TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on May 01, 2016, 02:10:49 PM
-
TIGHAR member Larry Inman has come up with a photo of NR16020 taken during repairs in the Lockheed shop following the Luke Field crash. (Credit: Remember Amelia, The Larry C. Inman collection)
I have no idea what the guys are testing but it's quite apparent that there is no glass or plexiglas in the lav window. Why? Has the glass been removed or was the window openable by sliding the glass toward the tail. Is that the edge of of the slid-back glass we see?
Larry also found a photo of the plane on its belly at Luke Field where the lav window has the same appearance and yet in the photo of the plane being unloaded in California the glass or plexi is obviously in place. (Credit for all three photos is: Remember Amelia, The Larry C. Inman collection)
-
That's very interesting! If, in fact, the lav window could be opened by sliding it to the rear, what does that say about any interior bracing, window tracks etc. that may have been there. May have to re-think the lower line of double rivet holes in 2-2-V-1 to account for some kind of support for a sliding window.
-
If that was a non-standard modification to Amelia's 10-E, there would have to be some kind of drawing with the specifications, materials, etc., correct?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Interesting;.....Am wondering though if what we see is a relection off the glass. I drew an arrow to what looks like a concave image, refecting what may be the inner convex side of the window coaming, off the glass, ( note gap between).The images seem to compliment each other in form. The green lines I drew at the tops/ bottoms of shapes, almost appear like mirror images of each other,....angles going opposite each other as a mirror reflection may do. Just my opinion at the moment....but subject to change.
-
No light/ object reflection seems apparent on the top of the window, following what seems to be the the line of light intensity( yellow). Can that be explained away, due to the lavatory window placed seemingly inset from standard location, evidenced by the window coaming design?
-
It appears the same two gentlemen who are captured in Larry's photos, are also in the one below in the attached image,...whereby, it mentions that the pair are taking X-ray's of the entire ship. The equipment they are using seems identical as well.
-
Jerry...thought your recent photos were an excellent find! Ric, after seeing these pictures I was browsing through the net and ran across something that may find our readers and our members very interesting. It may give us insight as to why a window was removed or it may not...but gives a little insight as to what might have happened. Also, back in the 30'a did Lockheed Martin put in escape hatches in the windows? Anyway, see the link and let me know what you think...thanks!!!
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/slideshow/Troubled-airliners-through-the-years-56904/photo-4202355.php
-
If that was a non-standard modification to Amelia's 10-E, there would have to be some kind of drawing with the specifications, materials, etc., correct?
In theory, yes, but no drawings for the door window or lav widow seem to exist. Let me know if you find them.
-
No light/ object reflection seems apparent on the top of the window, following what seems to be the the line of light intensity( yellow). Can that be explained away, due to the lavatory window placed seemingly inset from standard location, evidenced by the window coaming design?
I think the lack of a reflection is strong evidence that there is no reflective material (glass or plexiglas) present.
-
In this photo, taken in the hangar at Wheeler on March 18, we have another example of reflection visible in the standard cabin window but not in the lav window.
-
In this very early photo of the accident scene (it's still dark out) it looks there is a light-colored structure on both the front and rear edges of the lav window. The resolution isn't good enough to make out any detail. We can see the lavatory door through the standard window.
-
If the patch went from station 293 5/8ths to station 320, a distance of some 27-28 inches, the window size a bit smaller, would there be room to fully open a sliding window, lest it bump up against the storage wall aft of the lavatory? Unless the window were designed to pull away and out from the coaming, would scratching along the length of the plexi be a problem while using?Also a heavy circumferintial ( station 320), just aft of the window may have to be considered and left undisturbed in the design.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html
-
If the patch went from station 293 5/8ths to station 320, a distance of some 27-28 inches, the window size a bit smaller, would there be room to fully open a sliding window, lest it bump up against the storage wall aft of the lavatory? Unless the window were designed to pull away and out from the coaming, would scratching along the length of the plexi be a problem while using?Also a heavy circumferintial ( station 320), just aft of the window may have to be considered and left undisturbed in the design.
Good points Jerry. I don't see how a sliding window would work. You certainly wouldn't want to cut that heavy circumferential.
So what's the deal? Was the glass simply removable?
-
[/quote]
I think the lack of a reflection is strong evidence that there is no reflective material (glass or plexiglas) present.
[/quote]
Ric Is it possible that what we are seeing here is the the forward standard window is a curved unit, and the rear window is actually a flat plate? It would give them different reflective qualities.
Given that the rear window was built for a navigation station, would they have used a flat glass to achieve an optically better sighting window?
amck
-
If the patch went from station 293 5/8ths to station 320, a distance of some 27-28 inches, the window size a bit smaller, would there be room to fully open a sliding window, lest it bump up against the storage wall aft of the lavatory? Unless the window were designed to pull away and out from the coaming, would scratching along the length of the plexi be a problem while using?Also a heavy circumferintial ( station 320), just aft of the window may have to be considered and left undisturbed in the design.
Good points Jerry. I don't see how a sliding window would work. You certainly wouldn't want to cut that heavy circumferential.
So what's the deal? Was the glass simply removable?
My best guess at the moment,is the glass is still in place, and the reason we don't see any object or light reflection near the top of the window, is because the window is inset enough so as to not capture any from the light angle. My best guess as to why we see an image similar to the coaming frame on port side of that frame ,is because it is the reflection of same,..this produced by the camera flash.
-
Ric Is it possible that what we are seeing here is the the forward standard window is a curved unit, and the rear window is actually a flat plate? It would give them different reflective qualities.
Given that the rear window was built for a navigation station, would they have used a flat glass to achieve an optically better sighting window?
amck
I wondered that as well Andrew, and have studied details to try to determine that,...things such as the width of the coaming frame at the center point would be telling, .... if wider than I would believe flat stock glass was installed, if frame width is consistent width to mimic the curvature of the fuselage body, then curved....Inconclusive for me so far.
However; If the gap between the two bow shaped objects ( the coaming frame and what appears to be it's reflected image) is considered, that gap makes me tend to lean more toward curved glass.
-
In the lower portion of the window ( in the box) it appears that there may be the edges of broken glass, at this resolution it may also be an artifact but a broken window doesn't reflect
-
Unless we find a photo of somebody sticking his head out the window I don't think we're going to resolve this with certainty. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter whether the window was openable, or removable, or was broken and repaired, or none of the above. It was intact in Miami and it got replaced with a patch that later oil-canned.
-
Could it be the edge one of those silver bags reflecting?
-
Could it be the edge one of those silver bags reflecting?
Those silver bags are soundproofing. NR16020 didn't have that luxury.
-
Ric...after looking at the photo again I'm to believe that this definately is a reflection. However...if you take the window frame (as shown) and being in direct contact with the sun....would the other side of the window frame create the reflective illusion? Also, do we know who was responsible for removing and installing windows on Locheed Martin's aircrafts in the 1930's. It might be alot of help in finding out what manufacturer was responsible for making these windows!
-
Ric...after looking at the photo again I'm to believe that this definately is a reflection. However...if you take the window frame (as shown) and being in direct contact with the sun....would the other side of the window frame create the reflective illusion?
I don't think so.
Also, do we know who was responsible for removing and installing windows on Locheed Martin's aircrafts in the 1930's. It might be alot of help in finding out what manufacturer was responsible for making these windows!
Forgive me for being picky but there was no Lockheed Martin in the 1930s. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. did not merge with Martin until 1995. Also "aircraft" is both singular and plural. There is no such word as "aircrafts." End of rant.
Lockheed installed windows in its aircraft as part of the manufacturing process. We don't know who installed the special lavatory window and the cabin door in Earhart's aircraft but after-market changes to windows could be done by any properly licensed shop. It could be that the windows were installed by Mantz's company United Air Services.
-
"It could be that the windows were installed by Mantz's company United Air Services."
It does seem likely that United Air Services would have done the work. Are there any records left from that company or Mantz's later work?
-
Are there any records left from that company or Mantz's later work?
No records, in the sense of work orders, but I found quite a bit of correspondence between Putnam and Mantz in the Doris Rich papers at the NASM archive. I'm still working through the copies I made of that material but at this point it's clear that the navigator's station in the Electra was based on the navigator's station in a Pan Am Clipper Putnam inspected in San Francisco. There was much discussion of installing a "hatch" for celestial observations like the one in the Clipper.
-
Larry Inman provided a higher resolution copy of the photo. The lack of reflection and the presence of the shadow (red arrow) really look to me like there is no reflective material there.
-
All,
I wouldn’t think you would want the window to slide aft because this would cause an inside pressure affect. Sliding forward would create a suction effect which would make more sense.
Ted Campbell
-
IMO, the easiest way to design and construct a window that would be operable,in that area, would be to place the Plexi-pane in vertical tracks to enable it to move up and down....full open window would move downward toward floor, this plexi would have a horizontal bottom track attached, and would contact stops at the bottom, to stop the top of the plexi at or just below the bottom of the window coaming. Stationary/fixed horizontal track at top of window coaming.( I have pretty much described the design in which auto windows have been constructed since the early days, minus any crank mechanism)....in it's absense pressure could be applied to the sides of the tracks via thumbscrews or other means to allow one to position window at any desired opening. I see vertical movement of any operable window in that area less intrusive of surrounding circumferentials and wall panels on either side,than one would experience in a horizontal design.
I may have gotten off track a bit pondering the design,... but,back to trying to determine whether or not the window pane is in place in the images.... To me, the shading is a result of the change in direction of the window coaming at the top and bottom, and the image ( what I believe to be the inner flange of the coaming) isn't able to reflect with the same intensity at the shaded areas,due to the angle change. I don't know if I am right, it is what I think I see...
-
This photo taken in the Wheeler Field Hangar shortly before it was moved to Luke Field also shows a significant lack of reflection from the lavatory compared to the other window on that side of the plane.
-
This photo taken in the Wheeler Field Hangar shortly before it was moved to Luke Field also shows a significant lack of reflection from the lavatory compared to the other window on that side of the plane.
You're right. Let's see if we can find a photo where there IS a reflection in that window.
-
Let's see if we can find a photo where there IS a reflection in that window.
Bingo.
-
A curve can reflect light to more places than a flat surface can.
In the picture where the nav/ lav window is reflecting, the cabin window next to it has a reflection closer to the mid point of the curve and in that picture the nav window appears flat to me. In pictures where it is not reflecting, the light reflection on the curve of the cabin window appears higher.
Could it be that the angle for the flat glass is not at the correct angle to see a reflection in some pictures?
I thought one of the theories was that the window might be flat to limit distortion for navigation.
-
Larry Inman provided a higher resolution copy of the photo. The lack of reflection and the presence of the shadow (red arrow) really look to me like there is no reflective material there.
Could it be that the coaming has been removed in that picture? The black line could be a groove for the flat glass and the glass is reflecting the exposed edge made to transition from a curve of the fuselage to the flat glass.
-
Could it be that the coaming has been removed in that picture? The black line could be a groove for the flat glass and the glass is reflecting the exposed edge made to transition from a curve of the fuselage to the flat glass.
It appears to me that inner coaming edges are in the photo.....if the window coaming was removed, one would think that he/she would see no indications of metal forming, rather a flat surface ( slightly curved to match the fuselage) as one sees when viewing the standard window.
-
From the Ameliapedia
"The Lockheed Electra 10E was fitted with low distortion windows in several positions to minimize refraction errors during celestial observations. [16] (Military navigators were later cautioned to avoid using windows for celestial observations, and not to observe celestial bodies below 11 degrees, due to the excessive refraction error.)[17] [10]"
http://tighar.org/wiki/Air_Navigation:_State_of_the_Art_in_1937
The citation is [16]Wright, Monte Duane, Most Probable Position, The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence/ Manhattan/ Wichita, 1972, p. 156
Since this window was probably installed at the request of Manning, it seems likely he would have asked for a flat window to minimize distortion/refraction. Would there have been a viable case for him to want a window that opened to get totally distortion free measurements or would the wind/air speed made that impractical.
-
From the Ameliapedia
"The Lockheed Electra 10E was fitted with low distortion windows in several positions to minimize refraction errors during celestial observations. [16] (Military navigators were later cautioned to avoid using windows for celestial observations, and not to observe celestial bodies below 11 degrees, due to the excessive refraction error.)[17] [10]"
http://tighar.org/wiki/Air_Navigation:_State_of_the_Art_in_1937
The citation is [16]Wright, Monte Duane, Most Probable Position, The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence/ Manhattan/ Wichita, 1972, p. 156
I just ordered a copy of the book. We need to see if the author cited source.
Since this window was probably installed at the request of Manning, it seems likely he would have asked for a flat window to minimize distortion/refraction. Would there have been a viable case for him to want a window that opened to get totally distortion free measurements or would the wind/air speed made that impractical.
The Pan Am Clippers used a hatch that could be opened, so yes, I think an openable hatch was possible.
-
From the Ameliapedia
"The Lockheed Electra 10E was fitted with low distortion windows in several positions to minimize refraction errors during celestial observations. [16] (Military navigators were later cautioned to avoid using windows for celestial observations, and not to observe celestial bodies below 11 degrees, due to the excessive refraction error.)[17] [10]"
http://tighar.org/wiki/Air_Navigation:_State_of_the_Art_in_1937
The citation is [16]Wright, Monte Duane, Most Probable Position, The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence/ Manhattan/ Wichita, 1972, p. 156
Since this window was probably installed at the request of Manning, it seems likely he would have asked for a flat window to minimize distortion/refraction. Would there have been a viable case for him to want a window that opened to get totally distortion free measurements or would the wind/air speed made that impractical.
My copy of Most Probable Position (1972) arrived today. It's an interesting and useful book but the author doesn't cite a source for his statement about Earhart's windows. The actual quote is:
"If the navigator was not to open a hatch for celestial observations, and in the absence of a periscopic sextant, the designers had to provide windows or domes for the navigator's use. Aeronautical designers resist protuberances of all kinds. Amelia Earhart and Howard Hughes outfitted their world-flight airplanes lavishly. For celestial navigation, both provided low-distortion glass in various windows."
His comments about Earhart elsewhere in the book are largely inaccurate and the only source he cites is Last Flight. He's not a reliable source, at least about Amelia Earhart.
-
Scrolling through the Purdue archives once again, I came across this image; http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/285/rec/2
To me,it looks similar to how the lavatory window appears, while in the repair shop, an area of interest looking somewhat arch shaped. I believe the object responsible for the shading on the door,may be the coaming, that similar to the coaming found on the lavatory unit.
-
This hi-res detail of the windows in a Luke Field wreck photo courtesy of Larry Inman shows some interesting, but unidentified, interior features.