Gary,
This is all reminding me ...Did some crucial part deteriorate over time? What part? How long did it take to deteriorate? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? If the airplane ditched anywhere near Howland and floated indefinitely, why didn't Itasca spot it? If Itasca somehow missed it, why didn't the planes from the Lexington find it?
If the intact and indestructible plane you describe floated far away from Gardner (or was never there) why was there such a strong and consistent tradition among the islanders that there was airplane wreckage on the reef when the first settlers arrived in 1938? ...debris on the reef in the same spot where a former-resident described seeing wreckage from an aircraft. Stories of airplane parts being found on the reef or shoreline are corroborated by aircraft artifacts found in the abandoned village that are consistent with a Lockheed 10.
Theoretical calculations suggesting that the intact airplane could have floated far away from the island and sunk in very deep water are trumped by the abundant evidence that it sank in the near-shore environment in water shallow enough for it to be, to some degree, broken up in later storms with some lighter components being cast up onto the reef and shoreline.
-------------------------
If they ditched near Howland then there would have been a much higher likelihood of damage to the fuel system components so a greater likelihood that it would sink more quickly than in your scenario of a controlled landing on a smooth reef surface, soft enough to leave the plane standing on its landing gear.
The pieces you have found are also "consistent with" other aircraft. The only way the aluminum would
not be "consistent with" Earhart's Electra is if the pieces were stamped "MANUFACTURED IN 1938" or later. I have cross-examined many adverse expert witnesses who have tried to use that "consistent with" terminology to cover up the weaknesses in their theories, its SOP for many plaintiff's experts.
As for being "trumped" I don't think you are there yet. When you find any piece that can be positively connected to NR16020 (and you haven't yet) then you will have the trump card. Until then, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
As for a "tradition" of islanders seeing aircraft parts on the reef, I have been a lawyer for a long time and almost all of my cases involved airplane crashes. Based
on my experience I have come to be distrustful of “eyewitness testimony.” Even if a witness is
trying to be truthful it doesn’t mean that they actually saw what they think they saw. I’ll give you
an example. A number of my cases involved airplane crashes involving fires with the wreckage
badly burned up. We would take the testimony of 3 or 4 and in one case 6 eyewitness who
testified under oath “I looked up and I saw the airplane on fire, fire was coming out of the front
of the plane!” If islanders' "tradition" was sufficient then this testimony from so many eye witnesses would
establish the fact that the plane was on fire while it was still up in the sky, case closed.
Well, not so fast. When a plane catches fire
after it impacts the ground, the fire and smoke goes
upward, just like the fire in your fireplace. When a plane is on fire while in flight the smoke trails
back and deposits soot on the tail of the plane, no soot on the tail, no in-flight fire. All these
witnesses that testified
under oath (not just a "tradition") that they saw a plane on fire up in the air were wrong. They
weren’t lying, they were just wrong. This is just a sample but when you take sworn testimony
many times you start to realize that eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable. And these
witnesses were testifying shortly after the accidents, not many years later. It is also quite common for witnesses to give you the answer you are looking for unless you are careful to ask the questions in such a way that the witnesses can't guess what you are looking for.
"Did you see aircraft wreckage on the reef?"
"Oh, yes."
I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku. Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS. Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?
Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.
It's a good experiment. If they get tossed back on top of the reef then it supports your explanation for the bits found on the island. If they disappear down all the way to very deep water then it also supports your theory since it explains why you haven't been able to find pieces in the shallow water on the side of the reef. I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong. It shouldn't cost very much for the pieces of aluminum so an inexpensive experiment that might help with your theory.
Ric, do you have diagram or drawing showing where the vent line for the cabin tanks led?
Another question for you. After Earhart landed on the flat reef is there some reason that she couldn't taxi up onto the beach to get away from the tide?
gl