Print

[JNev]

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.

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.

[Monty Fowler]

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.

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

[Brad Beeching]

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..

[Bill Mangus]

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.

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

[Bill Mangus]

"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.

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

[Brad Beeching]

I've suggested this before.....

"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

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!"

[Ric Gillespie]

Heck, they're only about an hour from here.  I'll give them a call.

[Ted G Campbell]

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

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

 

[Timothy Smith]

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

[Ric Gillespie]

Thanks Tim.