Malcolm
I'm not suggesting that Emily saw any aluminum, she specifically says she didn't see aluminum, only the rusty stuff.
RG: You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES: No, all gone. Nothing.
I'm thinking the landing gear only - rusting away, with the rest of the aircraft floated off the reef into the deep where we will hopefully find it in reasonably large pieces this coming July.
By the way, I believe the main wing spar which ran throughout the cabin was made of steel, not aluminum. That would be about the largest structural member found within the entire aircraft, but it wasn't tubular as described by Emily, but the landing gear structure was.
{UPDATE - OK, the main beam through the cabin was not steel. Not sure where I got that notion, seemed odd, but I thought it came up in some previous discussion. I guess I'm suffering from information overload!}
............
Andrew
Exactly, Jeff. I can see how the NC could provide scale to something just adjacent to the ship, but not something 416 meters away.
So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?
"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."
So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?
You'll have to ask Jeff.
"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."
The math is correct Alfred but I think the assumed 50ft may be a bit off for the bow section according to the central yard log 792.
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?
That's interesting, Greg - where did you see that? I don't recall anything like that being posted here and can't find such a critter on the TIGHAR site. Is it published somewhere like Nauticos or similar? Sounds like a serious study, I would love to see that.
Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?
Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?
That's interesting, Greg - where did you see that? I don't recall anything like that being posted here and can't find such a critter on the TIGHAR site. Is it published somewhere like Nauticos or similar? Sounds like a serious study, I would love to see that.
It was posted by Tim, I'm pretty sure it was an attachment in his first post of this thread. It was up for a while. Several people were on-line while it was up.
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".
Is that the name of the report done for you Tim?
Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.Could you have attached it by mistake? Maybe a path glitch? I recall it did not match the text of your post well.
Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?
No, sir. You're misreading both my meaning and my arithmetic. I did not say "add 9 inches"--I meant that the 7.5 in the formula from my reply #15 should perhaps be as high as 9:hBO = .5 / 9 * 50 ft = 2.8 ft
or as low as 6:hBO = .5 / 6 * 50 ft = 4.2 ft
In order to have both the Norwich City and the BO in the same image, I was working from the low-res photo available in several places on the Tighar website. (Maybe if I joined Tighar I would have access to a higher-res version of the entire photo :D) The low-res image is vague enough that I can't tell exactly how the high-res with reconstruction fits to it, so I can't answer your other question; I can't tell whether the top of the "tire" is or isn't part of the dark area visible in the low-res image. That's why .5 in my formula is also vague. The object, then, is between 2 and 6 feet high, most likely in the middle of that range.
If you want a hard-and-fast exact scale, I can't offer it. I merely meant to argue that even a schmo in an armchair like me has enough information to easily infer a scale and that that scale is consistent with the size of what Tighar hypothesizes it to be (it's not 10 feet tall, and it's not 6 inches). Maybe it's not a landing gear, but I haven't yet seen evidence that can't be.
Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.Could you have attached it by mistake? Maybe a path glitch? I recall it did not match the text of your post well.
Is "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition" the name of a report done by your experts?
Where did you get the picture of the worm gear with the scale on top?
Was that picture taken for use in your report?
"Sectored ring gear" works for me, Jeff. Is that what you use on the Gulfstreams?
There is sophisticated mathematical computation that went on to measure the size of the components in that picture -- things that an expert like Jeff Glickman can fully understand and use, and can document in a detailed report that mere mortals like us can then read and begin to understand. But in the absence of any shred of documented expertise, amateur musings here are just so much blithering nonsense and noise.
See attached sketch with letters assigned to various parts.
If the Lockheed assigned name is not known, what would be the generic name for the parts shown?
Also, the orientation of the gear, how much is covered by water, how much may have penetrated the tire, the angle at which it is viewed and the distance the worm gear is in front of the tire changes the proportions.
Where was that declared by TIGHAR, Tim? I've seen you 'declare' some things as 'definite', but not TIGHAR. Maybe I missed it - respectfully, can you link us to a statement made by TIGHAR 'declaring' that the Bevington object 'is actually' an Electra gear?
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week. That should clear up any questions about names of components.
Where was that declared by TIGHAR, Tim? I've seen you 'declare' some things as 'definite', but not TIGHAR. Maybe I missed it - respectfully, can you link us to a statement made by TIGHAR 'declaring' that the Bevington object 'is actually' an Electra gear?
Here, Jeff. "There is only one possible source..." (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf) (end of first full paragraph of the article).
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week. That should clear up any questions about names of components.
I consider John Balderston the authority here. What do we call these things, John?
I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week. That should clear up any questions about names of components.
I consider John Balderston the authority here. What do we call these things, John?
John is a current Lockheed Martin employee but (correct me if I'm wrong John) he was not involved in the engineering for the Model 10. You're saying that he is a better source for what we call these things than the original Lockheed engineering drawings. 'Nuff said.
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".
I recall 'bull gear' being used somewhere.
Ric, any movement on getting this trianglation-location on the "Dot-Dash" photo? You were 'working' on it a few months ago....but there have been a few other developments since.
Wow! That is surprising to hear....considering their general location.
Any 'speculation' on what they are then? Flaws in the picture?
Interestingly, the gear is reported to have been "borrowed" from another aircraft (c/n #1026) that was formerly on exhibit with the Western Aerospace Museum in Oakland, CA. Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.
Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.
Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.Nice picture.
Well spotted Greg. The fasteners I have circled in red seem to be different to all the others, larger and, they appear to be the ones fixing the parts to something else.Agreed. The larger fasteners seem to line up with the tabs seen on the fork from the Field school photos. There are two on each side of the fork. Each fender part has only two points of connection to the fork (not counting the braces on the larger piece). That stiffener plate seen in the photo Russ posted makes the edge stronger and less likely to tear at the two point loads. The smaller rivets are for the stiffener, the larger fasteners you noted are to the attach the fender to the fork. IMHO
There is the terminology for the 'bull gear' arrangement - 'standard worm and sector type'.
There is the terminology for the 'bull gear' arrangement - 'standard worm and sector type'.
So the "bull gear" part would be called - what? - the "sector"?
Whatever the case, the fender on it now is clearly made up of one piece.Looks like 2 pieces to me.
Inverted, intact landing gear from electra c/n 1005, CF-HTV, which crashed July 1972 (without injuries) near Birch Lake, NWT, Canada. Not as detailed as some other pics in topic but interesting perspective.
Three photos from Woody:
Thanks for posting them (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1079.msg28075.html#msg28075), Marty.
we could have a case where crashing surf rendered the airframe into scrap with a fairly good sized chunk somehow anchored in a groove on the reef, maybe near the drop off.
Can Jeff’s best image of the Bevington photo, in the best file type, be made available to study, perhaps included on a disk with the digitized Engineering drawings when they are ready?
Post it on TIGHAR's Flikr stream?
I suspect if the plane is found, some people will say the plane ditched, wheels up, and floated there (and someone already has). But if found intact with the worm is it's landing position that could prove a wheels down landing.