Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: March 28, 2018, 07:23:29 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Greg Daspit
What he might want to remark on is to explain the reason for the new inspection.
Aug Insp. Incld. fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs
or
Orig Inspt. Incl. fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs
Or something like that.
One of the middle letters looks like it may have been crossed out.

 92 
 on: March 28, 2018, 06:33:39 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Jerry Germann
Boy that is tough to make out....I like Albert's idea of what it might be,...but was also trying to make Re positioned work, and see if that could possibly be the word.

 93 
 on: March 28, 2018, 06:22:06 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Jerry Germann
Is the little area (circled in red) an attempt to add another word after the sentence was already written, or just an ink transfer from a sloppy pen?

 94 
 on: March 28, 2018, 05:05:51 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
Reinspected?

I like the "Re" because it fits the context but I can't find a "p" and that sure looks like a "t" in the middle.

 95 
 on: March 28, 2018, 04:44:38 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Albert Durrell
Reinspected?

 96 
 on: March 28, 2018, 04:18:13 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
We're making cleaned up facsimiles of the bad photocopies of original documents for inclusion in the Electra book.
We've hit a snag in the November 27, 1936 Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report.
On the "Remarks" line at the end of the form there is a handwritten notation as shown in the attached image. We think it says, "unknown word or words fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs".  We can't figure out what that first part is. We think it's a single long word that ends in "ed". 

A little background might help decipher the sentence.  This inspection was occasioned by an error made back in August 1936 when the aircraft was inspected and licensed at a time when the long-range fuselage fuel tanks were removed to correct some problem.  The airplane was thus licensed for a fuel capacity of only 394 gallons instead of 1151.  Nobody noticed the error until months later.  Putnam wrote to the Bureau of Air Commerce and said the license was wrong.  The Bureau said the license reflects the inspection that was done. If you want to change the license you need a new inspection.  So the November inspection is describing work that was done back in July.

The word at beginning of the sentence is probably an adjective that describes some change that was made to the fuel tanks to correct the problem (such as "modified" but that's clearly not the word).  We don't know what the problem was that occasioned the removal of the tanks but we do know that part of the solution was to install a second layer of plywood - described as a "falsehoods floor" - over the original floor. We also know that the system of filling the fuselage tanks was changed.

Anybody have a suggestion about what that first word is?


 97 
 on: March 28, 2018, 03:35:44 PM 
Started by Randy Jacobson - Last post by Ric Gillespie
I believe that the cockpit was set up so that only AE could control the radio.

The controls for the transmitter and receiver were on the "knee panel" at the base of the instrument panel on the copilot side.
The knob for manually rotating the loop was on the ceiling of the cockpit roughly in the middle between pilot and copilot.

 98 
 on: March 25, 2018, 12:38:22 PM 
Started by Randy Jacobson - Last post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
AE was the pilot and owner of the plane. In all the coverage of communications during and after the last flight, I don't recall any messages that were reported to be from FN.

I believe that the cockpit was set up so that only AE could control the radio.

Don't have time to check whether that memory is fer real.



Oh, wait ...

It may be that the controls for the rotating antenna were on her side of the cockpit ...

Will try to track this down later.

 99 
 on: March 25, 2018, 11:20:16 AM 
Started by Randy Jacobson - Last post by Jennifer Hubbard
AE was the pilot and owner of the plane. In all the coverage of communications during and after the last flight, I don't recall any messages that were reported to be from FN. (At least voice transmissions; not sure about Morse code.) As far as we know, for better or worse, AE was the one on the radio.

As for what might cause debilitation in either of them, dehydration is also a strong possibility.

 100 
 on: March 23, 2018, 11:22:46 PM 
Started by Randy Jacobson - Last post by Mark Appel
Of course, no one can predict how one or another will act in a desperate, life-threatening situation.

All we can do is speculate around what seems, given the evidence and facts, reasonable.

Fred was, by far, the most experienced professional of the two. He was older. He was male (therefore inculcated with male expectations) and his job was to KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.

Amelia was not accomplished, nor apparently comfortable with radio communications.

There is NO QUESTION, their best hope for survival was communication with rescuers.

It seems unlikely to me, that Fred would be the one hysterically advocating for egress of the Electra, while Amelia was calmly trying to communicate via radio.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

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