I truly dislike having to make things even more complicated, but I think we have some reason to suspect that McLeod's logbook is not completely accurate in all details.
Thanks Bill. It does make things more complicated but it's a good illustration that even primary sources are sometimes flawed. Unfortunately, inaccurate and imaginative entries in pilot logbooks are not exactly unheard of.
Take the designation on the plane: in his logbook, McLeod has 'X' for all 6 July dates, July 20 thru 25; for all 4 August dates, he wrote 'NR.' But that is contradicted by the datable newspaper photos, which show 'NR' on the plane on July 21, and 'X' in San Francisco on Aug 3. (It is as though he wrote 'X' in July when he knew that it what is was supposed to be, and then come August he decided to go with what he had seen on the plane in July, just about the time the 'NR' on the plane got painted over with an 'X,' possibly just in time for the Aug 2 flight to San Francisco.)
As we know, on July 19, 1936 Lockheed had the airplane inspected and applied for registration in the Experimental category as X16020. However, I just noticed that the application wasn't submitted until July 22, the day AFTER the Burbank press event. (Copy attached. Look at the bottom of the second page.) Everyone seems to have assumed that it would be no problem for Earhart to get the NR16020 registration once she owned the aircraft, so they went ahead and marked it that way.
On July 27, three days after ownership of the airplane was transferred to Earhart, she filled out an application for the ship to be registered as NR16020 (see copy attached) and Lockheed provided a cover letter (copy attached).
But the Bureau of Air Commerce said no and they had to change the markings to X16020.
On August 7, Earhart had the airplane inspected for registration in the Restricted category (copy attached) but did not apply for the N (international flight) designation. The plane was subsequently marked R16020.
Approval to add the N did not come through until September 21 but the N was not actually painted on the ship for several months.
That brings me to the second discrepancy I have noticed in McLeod's logbook. We see that he logged flights on Aug 2 & 3 on another plane, but not one with 16020; & on the previous page 9, he logged flights on Aug 2 & 3 on yet another plane, but not 16020. Then for Aug 7, he logged a one-day 16020 flight to & from San Fran. From the news report and photo in the Aug 3 Oakland Tribune, we know that he and AE were in San Fran and Alameda on Aug 3, and they told the press that they had flown into SF the night before from Burbank, in one hour & 55 mins.
This is strange. CFAZY was c/n 1063, a Model 10A. According to the AAHS Journal accounting (which has proved to be quite accurate) it was delivered to Canadian Airways, Ltd. on Aug 1, 1936. McLeod's log says he made test flights in CFAZY on July 26, 30, 31, Aug. 1 and 2, and delivered the plane in Las Vegas on Aug. 3. Regardless of what his log says, we know from the newspaper article that he flew X16020 to San Francisco with AE on Aug. 2 and was there with her on Aug. 3. I guess it's possible that he made a test flight in CFAZY in the morning on Aug 2, flew up to San Francisco with AE that afternoon, and came back on Aug 3 in time to delivery CFAZY to Las Vegas that same day. It still doesn't explain why he logged the two day San Francisco trip as one flight on the wrong day.
Bottom line: I don't think it's safe to conclude from McLeod's logbook alone, whether or not AE's Electra was at the Lockheed plant on any given date. I think Ric is right, that our first hypothesis should be that first there was no belly antenna, and later there was one. That gives us July 22 and 23 as the most likely dates, I think.
I'll always agree with you when you think I'm right. :-) Most likely dates for the Turkey Crossing photos? Certainly after July 21 and before August 2. Interestingly, the Las Vegas Bill of Sale lists the airplane as NR16020 with the NR crossed out and an X written in by hand, which suggests that the NR was still on the plane on July 24. Earhart's initial application for NR16020 didn't go in until July 27, so they didn't know they had a problem until the application was rejected. The application went to the BAC office in Los Angeles so it probably only took a day or so to learn that the NR was not okay. My best guess is that the numbers were not changed until July 29, 30, 31, or even Aug. 1.