Print

[Jerry Germann]

Ric and Jeff ,
I have a few concerns regarding some of the variables already mentioned ( tire compression for one),but what other factors may influence the outcome of the test? In regard to the Smithsonian version of the vega, it was mentioned that the exterior was removed and recovered and repainted,...were the markings re positioned exactly in the original positions? Concerning the two different Vegas owned by Earhart , did they set at differing resting heights? I believe it was stated that Earhart's vega was nearly worn out when she sold it,.....would the resting height of the worn Vega differ from the height of the restored Smithsonian version ,due to strut fatigue, along with fuel/ cargo loading or lack thereof? Most important, how will identical fuselage angle be replicated?, ...In the photo of the fender-pan version Vega, the tail drag rests on a wheeled platform,...the Smithsonian version tail drag,is also supported,.... are these platforms equal in height so as to align the fuselage to the same angle? The fender-less version vega photo,( drag stick not in view)....is that drag stick ,worn, new, bent????Is it resting on a transport dollie ? ,..I believe mathematically a minor difference back there translates to an  increase/decrease in nose height up front. These things have been on my mind for sometime, I look forward to your response,in case others may be wondering these same things.

[Tim Collins]

If using a measurement from a plane for scale, I should think that it would be advisable to get that measurement from something that isn't likely or possible to have been changed. I don't necessarily think that a prop would fall into that category. Unless there us strong evidence that it is indeed original and the same as seen in the photos to which you are applying that scale.  The front opening of the cowl perhaps? Cockpit window frame? I understand that the preference would be for something relatively big, like a prop, but if it's uncertain whether or not it's original to the historical context... Something to think about anyway.

[Ric Gillespie]

In regard to the Smithsonian version of the vega, it was mentioned that the exterior was removed and recovered and repainted,...were the markings re positioned exactly in the original positions?

Speaking for my inexpert self:  It doesn't matter.  I'm sure Jeff wouldn't use the painted markings as a reference.  The cowling and the position of the engine can't change.

Concerning the two different Vegas owned by Earhart , did they set at differing resting heights?

Earhart owned five different Vegas at one time or another. We're only talking about one of them - Vega 5B NR7952.  We're comparing photographs of AE in front of that airplane with measurements taken of the same airplane today.

I believe it was stated that Earhart's vega was nearly worn out when she sold it,.....would the resting height of the worn Vega differ from the height of the restored Smithsonian version ,due to strut fatigue, along with fuel/ cargo loading or lack thereof?

No, the Vega was not "worn out."  When she donated the airplane to the Franklin Institute she swapped out the engine (which was relatively new) for an older engine of the same type.  Airplane engines have a specified Time Between Overhaul (TBO).  Once an engine reaches that number of hours of operation it must be overhauled.  Overhauling an engine is expensive. Earhart did not want to give away an engine that still had lots of time left. 

Most important, how will identical fuselage angle be replicated?

Not my problem.  Not your problem.  Glckman's problem.

These things have been on my mind for sometime, I look forward to your response,in case others may be wondering these same things.

In my inexpert opinion, the biggest challenge will be establishing propeller blade length in the photo versus the prop now on the airplane.  The hubs are clearly different.  The blade lengths are certainly similar but not necessarily identical.
Not my problem.  Not your problem.  Glckman's problem.
 

[Ian MacKay]

I agree. Knowing her height would be one factor in estimating her shoe size but it seems like knowing the dimensions of her hands would tell us something about her proportions. For example, a person with relatively large hands would be unlikely to have relatively small feet.

With regard to the correlation between hand and foot size, here is an article from a medical journal on the topic:
http://medind.nic.in/jae/t05/i2/jaet05i2p55.pdf

The article concludes " The results, therefore, indicate that if the hand length is known, foot length can be predicted and if the foot length is known, hand length can be predicted and vice versa."

[Ric Gillespie]

With regard to the correlation between hand and foot size, here is an article from a medical journal on the topic:

Interesting.  Based on the article, Earhart foot length should be between 24 and 25cm. 
As I wrote in the opening post in this thread, if Earhart had “normal” size feet for her height they were between 248mm and 266mm in length. Her shoes, of course, would be somewhat longer.

A pair of dress shoes that Amelia reportedly purchased in Ireland in 1932 measure 254mm or 10 inches in length, roughly an American woman’s size 6 1/2.

Based on the information we have at this time it would seem reasonable to conclude that Earhart's feet probably measured around 25cm in length.  Her shoe size would depend upon how much room she needed for socks or comfort. Dress shoes would be smaller. Casual or cold weather shoes larger.

[Steve D. Burk]

The link that Ian posted this morning is the same one that I posted yesterday morning.

[Ric Gillespie]

The link that Ian posted this morning is the same one that I posted yesterday morning.

Yes, and your concerns about the possibility of ethnic differences are probably valid.

[Steve D. Burk]

Ric,
Will you, or some TIGHAR member, now be adding a side trip to the Library of Congress to measure AE's original palm print to your planned Smithsonian visit? (Thereby avoiding having to work from a photo and the difficulties that entails.)

[Jerry Germann]

Is the prop in the glass case , the one that flew the Atlantic?

[Tim Collins]

I wonder if the Hamilton logo sticker is of a uniform size?

My dad worked for Hamilton Standard. I remember going to a couple of "open houses" when I was a kid. I always found it fascinating the condition of the props that came in for repair. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Is the prop in the glass case , the one that flew the Atlantic?

Dunno, but it sure looks like the prop in the photo.  Whether it was on the plane during the Atlantic flight doesn't matter.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric,
Will you, or some TIGHAR member, now be adding a side trip to the Library of Congress to measure AE's original palm print to your planned Smithsonian visit? (Thereby avoiding having to work from a photo and the difficulties that entails.)

Possibly.  It depends on how important a precise palm-print measurement would be to Dr. Jantz.

[Neff Jacobs]

This photo of AE sitting on the wheel fairing of the Vega may assist Jeff Glickman and Dr. Jantz in calculating the length of AE's lower legs, to see if there is a match-up with the 37.2cm long tibia measured by Dr. Hoodless in 1941.  The photo, from the Getty Archives, is titled; "Amelia Earhart being interviewed by the press at Newark Airport after failing to break Capt. Frank Hawks' cross country flight record." July 13, 1932, Credit: New York Daily News Archive.

There are also two photos of Amelia standing on foot pegs on the side of her Vega.  I think if the exact distance between the foot pegs was known both lower leg measurements and seated vs. standing height could be determined.
Neff

[Ric Gillespie]

This photo of AE sitting on the wheel fairing of the Vega may assist Jeff Glickman and Dr. Jantz in calculating the length of AE's lower legs, to see if there is a match-up with the 37.2cm long tibia measured by Dr. Hoodless in 1941.

Interesting idea.  Should be easy enough to measure the wheel pants.

Totally aside from the measurement issue, it's interesting to note how AE's wardrobe evolved during her career.  In 1932 she wore jodhpurs and jodhpur boots for flying. Many pilots wore riding apparel for flying, often boots and breeches. Army regulations specified that pilots should not wear spurs while flying.

When Earhart moved to California in 1935 she started wearing western (as in, cowboy) style clothes.

[Jerry Germann]

There are also two photos of Amelia standing on foot pegs on the side of her Vega.  I think if the exact distance between the foot pegs was known both lower leg measurements and seated vs. standing height could be determined.
Neff

Is this one of the photos you are thinking of Neff?