Blow up the picture I attached, it's cropped and easy to see, the hue was adjusted to see easier.
Just enlarge it to 200% to see it easier.
If that is corrosion, it is amazing it came out looking like side by side C's, I don't look for camels
in the sky, this is pretty blatant, follow the curves of each "letter" or corrosion.
It could be a freak coincidence, but so far I haven't seen an expert comment on it.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Diego Vásquez on October 30, 2014, 11:22:27 PM
My eyes may be pulling a TM on me, and I am seeing things, but does anyone else see two "C"'s right above the "AD"?

Tom - I have long thought that the CDC should investigate to find out if this site somehow emits any invisible cyber toxic waste or some or other unknown and unseen factor that might account for the epidemic of apophenia that one sometimes sees here.  But since you asked, and at risk of adding myself to the list of apophenia sufferers, yes, I can see what you are referring to as the two C's.  To me, the second one appears to be the most striking, since it has remnants of an exactly C-shaped curve as well as an unusually straight horizontal line at the upper right termination of the C, at approximately 2 or 3  o'clock as you look at it.  Its the only straight line I can find in that picture (other than the AD).  I don't think you are seeing things, the shapes do seem to be there.  That said, I also notice a very large blob of the same color or material to the right of the two Cs.  This blob is obviously too large to be part of any lettering and suggests to me that what appear to be the two C's are probably random, coincidental blobs of that same material/residue/oxidation as well.  I also see the scratches through the AD that you mention, but they seem pretty superficial and at least some of them go through the CC area as well.  I guess some cosmonaut could have scratched them out, but seems like a longshot, as you seem to realize too.  It's still a good catch though and may be worth following up on.

Diego
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bessel P Sybesma on October 31, 2014, 01:12:44 AM
I have to say the C's remain invisible to me - can one of you mark them out and post them?

One thing I do see is that the A and the D seem to have been deliberately scratched out with a crosswise pattern, like a child would do with a spelling mistake...
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on October 31, 2014, 04:58:07 AM
Some interesting questions that come to mind

"The panel could have been kicked out by AE or FN"
So where was the panel before it was discovered in the 1991 expedition? There was a previous expedition two years earlier which didn't find it washed up on the surf line.

"pried out by an islander"
The wreckage was visible then even if it was under water otherwise how would they have known it was there?

"torn out by the surf"
The wreckage was visible then

"or maybe some other scenario we can't imagine"
Most likely?
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 31, 2014, 07:05:37 AM
ok Jeff the AD establishes it is American aluminum.
Did you check out the area I thought contained two letters?
Blow up the picture I attached, it's cropped and easy to see, the hue was adjusted to see easier.
Just enlarge it to 200% to see it easier.
If that is corrosion, it is amazing it came out looking like side by side C's, I don't look for camels
in the sky, this is pretty blatant, follow the curves of each "letter" or corrosion.
It could be a freak coincidence, but so far I haven't seen an expert comment on it.

Tom,

I can see what I'll call for now a 'suggestion' of two "C" images.  I have also long noticed what I wondered about being another "D" to the left and above the established "AD" (and thereby about mid-waterline between the "C's" and "AD").

The "C's" image is on a different alignment, i.e. the waterline they are 'normal' to is not parallel to that of the AD waterline.

All of which is quite possible as some form of printed matter that we don't yet understand, I suppose.  I'm more willing to say that after having seen a wider variation of aluminum stock printing in the dusty metal of the USAF Museum, etc. than I ever would have thought existed.

That said, I am at least equally uncertain that we're actually seeing printed C's (or another D, as I mentioned), but more likely some phenomena of nature acting on man's product.  However, I surely would not object to better eyes than mine analyzing this imagery, i could be wrong.  That said, I think Diego's point about similar appearing but more blobbish images of same color / apparent make-up to the C's might mean exactly what he suggested: random stuff of a suggestive 'design'.

I've also long noticed the scratches.  I do not know their origin.  My impression of them from the beginning has been that a) someone made some attempt to clear crud from the metal, and b) might have stopped as they realized that this was a crude method and that what they were hoping to see might actually be damaged had they continued.  The scratches may also be a side effect of the artifact lying in an abrasive environment for much of it's life.  I do not believe that anyone was playing hob with factual evidence, just in case that is wondered.  Thinking about that now, had that been the case, and I see no reason for it, it would be pretty amateurish by what we see in these few scratches - I'd think a more deliberate burnishing would be the case.

I think we have an AD here; the other possibilities would have to be investigated and better established by others, in my thought.  I admit a wariness of apophenia, it can be most infective.  But who knows, maybe you've spotted another dimension in the set of mysteries that 2-2-V-1 has come to be.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: jgf1944 on October 31, 2014, 09:30:20 AM
Hello Jeffrey Neville;
    Please let me call on your clarity of expression for an explanation or two. "The Patch" replaced a window. The Patch shows rivet holes, some of which mark where The Patch was apparently fastened to stringers. Were those stringers in place when the patch space was a window? That does not strike me as likely, and so were the stringers installed at the time The Patch was installed in Miami?
    Lastly, I believe I read that the A and D shapes are on the exterior surface of The Patch. If the A and D are part of a probuct label, then it appears The Patch was installed with the label facing the outside. Is that characteristic in the world of aircraft aluminum installation? (I wonder if the AD might be discernible to advanced photography in any pre-loss images of the Electra? That would nail it down for me!)
    Many Thanks, Guthrie Ford #3422
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 31, 2014, 10:41:17 AM
The scratches may also be a side effect of the artifact lying in an abrasive environment for much of it's life.  I do not believe that anyone was playing hob with factual evidence, just in case that is wondered. 

That's my vote for the majority of the scratches. Every tried walking barefoot over coral? I don't recommend it. And don't ask me how I know that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

P.S. We're in danger of overthinking this. Remember Occam's Razor.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 31, 2014, 10:48:05 AM
Hello Jeffrey Neville;
    Please let me call on your clarity of expression for an explanation or two. "The Patch" replaced a window. The Patch shows rivet holes, some of which mark where The Patch was apparently fastened to stringers. Were those stringers in place when the patch space was a window? That does not strike me as likely, and so were the stringers installed at the time The Patch was installed in Miami?
    Lastly, I believe I read that the A and D shapes are on the exterior surface of The Patch. If the A and D are part of a probuct label, then it appears The Patch was installed with the label facing the outside. Is that characteristic in the world of aircraft aluminum installation? (I wonder if the AD might be discernible to advanced photography in any pre-loss images of the Electra? That would nail it down for me!)
    Many Thanks, Guthrie Ford #3422

I'll try -

The 'patch' didn't 'replace' a window, it 'covered' a window (and I actually prefer the term 'cover', as in 'window covering', to 'patch' - but a rose...) -

The stiffener (like a 'stringer', but lighter) and upper stringer (another double row) that traversed the window aperture were truncated by whomever installed the window.  The stringer at the bottom of the window (which I'm calling a 'stringer' because it is a more major member by virtue of a double row / being wider than the typical stiffener, rather like the upper double-row member that was truncated) was left intact, and in fact used for the lower edge of the window coaming attachment.  We can see this in the various 'window' pictures.

The one set of surviving rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 that may relate to the existing airplane 'stringers' would be those along what we believe to be the lower edge of the 'patch', i.e. the 'double row' where we see the shark-tooth failure.  The other fastener holes are where intermediate stringers may have been installed, as I've explained in the bulletin, etc. to help give rigidity and shape to the 'patch' (cover, says I...).  To answer you in part, yes, those extra stiffeners would have been installed in Miami to ensure a durable shape and prevent unwanted flex, or oil canning of the membrane (the 'skin').  I believe the picture of the shiny, reflective 'patch' in Miami does reveal a rivet pattern that appears to match 2-2-V-1, but others may see that differently: I've heard 'clouds' suggested, but the 'rivet' images / lines are at too odd an angle in my view for clouds along the horizon, and odd that a couple of rows of 'clouds' happen to parallel the other rivet lines we see on the ship.

These points are both a strength, and a weakness in the hypothesis -

- A strength in that we're looking at a non-standard piece of construction on the Lockheed, and 2-2-V-1 has many characteristics of a non-standard installation, i.e. repair, or modification: the 'patch' is not a direct fit to any stock location on the Electra (or any other type that visited the area) that we've found; further, the way the rivet lines are laid out suggests something other than a 'stock' installation, as well - something more like a post-production field modification effort of some sort.  That fits what we see in the Miami pictures as a last minute 'patch'.  It could fit another 'field effort' on a different airplane too, but the method of construction (lightly braced, spacing of members, etc.) tends to support an airframe on the order of the Electra, not the military types we examined as potential candidates.

- A weakness in that we have the obvious problem of not being able to prove a direct and true fit to the Electra, rivet by rivet, which would be nice - and barring the emergence of a miraculously clear picture of 'the patch' in Miami or somewhere subsequent, rivets and all, necessary to absolutely clinch this hypothesis.  We are far from blind from these realities.

The remnants of the printed material do, I believe, lie on what would have been the exterior surface.  It can be done either way - we've seen examples of aluminum markings turned to the interior, and others of them turned outside.  Neither would surprise me.  The stuff they used to mark this kind of material apparently had some effect of 'etching' or leaving a permanent trace, even if buffed off: what we see on 2-2-V-1 is not ink per se, but some visual remnant of the process the ink induced, i.e. micro-pitting, etching or staining I do not know, but some residual effect in lieu of 'ink' is apparently the case.  Point here being, the outer surface might have been polished in Miami after completing the installation - that would be the norm; but wherever this 'ink' was were tiny etchings or similar that led us to what we see today.  This seems to be the case.

I'm glad you asked these things, it is heartening as it is important to me to continue to explore the possibilities of 2-2-V-1 and to share that with others.  This artifact still has many details that are not yet understood; any of those secrets might reveal more about potential ties to NR16020.  I believe there is a tendency for many to simply say we 'did not prove it came from the Electra', or that there is 'no hope of that'.  Conversely, I believe there is still great potential, and that it is very important to completely wring dry any precious potential artifact that might relate to Earhart.  Niku has proven rich with things of that nature: the world didn't permit much of Earhart, if anything, to remain as a grave marker, so if we as an interested people - whatever we believe happened, would truly search, then we owe it to her and ourselves to leave no stone unturned. 

I believe that is why such a tremendous effort is going into this, and when some promise emerges, then it helps support the next baby step toward success.  It's a bit like Edison inventing the light bulb: by the time he succeeded, he knew far more ways to fail than he did to succeed, but to succeed he had to believe it could be done and not give up.  This is something I really hope the greater community can grasp. 

2-2-V-1 is a remarkable object with an interesting story all its own.  It has tremendous potential in the Earhart case despite the odds: the facts and circumstances of what happened in Miami, the nature of such mod work and the construction type of the Electra, and the picture evidence in that place all have shone a bright light on this odd piece of metal found in the flotsam at Niku all those years ago.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on October 31, 2014, 10:51:33 AM
Jeff, you say

"The 'patch' didn't 'replace' a window, it 'covered' a window (and I actually prefer the term 'cover', as in 'window covering', to 'patch' - but a rose...) -"

You aren't suggesting that the plexi of the window was still in place, are you?  By cover the window, you are saying that the "patch" covers the opening that was cut out during the window installation, yes?

I just want to make sure I understand what you are describing.  Thanks

Andrew
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: tom howard on October 31, 2014, 10:59:25 AM
I have to say the C's remain invisible to me - can one of you mark them out and post them?

One thing I do see is that the A and the D seem to have been deliberately scratched out with a crosswise pattern, like a child would do with a spelling mistake...

I tried to outline them very roughly. The pictures have to be enlarged a bit to get a good view.The top right angles are sharp on both "c's. I will leave it for the experts, it's interesting.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 31, 2014, 11:02:13 AM
Jeff, you say

"The 'patch' didn't 'replace' a window, it 'covered' a window (and I actually prefer the term 'cover', as in 'window covering', to 'patch' - but a rose...) -"

You aren't suggesting that the plexi of the window was still in place, are you?  By cover the window, you are saying that the "patch" covers the opening that was cut out during the window installation, yes?

I just want to make sure I understand what you are describing.  Thanks

Andrew

No - it wouldn't make sense to me for the plexiglass (or whatever was there) to remain.

By 'window' in this sense I mean 'aperture', or the opening within the metal framing; I do not mean the 'transparency' material.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Diego Vásquez on October 31, 2014, 11:23:04 AM
I have to say the C's remain invisible to me - can one of you mark them out and post them?

Bessel - In the attached photo, I have circled in red what I believe to be the two C's that Tom is referring to.  I also circled the large blob of what appears to be the same residue/stain/whatever but does not appear to be a letter.  Hope this helps.


Diego

p.s.  I have noticed that although the red circles identify where the Cs are, they also seem to make the C's a little less apparent (maybe my red line cut a little of them off?).  I suggest you use the photo with the red circles as a finding guide and then look at them again in the photo without the circles where they actually seem to me to be a little more apparent. 
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Friend Weller on October 31, 2014, 12:19:33 PM
By 'window' in this sense I mean 'aperture', or the opening within the metal framing.....

Should we call it a fenestration?  An aperture is the opening which limits the amount of light that can pass.  A fenestration is an opening in the wall of a structure such as a window or door.

Just don't defenestrate me (the act of throwing someone out of a window)!!  I just wanted to use the word "fenestration" in a sentence!    ;D

LTM,
Friend
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 31, 2014, 01:00:02 PM
By 'window' in this sense I mean 'aperture', or the opening within the metal framing; I do not mean the 'transparency' material.

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.  It would make no sense to reinstall the frame and then put a patch on top of it.  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.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on October 31, 2014, 02:20:10 PM
By 'window' in this sense I mean 'aperture', or the opening within the metal framing.....

Should we call it a fenestration?  An aperture is the opening which limits the amount of light that can pass.  A fenestration is an opening in the wall of a structure such as a window or door.

Just don't defenestrate me (the act of throwing someone out of a window)!!  I just wanted to use the word "fenestration" in a sentence!    ;D

LTM,
Friend

Heavens to Jezebel (a biblical case of defenestration), let us get it right - while the purpose was definitely to allow optical light in for navigation, obviously we are not concerned particularly with how collimated the rays were.

Henceforth I shall refer to the window opening as 'the hole'.  ;D
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on October 31, 2014, 03:18:26 PM
From Jeff's post on page 2...
Quote
The stuff they used to mark this kind of material apparently had some effect of 'etching' or leaving a permanent trace, even if buffed off: what we see on 2-2-V-1 is not ink per se, but some visual remnant of the process the ink induced, i.e. micro-pitting, etching or staining I do not know, but some residual effect in lieu of 'ink' is apparently the case.  Point here being, the outer surface might have been polished in Miami after completing the installation - that would be the norm; but wherever this 'ink' was were tiny etchings or similar that led us to what we see today.

I have a theory that rather than etching, the (ALCL)AD label remnant visible on 2-2-V-1 is simply a result of the pressure of the machine roller style stamping device that was used to apply it making a permanent impression in the soft surface aluminium cladding on the sheet. 

Lady Be Good photos indicate a depression of the characters of sufficient depth to "hold" paint and stop it from being sand blasted out...not claiming a font match, just trying to understand why the AD on the artifact is even still visible

http://www.richarddavisphotography.com/libya-2/alclad-24s-t-markings-on-the-lady-be-good/
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 01, 2014, 10:38:16 AM
Doug - good find! I don't think we had considered it. There are still a LOT of things that 2-2-V-1 is trying to tell us. We just have to find the right ears to listen. And we have an awful lot of good ears on the forum!

LTM, who abhors earwax,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: jgf1944 on November 01, 2014, 11:26:48 AM
Thanks for the answers, Jeffrey.
    You mentioned the letter-like figures, about which I too have been thinking. Once TIGHAR research can show that the apparent "A" and "D" figures reflect product labelling that was used in the Earhart era, then I think that I would include the letters when describing the artifact to John Q Public. JQP is not likely to remember, IMO, technical info about rivet size and rivet rows or island names and dates, but JQP will remember, again IMO, seeing a piece of airplane aluminum bearing the letters A and D that were used to identify aluminum during the Earhart era.
     When there is a group of JQPs around the work water cooler, it is easy for me to imagine the talk turning to the piece of metal CNN showed that has letters on it from the Earhart era. That info is short and sweet and so easy to remember (encode) and easy to say. In other words, the 2-2-V-1 letters seem to me like a good addition to TIGHAR's evidence corral. 
      Again, thanks Jeffrey. Guthrie
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Randy Conrad on November 01, 2014, 10:20:46 PM
In light of all the comments and posts regarding this exciting topic, I find myself in Amelia's shoes and wondering what she was doing at the time of this event. We all know that according to the post-loss signals that Amelia and Fred were on the island for a couple of days. I believe that when they landed it wasn't a cake walk, but a rather very hard landing. I believe with her landing and tailspin...it caused Fred to be injured. Even though the plane remained upright...there had to be some significant damage underneath the plane...possibly damaging the outter shell. During the next few days....water kept rising and eventually pushed the Electra into this trench that everyone knows about. When the plane falls into this trench...it rolls over onto its side...breaking off one of the landing gears if not both of them. You have to envision now with me that the side of the plane with the door is already buried in the coral and sand of the ocean. No way to get access to the plane. Plus, the windows are intact and the pilot seat is also obstructed an no way to reach that particular side of the plane where Amelia enters/leaves the pilot seat. The only way to get access is the Miami artifact patch!!! ...which is now the only part of the plane that can be seen from top of the water. By now, Amelia and Fred are desperate to obtain special equipment  and gear needed for survival. I believe that this patch at the edges was pried off with some sort of prying device to gain access to the plane. During this time, I believe that Fred entered the Electra and was throwing certain things out to Amelia, when the plane finally slid down the trench and over the edge of the reef. I think this is why we only have this artifact in our possession. As for Fred, I believe he was trapped in the interior of the body of the aircraft and couldnt get out as it went over the edge. Anyway, either which way you look at it or have your own theories, I'd hate to be in her shoes as she was dealt the final hand and eventually perished a terrible death on Niku! Overall, this patch has a story to tell, and we are embodied as a group to tell her final chapter. I think we all owe this to Ric and those who have stood beside him all these years. Eventually, in the coming days and weeks, that final chapter will take shape and then June will roll around and we will all anticipate the finale!!!
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Robert John Mills on November 01, 2014, 11:56:57 PM
If you look at the patch you will note that generally most of the contours are smooth.  If someone was trying to remove the patch with crude tools there would be more abrupt bends from someone prying or pounding at one rivet site, then the next, then the next and so on until it was removed from the plane. The patch was on the wall which makes it difficult to kick it out seeing as how the stringers were in the way as well.  I believe the patch looks like it was forced off of the fuselage by the pressure of wave action entering the man door on the plane (hence the smooth contours).  Several big punches to pop most of it off the fuselage, then subsequent wave action to bend it back and fourth to fatigue the metal and finally break it off.  Washed out onto the reef, then tossed back or otherwise exposed during a storm for Ric to find later.  My guess!

I do agree that removing the patch would aid in cross ventilating the fuselage while on the reef that would reduce the temperature inside making radio operation more bearable in those temperatures.  But like I mentioned, there is an absence of crude tool marks.

Just an opinion.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on November 02, 2014, 09:59:07 AM
From Jeff's post on page 2...
Quote
The stuff they used to mark this kind of material apparently had some effect of 'etching' or leaving a permanent trace, even if buffed off: what we see on 2-2-V-1 is not ink per se, but some visual remnant of the process the ink induced, i.e. micro-pitting, etching or staining I do not know, but some residual effect in lieu of 'ink' is apparently the case.  Point here being, the outer surface might have been polished in Miami after completing the installation - that would be the norm; but wherever this 'ink' was were tiny etchings or similar that led us to what we see today.

I have a theory that rather than etching, the (ALCL)AD label remnant visible on 2-2-V-1 is simply a result of the pressure of the machine roller style stamping device that was used to apply it making a permanent impression in the soft surface aluminium cladding on the sheet. 

Lady Be Good photos indicate a depression of the characters of sufficient depth to "hold" paint and stop it from being sand blasted out...not claiming a font match, just trying to understand why the AD on the artifact is even still visible

http://www.richarddavisphotography.com/libya-2/alclad-24s-t-markings-on-the-lady-be-good/

You may be right - but somewhere on this site here are images of hand-rollers being applied (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b00608/), which wouldn't impart so much force in my belief.

Would 'depth' really have that effect?  We'd be talking a very shallow amount of 'depth', if any, I'd think.  I don't know the exact mechanism, but it appears to be something other than simply 'ink left behind', for sure.  Maybe in time we can learn - is it micro-etching or a similar process that causes paint and growth or corrosive by-product to adhere better? 

I suspect that - that some chemical effect of the ink may have done it: not enough to 'harm' the metal, but enough to give an adhesive effect.  It grows a bit more interesting in my mind now that so few characters survive on 2-2-V-1.

In looking at 'Lady Be Good' here, the characters appear more bold (thicker) than on 2-2-V-1.  Is this another variation in the printing of characters, or is that an illusion?
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Leon R White on November 02, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
For comparing the artifact to other pieces of material, would it help to look at PAN AM aircraft, repairs, etc.  if any known examples exist? 
L
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on November 02, 2014, 12:38:38 PM
I believe it would help, one way or another.

Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 02, 2014, 01:15:04 PM
I believe it would help, one way or another.

To be relevant it would need to be a photo showing a patch on a Pan Am aircraft circa 1937, preferably an aircraft based at the Dinner Key seaplane base.  Tall order.
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on November 02, 2014, 03:34:24 PM
That - or more likely (and what I had in mind), to provide more information on the much belabored 'fonts', says he who has been digging through Alcoa, Reynolds and other information...

The world of corporate-anything like that gets more complex than a plethora of WWII photos would suggest...

Somehow 2-2-V-1 doesn't suggest 'Pan Am flying boat' patch to me - again, *IMO* (LOL!!!) the way it is braced is more suggestive of an airplane along the lines of a... Lockheed Electra.  It also grows more odd to me by the day that the size of the thing is somehow just very, very right.

I know, I'm a hopeless romantic, and now I'm 'channeling' some poor long-dead mechanic just like LaPook used to channel Noonan here, but...
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 02, 2014, 06:14:51 PM
... and now I'm 'channeling' some poor long-dead mechanic just like LaPook used to channel Noonan here, but...

We are sooooooo not going to go there. And Jeff knows why I say that so adamantly.

Besides, I've already solved any mysteries regarding Noonan's navigation. See the relevant post in Celestial Choir.

LTM, who tries not to see dead people on a regular basis,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on November 02, 2014, 06:19:53 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Leon R White on November 04, 2014, 02:01:34 PM
What about checking wrecks or surviving examples of AE's plane for the aluminum stamps etc. Any chance the Idaho wreck or other examples might share some insight?  Any places to look in Witchita?

L
Title: Re: Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 04, 2014, 02:32:41 PM
My personal opinion is that there are a lot more interesting questions about 2-2-V-1 than the fonts, right now. And there are a number of people hard at work on trying to find the answers.

But we can always use more money, given to TIGHAR by a lot of people, to help us find those answers faster!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP