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.