Print

[Mark Pearce]

"Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.:

"If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!"

You have the shoe on the wrong foot.  If you are asserting that the artifact has been disqualified as having been part of NR16020 the burden of that proof is on you. We do not claim to have proven that 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020.  We're investigating that possibility. 

Then how do you explain this announcement from 1992? [Emphasis added]

"The analysis of artifacts recovered during last year’s expedition has reached the point where we can now say with confidence that we have the proof. Exhaustive research has established that a section of aluminum aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro could only have come from Earhart’s aircraft..."

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/WeDidIt.pdf

[Ric Gillespie]

We also have the same labeling on a flap actuating rod cover from the cabin of c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum but we don't know whether the cover was original construction or a later replacement.

Now that we know the "Mavis" is really a B-24, there should be no controversy about when the US Gov. specification "AN-A-13" first appears on Alclad.  The flap rod cover on #1052, the re-skinning of #1015, and the patch on the C-47 in Dover can't be older than the WW2 era.

"We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30572.html#msg30572

I'm flattered that you feel that because I wrote something it must be true.  Regrettably, I can assure that is not the case. The ALCOA publications do give the impression that the AN-A-13 specification came out sometime between 1941 and 1943 but without a dated copy of the actual specification we can't be sure.  I'm not trying to be difficult.  If you were arguing for the specification to have come out earlier you would be making the same point I'm making.

There is also the point (I say again) that we don't know that the font seen on the artifact is unique to AN-A-13 labeling.

[Ric Gillespie]

Then how do you explain this announcement from 1992? [Emphasis added]

"The analysis of artifacts recovered during last year’s expedition has reached the point where we can now say with confidence that we have the proof. Exhaustive research has established that a section of aluminum aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro could only have come from Earhart’s aircraft..."

LOL!  I was WRONG!  I hope I've learned a little bit in the 22 years since then.  One thing I've learned for sure - it's not up to me to say when something has been proven.  Smoking guns are in the eye of the beholder.  All I can do is try to maintain high standards of investigation and let people make up their own minds about the information and artifacts we uncover. 

I express my opinion about probabilities.  Sometimes I'm right.  Sometimes I'm wrong.  For critics who want to point and laugh, I'm a soft target. We've had so many good people working on this puzzle for so long that we now have multiple independent avenues of investigation all pointing to the same conclusion.  We can live without 2-2-V-1 if it comes to that. I'll happily chuck it on the scrap metal heap if it can truly be disqualified as being related to the Earhart disappearance - just as I did with the navigator's bookcase - but we're not there yet. Far from it.

[Steve Lee]

Is there still a reason why it is preferable to believe that 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra rather than a piece of a WWII airplane?

Well, for one thing, the Electra is still the best fit. We may find a better fit on another airplane but until we do NR16020 is still the best candidate.

And then there's the failure sequence - lateral separation along one edge, then fracture on two edges from a fluid force hitting the interior surface, then metal fatigue causing the failure of the fourth edge - all of which fits our hypothetical scenario for NR16020.

What are the chances that some other aircraft suffered an accident involving that same sequence of failures?

But doesn't that same sequence of failures apply equally well to a WW2 plane wrecked on the reef at Canton?...

[Ric Gillespie]

But doesn't that same sequence of failures apply equally well to a WW2 plane wrecked on the reef at Canton?...

Yes, if it lands on reef, gets knocked off it's gear, gets driven sideways across the reef until it goes over the edge and then gets torn up in the surf.  I'm just not aware of any incident like that at Canton (or anywhere else).  Wreckage from aircraft that hit the water or reef at high speed is typically crumpled and a "accordianed."

[John Ousterhout]

Ric mentioned "...Wreckage from aircraft that hit the water or reef at high speed is typically crumpled and a "accordianed."
Can someone link to some photos of examples?  I suspect that most of us have never seen examples, and it might give us a greater sense of what to appreciate in 2-2-V-1.  I have lots of experience in examining failed pressure vessels and failed gas generators, but have never examined an aircraft structure that has impacted water.
Come to think of it, examples like this might be a good thing for TIGHAR to make freely available.

[Steve Lee]

John,

Take a look at this:

http://www.huiwaa.org/lifeline/plane_wreck.html

Oh, wait, it's not accordioned...

[Steve Lee]

Okay, second try, how about this one:

http://www.indopacificimages.com/index.php/papua-new-guinea-2/diving-papua-new-guinea-the-b-17f-black-jack/

Umm, wait, no...

[Doug Ledlie]

Can someone link to some photos of examples? 

How about video of a B-24 ditching test as posted in Dado thread? Arguably relative as we have two B-24s in the water at Canton (C-87 which was a B-24D passenger version, survivors, in deep water on approach and a B-24J near reef on take off)

Re: The Dado 

« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2014, 06:29:17 PM »

re the B-24 propensity to break up, here's a controlled ditching test of a specially prepared airframe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSDa9z4kdOg

The airframe tested was specially reinforced as apparent in last few minutes of video with internal views.  Standard B-24 likely would have broken into sections (lots of examples of that happening) Easy to imagine a still moving detached section of fuselage impacting water such that a chunk of skin is blown out.

No doubt the type of damage in a water landing/crash depends on the circumstances and dynamics specific to each event

P.S. Check #4 from about 2:00 onward...doesn't want to quit

[Ric Gillespie]

Oh, wait, it's not accordioned...

It's not a high speed impact either. It was a survivable ditching. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Okay, second try, how about this one

No cigar. Another ditching.
I don't recall any ditchings at Canton.  No surprise. A ditching is an intentional water landing in a land plane.  Why would anyone ditch in the water when there's a runway nearby?  The crashes at Canton were crashes - such as the B-24J that went down after takeoff or the C-87 that flew into the water on approach at 130mph.  At that speed water is like concrete.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Don't know if this may be of any help in the case of 2-2-V-1 but there's a lot of boxes of information in Pittsburgh going back to 1857

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=hswpead;cc=hswpead;rgn=main;view=text;didno=US-QQS-MSS282

Repository:
Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania
Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center
 1212 Smallman Street
 Pittsburgh, PA 15222
 412-454-6364
 library@hswp.org
 http://www.heinzhistorycenter.org/libraryArchives.aspx

Summary Information

Title: Records of the Aluminum Company of America (Pittsburgh, PA)
Collection Number: MSS#282
Creator: Aluminum Company of America (Pittsburgh, PA)
Collection Dates: 1857-1992
Collection Dates: 1900-1965
Extent: 95 cubic feet (189 boxes)
Abstract:
The Aluminum Company of America, formerly the Pittsburgh Reduction Company, was incorporated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 18, 1888. These records include correspondence, advertisements, annual reports, publications, charts, ledgers, memoranda, minutes and other sundry material.

Example:
BOX 123
folder 7 Alcoa Aluminum and its Alloys
folder 8 Alcoa Editorial Clearance Manual
folder 9 Alcoa Technical Center
folder 10 Alloys and Mill Products
folder 11 Aluminum Alloys 1940-1950
folder 12 Aluminum Applications by Industries
folder 13 Aluminum Association Alloy Designation System
folder 14 Aluminum...The 20th Century Metal
folder 15 An Outline of Aluminum
folder 16 Design Data
folder 17 Guide to Products and Services
folder 18 Heat Treatment of 24S and Alclad 24S Alloy Products
folder 19 Identification of Constituents of Aluminum Alloys #7
folder 20 Magazine Reprints
folder 21 Revealing the Microstructure of 24S Alloy 

[Steve Lee]

Okay, second try, how about this one

No cigar. Another ditching.
I don't recall any ditchings at Canton.  No surprise. A ditching is an intentional water landing in a land plane.  Why would anyone ditch in the water when there's a runway nearby?  The crashes at Canton were crashes - such as the B-24J that went down after takeoff or the C-87 that flew into the water on approach at 130mph.  At that speed water is like concrete.

A number of  Canton wrecks do not sound like they were ‘high speed impacts’ to me, e.g.,:

16 March 1940 :  PBY-2;  Hit reef on takeoff from Canton.

22 June 1942:  Boeing B-17E; Short of Runway. Written off  (damaged beyond repair)

15 December 1942: PBM; Hit Reef while taxiing

13 August 1943: PBY-5; Beached at Canton after being shot up by Japanese Flying Boat

Were these planes crumpled/accordioned?

Do you know  that all the other wrecks on the ‘Lost at Canton’ list were so violent that 2-2-V-1 couldn't have come from any of them...You mention the B-24J that crashed on the reef on takeoff, for instance. Do you know that crash was so violent it could not have been the parent to 2-2-V-1?

[Doug Ledlie]

B-24 ditching test was at 97mph (in this case that speed was in basically level flight with very gentle sink rate to point of ditch). Anyway, the point of relevance is in the significant damage done (almost broke in half in front of wings, skin damaged/missing) even in these controlled circumstances with a specially prepared plane and crew.

Therefore we could arguably expect both incidents at Canton, which were obviously not "ditchings", to result in near catastrophic fuselage failure, given the habit of the B-24 to break up.   Perhaps the circumstances were thus provided for the internal side of some piece of .032 skin to achieve all the characteristics of 2-2-v-1, not the least of which being the application of a fluid force to a now exposed interior surface during the impact/breakup sequence

And then there's the failure sequence - lateral separation along one edge, then fracture on two edges from a fluid force hitting the interior surface, then metal fatigue causing the failure of the fourth edge - all of which fits our hypothetical scenario for NR16020.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

"22 June 1942:  Boeing B-17E; Short of Runway. Written off  (damaged beyond repair)"

That one is suspect Steve as it has crashed twice and been written off twice in two different locations and two different dates.