TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on April 24, 2015, 05:10:25 PM
-
Forensic imaging specialist Jeff Glickman, Jeff's associate Steve Jacobs, TIGHAR archaeologist Gary Quigg and I spent most of Thursday, April 23 in the Purdue Special Collections archive. The archivist said that we were the first researchers to physically visit and use the Earhart Collection in the four years she has been there. 'Nuff said.
We looked at many photos and took max-resolution copy photos of several. Jeff also examined the hi-res tiff of the Darwin Hangar photo that was recently released.
Our findings:
• The hi-res Darwin Hangar photo clearly shows oil-canning on the patch but does not show rivets or rivet lines on the patch. It also does not show rivets or rivet lines on the fuselage in areas on either side of the patch where we know there were rivets. The photo is a good source of information about the oil-canning but provides no information about whether there were rivets on the patch.
• Ditto for the Darwin Ramp photo. No rivet lines on the patch but no rivet lines on the airplane where we know there are rivet lines. We have known since last December that there is a strong suggestion of the presence of an underlying vertical structural member at Station 207. The max-res copy photo Jeff took reinforces that impression. We see what may be the same line on artifact 2-2-V-1.
In the false-color image below the ghost of the possible vertical member is apparent. A scaled representation of 2-2-V-1 is overlaid forward of the patch. Note that the deformation in the lower left quadrant of the artifact resembles the oil-canning deformation on the patch. More work with the max-res image we acquired Thursday may confirm or deny the similarity.
• In going through the files of photos we discovered a photo that we had previously missed while searching through the on-line images.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/787/rec/12
The photo shows the Electra being fueled in Karachi. Roughly the forward third of the patch is visible. The on-line version of the photo is of insufficient resolution to see rivets or rivet lines but in the max-res copy-photo Jeff took we can see what appear to be at least two rivet lines on the patch. (see false color image attached) Further processing of the image may reveal more.
None of these images proves anything one way or the other but they support the hypothesis that distinctive features on the artifact are present in historical photos of the patch.
Greg,
We looked at the print of the AE and FN under the tail photo under magnification. There's really nothing there. What you were seeing are apparently artifacts of the scanning process.
-
Belly antenna and strut??
-
Belly antenna and strut??
Yes.
-
• The hi-res Darwin Hangar photo clearly shows oil-canning on the patch but does not show rivets or rivet lines on the patch. It also does not show rivets or rivet lines on the fuselage in areas on either side of the patch where we know there were rivets. The photo is a good source of information about the oil-canning but provides no information about whether there were rivets on the patch.
Regarding the Darwin Hangar photo and oil canning: This may be a similar situation to the Miami Ramp Photo where the crowd being reflected was confused as oil canning. If the patch is still more reflective than the rest of the plane, then what should it be reflecting? Could the patch be reflecting the starboard wing? A reflection of the highlight on the wing could be confused with a highlight at the edge of a dent or oil canning. There is also an area where the patch overlaps two layers that may cause a subtle highlight in another location and may be something that causes it to look like oil canning.
-
The big tip-off to the presence of distortion in the patch, whether or not you want to call it oil-canning, is the "bend" in the line of reflected light where it crosses the upper part of the patch (your red arrow).
-
The big tip-off to the presence of distortion in the patch, whether or not you want to call it oil-canning, is the "bend" in the line of reflected light where it crosses the upper part of the patch (your red arrow).
I agree there is a bend there but it could be very subtle bend caused by the patch overlapping the extra height of two layers of skin at that spot.
Look at how wavy the reflected line of light forward of the window is along that same height/horizontal lapping in the fuselage, and consider that in those areas the skin overlaps are probably less severe than at the patch that was applied post production.
-
I think these two images may show how the patch is still more reflective than the adjacent skin even at Darwin. They are the same picture but one has the contrast adjusted to pick up the reflections on the older (more oxidized) skin better. Toggle back and forth between the two pictures. The reflections that are darker on the patch seem to align with the not-so-dark reflections on the adjacent skin. I don't think it is a shadow because it is not an even line. You should probably download them both so the effect works better.
-
I agree there is a bend there but it could be very subtle bend caused by the patch overlapping the extra height of two layers of skin at that spot.
Take a look at this detail from the Darwin Hangar photos. Not what I'd call a subtle bend.
I can also see an indication of the vertical line at Station 207.
-
I think these two images may show how the patch is still more reflective than the adjacent skin even at Darwin.
I have no problem accepting that the patch is still less oxidized that the surrounding original skins.
-
I agree there is a bend there but it could be very subtle bend caused by the patch overlapping the extra height of two layers of skin at that spot.
Take a look at this detail from the Darwin Hangar photos. Not what I'd call a subtle bend.
I can also see an indication of the vertical line at Station 207.
When I look at that detail I consider how it relates to the rest of the plane where that reflected light along the fuselage is. It gets very wavy forward of the window.
I saw that vertical line. It is close to Station 307. If it is the same indentation as on the artifact, how is it showing up in that photo? Same question for the Darwin ramp false color image. It took a long time to see a suggestion of a vertical stiffer in the artifact. If it is the same as the artifact, then the lighting may be enhancing very minor imperfections and that condition at the corner could be enhanced as well.
-
I agree there is a bend there but it could be very subtle bend caused by the patch overlapping the extra height of two layers of skin at that spot.
Take a look at this detail from the Darwin Hangar photos. Not what I'd call a subtle bend.
I can also see an indication of the vertical line at Station 207.
By 'Station 207' you apparently mean 'Station 307', of course, Ric. Thanks for sharing this.
I too can see the 'vertical line' spoken of at roughly what should be STA 307 - but like you, I'm an amateur at photo analysis and cannot be certain what is creating that image.
If, for argument's sake, that were a vertical line of rivets creating that 'line', then 2-2-V-1 is patently disqualified by visual examination: there are no corresponding rivet holes in the artifact that would match the vertical line you've pointed out.
Further, there would be no reasonable need of the longitudenal 'stiffener' lines that 2-2-V-1 has been postulated to have had were it the 'patch'.
If, however, those are not rivet heads creating that visible line, then what is creating the image? Is it perhaps an abrasion, a light scuff mark - a relatively shiny area as grime might have been 'polished' away in an area of contact? It could be many things other than a vertical member or rivets, I am guessing. It could perhaps even be related to some physical impact that actually created what may be the rather large 'dent' of our fascination: perhaps a worker bumped the airplane with a ladder or cart or flung a fuel hose onto the side in a clumsy moment of rush, or fell against it while climbing during some ground handling effort, etc. So many things are possible. I'm not sure we'll ever know.
But, consider also that it has been previously suggested that the finding of a 'footprint' on 2-2-V-1 of what looks like the presence of an unfastened vertical member roughly near what was postulated to be STA 307 (were the artifact the patch). That mark was in fact on the exterior air passage surface, were that artifact the 'patch' and aligned as has been conjectured at Wichita, etc. Could that 'footprint' on 2-2-V-1 actually be 'the line' you see at STA 307?
That would be intriguing, but the problem with that as I see it is dimensional (annoying, I know) -
A recent dimensional study of 2-2-V-1 (TIGHAR Bulletin #76, pages 12 thru 15 of same - and my thanks to you and Pat for publishing my report) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html) reveals that the 'station' where that footprint appears on 2-2-V-1 is distinctly incongruent with the relative proximity of the forward edge of the artifact. The forward edge lies too far forward (by about 1.5") to match where STA 307 would be, were the artifact to attach to the Electra as we see the 'patch' lying in various photos, not just the Darwin ramp photo.
Further, although we've previously postulated as to why a vertical member could have been present but not riveted, it actually makes no sense to me from a structural viewpoint that such a thing should have been done: why leave off a few rivets that would take only a very few minutes to install to tie such a member in, which would make it worthwhile, compared to relatively more time to fabricate and fit such a member behind the skin in the first place?
Additionally, were such a member installed in contact with the inner surface, why would there be no corresponding 'footprint' on the inner skin surface? It has always been an oddity that the 'footprint' existed on the outer surface of 2-2-V-1 only, when considered in terms of whether the artifact was the patch.
Even had there been an unriveted inner vertical brace and some external force had created a visible outer mark (notwithstanding the dimensional challenge), would we reasonably have no evidence of the member's contact with the inner surface? Why wouldn't there be creasing evident at the edges of the flange, for instance, or at least some mark similar to what appeared on the outside surface? There is none on 2-2-V-1.
Accordingly, 2-2-V-1 does not appear to meet the physical window cover criteria in terms of photographic or dimensional aspects, IMO (which is no longer so humble, I admit). Were a vertical stiffener installed - which of course would be a preferred means of bracing as it would be consistent with the pre-existing structure, then:
- The 'station' is wrong on 2-2-V-1 - the part is too long and would have to extend too far forward on the Electra to match what we see in various photographs of where the forward edge of the window covering actually ends for this 'STA 307 feature' to match up on the artifact.
Further, by the presence of this line on the hangar photo and considering that rivets might be the cause (not clear to me):
- The absence of vertical rivet holes at this location on 2-2-V-1 disqualifies.
- The absence of evidence of a contacting member on the corresponding interior surface of 2-2-V-1 also appears strongly disqualifying.
- The dimensions of vertical mark placement on 2-2-V-1 compared to the forward egde is disqualifying by dimensional analysis.
Additionally, consider -
Were a vertical member installed to back the window cover, why then would the longitudenal bracing suggested by the mid-field rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 even be present? Further thought on that suggests that to add that bracing would amount to troublesome and gross overkill: again, if the installer had bothered with installing a vertical brace, it would be far easier to merely pick up the vertical member with a few rivets in a vertical row than to even contemplate concocting an odd series of longitudenal light bracing, as the analysis of 2-2-V-1 has suggested to be the case, were it the window covering.
Even had there been a desire to 'repair' a 'dent', it would be simpler to replace a wounded vertical member - were that the case, and straighten the skin than to add a series of new longitudenal stiffeners.
I wish it were not so -
I readily admit that there's nothing quite like a tantalizing piece of sheetmetal that looks as if it popped right off the hull of one of history's most tantalizing lost airplanes and surfed into our laps on the shore of a desert isle. But it appears we're reaching too far now - 2-2-V-1 is not the glass slipper in my long studied view, sorry to say: the printed information on the artifact doesn't match era-sensitive examples as known to-date, the metallurgical analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/75_Findings2-2-V-1/75_Report_of_Findings_2-2-V-1.html) is problematic in terms of alloy content / era, and the dimensional analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html) would have to be quantifiably overcome in any case.
Is it truly productive to keep after this artifact?
-
Have Professor Eager and his MIT colleagues reviewed Jeff Neville's analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html) of the patch? It would be interesting to see if their opinions would be influenced by Jeff's findings.
-
I’m not convinced if 2-2-V-01 fits or not. But I would like to see the investigation continue.
Regarding the possible stiffener at 307.
If there was a stiffener under this artifact it was not riveted, no matter what plane it was for. It may be something else. I don’t think Ric implied it was riveted by noting a mark on the photo. The marks on the artifact could have been made after detachment. The mark in the photographs may be a highlight on the right side of a ridge and the ridge more aft. I used “close to” for that reason. I look at the lines on the photographs as questions more than anything that is definite. They may be reflections, or something else.
Regarding the fonts:
How many of the very limited sample of photographs are even from 1937 and how was it determined when the aluminum was made for that plane in these photos?
Regarding the metal analysis:
The Artifact’s recipe did not match the limited samples of the earlier era’s samples but did not match the limited samples of the later era either. For example, the artifact has more than twice the percentage of zinc as the later era B-17. No samples that were definitely from 1937 were tested and that is the year the patch was installed. The Report clearly questions what the recipe was in 1937. I don’t see how we can make a conclusion to disqualify or qualify the artifact based on that report.
Regarding “Fitment”:
Using the sticky measure tape on the Wichita plane and the steel tape on the artifact (when Ric pressed it down) it fits horizontally with enough room for a gap. How one can tell how big the gap is in photos of the patch is beyond my understanding. I see what I think is a gap close to the bulkhead but it is consistent with how it could fit. Call it "in the ballpark"( See attachment). The Artifact may be slightly bigger if you go by readings from the sticky tape that follows the intermediate dents in the artifact, but not significantly larger and it still fits. I’m not sure which tape is telling more of the truth but they are different. I don’t know if a sticky tape that follows intermediate dents is correct because a dent can stretch the metal. I preferred to use the tape that was used to press down the artifact and attempt to take out deformities that extend across the entire length of the artifact. I wouldn’t use a method of measurement that followed intermediate dents.(It is splitting hairs so no big deal IMO)
I have questions about how to align holes of the patch with the coaming holes so close to, or possibly in the bulkhead. You can’t even see the original rivets at the bulkhead from the inside of the Wichita plane. They are blocked from view by the interior sheathing of the bulkhead. I have questions that an attempt would be made to fit the patch over the exact dimensions of the window coaming. I think it would be safer to make the patch bigger so you don’t end up being short when applying it in the field, especially if formed from top to bottom along a tapered fuselage. I question if the bracing for the window was used for the patch, especially the upper horizontal one specifically installed for the window that was not original. I still have mostly questions.
I think the investigation should continue but agree that Niku VIII is the priority.
-
"Ballpark" as an assumption is a big problem in this kind of analysis, Greg. Accurate measurements can be reliably obtained from the Wichita photo with tapes applied. Accuracy is also a hallmark of good sheetmetal work, so cutting 'overly long to avoid falling short', etc. isn't the normal case - and visually the patch doesn't measure up to the artifact's dimensions, accordingly, either.
The rivets 'at the bulkhead' don't have anything to do with attachment of the covering - the cover did not reach that far. Your questions are valid in those terms as I can understand them: the artifact has no evidence of rivet holes that would match the coaming, as it should were it the patch.
As to the fonts, metallurgy, etc. I guess one just has to decide which way those things lean. No, nothing specific has been shown to define for certain that the fonts cannot have existed in 1937 - but the evidence we do have (and I have looked high and low, personally) is against it. The metallurgy simply compounds the attending doubts, I'm afraid.
But that is all of course my own judgment. Yours needs to be your own, and if you see reason to continue the investigation you should, of course. In the end, I don't see what 2-2-V-1 can do to affirm the Earhart-Niku case, that's all.
-
But that is all of course my own judgment. Yours needs to be your own, and if you see reason to continue the investigation you should, of course. In the end, I don't see what 2-2-V-1 can do to affirm the Earhart-Niku case, that's all.
Good. I think we all understand your position. If you don't mind we'll continue the investigation.
-
By all means, of course! ;)
I join in James Stoveken's idea - have others who were previously consulted, such as Eagar, weighed in on the dimensional study?
-
"Ballpark" as an assumption is a big problem in this kind of analysis, Greg. Accurate measurements can be reliably obtained from the Wichita photo with tapes applied. Accuracy is also a hallmark of good sheetmetal work, so cutting 'overly long to avoid falling short', etc. isn't the normal case - and visually the patch doesn't measure up to the artifact's dimensions, accordingly, either.
The rivets 'at the bulkhead' don't have anything to do with attachment of the covering - the cover did not reach that far. Your questions are valid in those terms as I can understand them: .
Jeff,
I agree the Wichita plane has accurate measurements. The photos of the patch do not. The sketch I provided used tape dimensions for the artifact and tape dimensions for the Wichta plane and it fits horizontally without going all the way to the bulkhead.
I agree “ballpark” is a problem if I was using it in reference to something that had measurements like the Wichita plane. However I was using it in reference to photos of the patch and used the term because I could not determine exact dimensions for how big the gap is in any photo. I see what I think is a gap so agree it may not have gone all the way to the bulkhead.
Can you explain what you mean by “Visually the patch does not measure up to the artifact’s dimensions”? I have not seen a photo of the patch with a tape or dimensions on it . Please do not include phrasing like “similar to” to describe how much of a gap is left or how you determined the patch does not measure up to the artifacts dimensions.
I understand the bulkhead rivets don’t have anything to do with the coaming but my point was how close they are to the bulkhead and how difficult it would be to get holes to align if you started the install from the top and worked down on a tapered fuselage.
What do you mean by “the artifact has no evidence of rivet holes that would match the coaming, as it should were it the patch”?
What evidence is there that the patch lined up with the coaming? Again, do not use “similar to” or your opinion for how it “should” have been done.
How do we know the person who installed the patch did so per “normal standards” ?
How much sheet metal experience did Bo McKneely have?
Was the patch install a “normal case” based on schedule and who did the work?
-
I suggest you read my report carefully as you will find your questions as to how measurements of all these things were accounted for.
The forward bulkhead is not the only constraint you should be concerned with, for one thing.
It would be ridiculous for me to exclude how I determined the patch doesn't 'measure up to' the artifact - that was the point (and is covered in the report, posted on this site as linked above). Read the report carefully and you may see how that was accomplished.
I don't have any idea what 'standard' whomever installed the patch actually adhered to. What evidence do you have that a non-standard practice was visited upon the patch installation, and please don't use terms such as "similar to", LOL!!! The installation occurred on an airplane in relative open view, said craft owned by a fairly high profile person at a public airport, subject to notice by many people. That's no guarantee, but if I had to guess, my guess would be a reasonable adherence to reasonable standards was maintained - unless I had reason to believe otherwise. All you have to suggest the presence of a non-standard (non-riveted) vertical member is a 'line' as seen by at least two amateurs (Ric and myself, hereabouts) - and in terms of horizonal (or 'longitudenal') bracing in addition to the 'vertical' (a requirement, if 2-2-V-1 is the patch) an apparent absence of horizonal lines where there should be rivets.
I don't know your level of experience with such construction, so based on my own experience, I'll add that it would be awkward to even effect such an installation (a non-riveted vertical member also incorporating horizontal members as suggested by the rivet pattern seen on 2-2-V-1).
Are all those odd things possible? I suppose it is possible that the moon has a core of cheese - but one should consider just how much construct is reasonable in postulating about these things. 2-2-V-1 has enjoyed quite a bit of constructive conjecture here - including by myself, toward brainstorming out the possibilities. But at some point enough focus is gained that one must question the limits of it all.
As Ric has suggested, opinions as to those limits might differ - and therein lies your reasoning, apparently. I understand that - but also understand that chasing pixtels for ghostly lines and such isn't likely to quantifiably overcome that which was arrived at through metrics. It's apples and oranges. While TIGHAR executes this new round of photogrammetry reduction, I'd sincerely like to know what those experts Ric has cited before have to say about the reports on metallurgy and dimensions as a matter of thorough course. That might in fact help answer some of your questions even better than my report might do.
The report, by the way, was subjected for 'peer review' by my having submitted it to the 'Dayton Commission', and I'm aware that Jeff Glickman, Aris Scarla and Ric Gillespie all looked at it to some degree, because I responded to questions from each of them prior to the report being released on this site. It was released without announcement here, or further comment from any of those three or others on the 'commission'. 'Peer review' is still invited - right up to the most qualified of Ric's panel of experts on this thing, of course: there are persons among them with lofty credentials, so I'm sure TIGHAR would have no qualms about submitting my report to that kind of expertise.
Enjoy the read (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html) if you care to.
-
I am a little confused after reading your report on the patch, Jeff, but you don't have to try too hard to explain it. I am not an inspector or knowledgeable sheet metal worker. But I do have some knowledge about aluminum physical properties and a thought kept running through my head as I was reading: How can anyone expect to reach accurate dimensions or fit of the rivet holes or the basic size of the artifact if it had been subjected to an unknown amount of heat (for cooking on??) and/or an unknown amount of pounding or abuse if it was used by someone to cook turtles and crabs! The cooefficient of thermal expansion of aluminum is quite high(I'll look it up) and if heated beyond the yield point as well as being banged on past its elastimity limits, the artifact would be somewhat larger and heavily deformed than in its original form.
-
I'm certain the report can be confusing, it's rather detailed and lengthy.
If 2-2-V-1 was substantially enlarged by any means - mechanical, heat or otherwise, then it is remarkable that the mid-field rivet holes remain so uniformly spaced at 1" apart as carefully measured in Dayton in front of me by Aris Scarla, and that the rivet holes themselves are almost all intact and of normal size for the rivet size used (a rivet 'survives', so we 'know'). It also retains a remarkable conformance to the 'normal' .032" thickness one would expect of significantly originally sized... .032 alclad.
I don't know, of course, that the original rivet spacing mightn't have been closer originally - but wouldn't it be remarkable that the artifact had been so uniformly abused that it would be so uniformly enlarged across it's width and length such as to give us such consistent measurements between all those holes?
Rather than raise the possibility of enlargement / distortion due to those things (which could themselves disqualify us from ever realizing a match, were there to be one, oddly enough) to explain away an ill fit, what evidence do you have that the artifact was actually enlarged by those things? And what process that would be incidental to the artifact's history would stretch it so uniformly, not just producing localized distortions in size? Ordinary 'recontouring' as we see on the part won't do that - that is simply bending without so much stretching involved.
Just thoughts, and I guess I've said plenty - and this forum is notorious for churning old ideas among new folks - fine for educating, but if you look back you can see some of this has been covered before. One thought is even that the thing might have once been a fish fryer.
If 2-2-V-1 is to go on under study, I'd surely be interested to hear what TIGHAR's full panel has to say about the full body of evidence as it emerges when that can happen. Ric's promised that for some time, so I suppose this photo-op is merely one step toward same.
-
please don't use terms such as "similar to", LOL!!!
Jeff
From your report:
Page 13: “The artifact overruns the expected attach point by 1-1/2”.
“Expected” by who? I recall several forum posts where it appears you expected the patch to have stiffeners . But now it seems you think it may not have them. This is why I asked for evidence that is not based on what you expect.
Page 11: “The Darwin ramp photo (figure 6) is valuable for visually validating the offset of the cover from STA 293 5/8 as similar to that of the coaming edge offset”
I was quoting the use of “Similar to” in your report. I had read your report before I asked the questions. I used the term “Ballpark” to compare what I could measure on the artifact and Wichita plane to a photo. And then you said this type of analysis should have accuracy, yet you used “similar to” to validate your measurements in your own report. That is why I asked you not to use “similar to” in your answer. I’m just asking for the accuracy you said the analysis required.
Thanks.
-
please don't use terms such as "similar to", LOL!!!
Jeff
From your report:
Page 13: “The artifact overruns the expected attach point by 1-1/2”.
“Expected” by who? I recall several forum posts where it appears you expected the patch to have stiffeners . But now it seems you think it may not have them. This is why I asked for evidence that is not based on what you expect.
As should be 'expected' by anyone who can read and comprehend that the expectation is established by an attribute that is clearly set forth in the report, I 'expect'. ;)
You seem to be taking the statement in the report out of context for the sake of taking me to task over semantics just a bit, Greg - a bit opportunistically perhaps? LOL!!!
Kidding aside, taken in the context of the report, I am confident that the details therein clearly back the statement - there is a direct reference to a photographic example with the measurements fully explained. But of course I seek to help you understand.
That statement speaks quantitatively for itself in the context of the report: the 'expected' attach point is overrun by an inch and one half, as shown by a graphic example. The 'expected' attach point is defined by what the reader can see in the pictures as referenced therein, which tie to that statement. As such, I don't think it's productive to over parse the choice of words when technical context is clear enough as seen by others who have read the report. But, I aim to help.
As to what I once conjectured in the open forum during brainstorming discussions, etc. about 2-2-V-1 and possible stiffeners or any other possibly supporting detail, that artifact being something I was once very optimistic about, subsequent study was required to test the ideas that surfaced. Those studies were undertaken, in one form or another; we have yet another photo study before us in this string, it seems. Perhaps that was 'expected', by 'whom' I'll leave to you. :) Of course the more one learns and applies, the more truth comes out, and as it does it should be spoken to.
TIGHAR's own principles have been stated as subjecting these things to the acid test, so to speak, and speaking the truth as we find it. I took the measurement challenge at first to answer critique that I thought was in error - and found that it was not in error after all. It was not convenient to my preferences or as to how I should really have used that much time, but pursuit of Earhart doesn't come cheap - as Ric can also tell us.
My report made thus, versus conjecture in a forum, are not the same things - so over-parsing semantics and conflating forum conjecture and the actual report record which was far more hard-won in those terms really isn't justified in my view. But, I aim to clarify so as to suit you, if I can.
As to the stiffener evidence on 2-2-V-1, yes - I once sought to explain why the patch might have had stiffeners in the pattern we see on the artifact. I was attempting to brainstorm an explanation. Today more is understood, and we have evidence that I believe leans away from those horizontal stiffeners being present in the Electra. So it is true, as you've seen - I no longer believe the patch was likely to have had those fore-aft stiffeners. I do not see that the hoped-for supportive evidence has emerged; that which was claimed (Miami photo) doesn't appear substantial enough to me as given so far, and nothing new has been issued to further qualify or quantify that claim.
Further, now we have a 'vertical mark' that has emerged and is implied as relating to an internal, vertical brace (I believe that is the case but certainly will accept correction if I've over-supposed) as found by Ric at Purdue. I don't see how we can logically have both a vertical brace in an original location, if that is what the mark represents, and an odd horizontal bracing configuration in the patch - which clearly would not match the original bracing in the airplane as it is off by at least large fractions of inches, if not by inches, etc. Barring stronger evidence, it makes no sense to me from a structures point of view that both should have existed.
As Ric can tell you from his own long experience, things change - we learn more over time. I'm open to any new revelations. But I also fail to see how the present photo exercise addresses the dimensional issue that has been documented, and do not believe that photo analysis can overcome the issue of measurements as established thus far. In the end I hope that TIGHAR will address all critical points in a scientific manner, as that has been her mantra here. I do also happen to believe that the established measurement issue is the most critical issue before us - not this photo effort. Just my own opinion, of course.
Page 11: “The Darwin ramp photo (figure 6) is valuable for visually validating the offset of the cover from STA 293 5/8 as similar to that of the coaming edge offset”
I was quoting the use of “Similar to” in your report. I had read your report before I asked the questions. I used the term “Ballpark” to compare what I could measure on the artifact and Wichita plane to a photo. And then you said this type of analysis should have accuracy, yet you used “similar to” to validate your measurements in your own report. That is why I asked you not to use “similar to” in your answer. I’m just asking for the accuracy you said the analysis required.
Thanks.
Please read it as "SAME AS" if that makes you feel better then. Again, "ballpark" - which is far from even 'similar' (which is quantified and can be taken as 'same as' per what I just wrote) has no place in this. The full context of the report easily backs up the suggested use of 'same as'.
I'm sorry you are troubled with the semantics in all this, but perhaps this will help.
-
please don't use terms such as "similar to", LOL!!!
Jeff
From your report:
Page 13: “The artifact overruns the expected attach point by 1-1/2”.
“Expected” by who? I recall several forum posts where it appears you expected the patch to have stiffeners . But now it seems you think it may not have them. This is why I asked for evidence that is not based on what you expect.
Page 11: “The Darwin ramp photo (figure 6) is valuable for visually validating the offset of the cover from STA 293 5/8 as similar to that of the coaming edge offset”
I was quoting the use of “Similar to” in your report. I had read your report before I asked the questions. I used the term “Ballpark” to compare what I could measure on the artifact and Wichita plane to a photo. And then you said this type of analysis should have accuracy, yet you used “similar to” to validate your measurements in your own report. That is why I asked you not to use “similar to” in your answer. I’m just asking for the accuracy you said the analysis required.
Thanks.
Please read it as "SAME AS" if that makes you feel better then. Again, "ballpark" - which is far from even 'similar' (which is quantified and can be taken as 'same as' per what I just wrote) has no place in this. The full context of the report easily backs up the suggested use of 'same as'.
I'm sorry you are troubled with the semantics in all this, but perhaps this will help.
Jeff,
Thanks for changing “Similar to” to “Same as” to help me understand.
So now I should read the report as “The Darwin ramp photo (figure 6) is valuable for visually validating the offset of the cover from STA 293 5/8 as “same as” that of the coaming edge offset”
Congratulations on your skill in “chasing pixtels for ghostly lines” in old photographs. LOL!!
Yes, you did a lot of conjecturing and/or brainstorming about the stringers in your forum posting. In my judgement, your report regarding your expectation about the patch having to align with the coaming/window frame is more of the same conjecture that has been on the forum. Not that I disagree with you Jeff, You could be right, but experts can be wrong when conjecturing about how they think a patch should be installed. See Jeff Neville posting the past 3 years on stiffeners.
My own conjecture. The hard landing caused structural damage. Stiffeners were added around the frame before the window and window frame were removed. Adding around it kept whatever strength it provided until it was removed . The patch was bigger in both directions to extend to those stiffeners. The patch still left a gap between the existing skin edge. See attachment I provided. I admit I am not qualified to say exactly how big the gap is in old photos but there is a gap left by using measurements of the artifact and the Wichita plane. I used in the “in-ballpark” for comparing it to the photo. This is only an expression and is coming from someone who had the CAD dim setting set to 1/64”(Which is probably crazy in “chasing pixtels for ghostly lines”) Sorry if you are troubled with my own semantics in all this.
-
Thanks Greg.
I'll differ with you as to 'conjecture' in the report: the forward edge of the window covering is relatively clear and not such a ghostly cluster of pixtels - at least clear enough that we can see that the covering did not extend to pick-up the vertical line of rivets at STA 293 5/8. It is not a major leap either to realize that the alignment of that covering edge follows the same footprint as the coaming - a picture of which exists that is most clear.
But of course you are entitled to your own opinions.
My own opinion of your conjecture about what happened to cause the window to be covered, etc. and what it conveniently did to make 2-2-V-1 make more sense appears to be an over-reach to explain how an artifact in-hand can be made to fit something that is desired. I believe it to be most unlikely, at best.
As I have said along the way - too much construction of ideas to make things fit can be a problem. What will be your means of proving that hypothesis? These pictures? You now have the complication of a vertical member being spoken of, but if nothing else has been proven on these pages we do know that such pursuits have a way of finding lives of their own.
If you regard my own forum conjecture, as you've cited it, to be a license for same, then I recommend that you proceed at caution: the risk is all yours. I found conjecturing toward ideas to be considered and proven or rejected here to be a dead end, and the more technically critical approach to be enlightening. To do less ultimately can get you caught trying to make a sow's ear pass for a silk purse.
-
the forward edge of the window covering is relatively clear and not such a ghostly cluster of pixtels - at least clear enough that we can see that the covering did not extend to pick-up the vertical line of rivets at STA 293 5/8. It is not a major leap either to realize that the alignment of that covering edge follows the same footprint as the coaming - a picture of which exists that is most clear.
Saying that the covering did not extend to pick-up the vertical line of rivets at STA 293 5/8 is not saying it aligns with the coaming. The edges of the patch, if it is 2-2-V-1, do not have to extend that far for it to fit and still leave a gap. Saying it is not a major leap is not good enough in this type of analysis IMO.
Since you are able to see the lines of the patch in the Darwin Ramp photo well enough to say they are the same as the coaming, can you please indicate where the edge of the patch is and indicate(edit: with lines not arrows) where the existing skin edge is on the picture and post it?
Is the copy of this picture that you see the edges so clearly in the same one that Mr. Glickman just obtained from Purdue?
-
I leave it to you to judge for yourself, Greg. The report was completed three months ago, submitted for peer review and published here kindly by Ric and Pat soon after, for which I am grateful and humbled. It contains my opinions.
I've bothered to help you with some fundamentals here out of a sense of goodwill, but just as I was drawn to submit formal work rather than attempt to parse with all who noodle the forum, I'm not interested in reverting to 'forum derby' on the matter.
You are of course free to draw whatever conclusions you desire for yourself.