TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on March 28, 2018, 04:18:13 PM
-
We're making cleaned up facsimiles of the bad photocopies of original documents for inclusion in the Electra book.
We've hit a snag in the November 27, 1936 Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report.
On the "Remarks" line at the end of the form there is a handwritten notation as shown in the attached image. We think it says, "unknown word or words fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs". We can't figure out what that first part is. We think it's a single long word that ends in "ed".
A little background might help decipher the sentence. This inspection was occasioned by an error made back in August 1936 when the aircraft was inspected and licensed at a time when the long-range fuselage fuel tanks were removed to correct some problem. The airplane was thus licensed for a fuel capacity of only 394 gallons instead of 1151. Nobody noticed the error until months later. Putnam wrote to the Bureau of Air Commerce and said the license was wrong. The Bureau said the license reflects the inspection that was done. If you want to change the license you need a new inspection. So the November inspection is describing work that was done back in July.
The word at beginning of the sentence is probably an adjective that describes some change that was made to the fuel tanks to correct the problem (such as "modified" but that's clearly not the word). We don't know what the problem was that occasioned the removal of the tanks but we do know that part of the solution was to install a second layer of plywood - described as a "falsehoods floor" - over the original floor. We also know that the system of filling the fuselage tanks was changed.
Anybody have a suggestion about what that first word is?
-
Reinspected?
-
Reinspected?
I like the "Re" because it fits the context but I can't find a "p" and that sure looks like a "t" in the middle.
-
Is the little area (circled in red) an attempt to add another word after the sentence was already written, or just an ink transfer from a sloppy pen?
-
Boy that is tough to make out....I like Albert's idea of what it might be,...but was also trying to make Re positioned work, and see if that could possibly be the word.
-
What he might want to remark on is to explain the reason for the new inspection.
Aug Insp. Incld. fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs
or
Orig Inspt. Incl. fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs
Or something like that.
One of the middle letters looks like it may have been crossed out.
-
I don't think it's an attempt to add a word. There re lots of stray marks on the horrible photocopy.
Repositioned is good but I'm having a hard time finding the p.
-
All,
Her is my two cents - the message reads:
"reinspect status of tank transfer in calibrate (?) by T T's (an inspector maybe) revizion (?) i. e. my guess."
Ted Campbell
-
So far, I think "repositioned" comes closest because:
• I think "Re" is a good possibility for the beginning of the word.
• I think the word ends in "ed".
• The end could be "tioned".
I'm still having trouble seeing "posi" between "Re" and "tioned".
In the original July 19 inspection when Lockheed applied for an Experimental license, the plane had seven fuselage tanks; 2 @ 118 gallons, 3 @ 149 gallons, 1@ 70 gallons, and 1 @51 gallons. In the November 27 inspection there are only six fuselage tanks. The 51 gallon tank is not there.
We don't have a photo or diagram that shows all of the seven original fuselage tanks in place so we don't really know where the 51 gallon tank was located, but it's entirely possible that removing the 51 gallon tank meant that the other fuselage tanks had to be "repositioned."
One interesting tidbit that comes from all this is that the fuselage tanks were apparently not manufactured by Lockheed. Thats new information.
-
How about "Re-installed" ?
-
How about "Re-installed" ?
Reinstalled fuel tanks installed by original manufacturers? Would that make sense? Why wouldn't you say "Fuel tanks reinstalled by original manufacturers?
-
I can’t make out the mystery word, but I took a good look at the rest of the sentence and have these thoughts that I hope might spark something with somebody else.
Initial thoughts - (assumption that this was written by one person)
1. Note how spaced out the writing is: ‘tanks’ at the end of the first line, and ‘mfgrs’ at the end of the second. See how much space each of these five letter words uses. Whoever wrote this writes in a relaxed spacing of letters that suggests the mystery word might well include less (not more) letters than first meets the eye.
2. Note the spacing of ‘installed’ at the start of the second line, immediately below the ‘mystery word’. At nine letters, it takes up about the same space as the mystery word. From this, I believe the mystery word is nine letters long.
3. I do not believe the mystery word is two words totaling nine letters as the gaps between the words are consistently prominent and I do not see any gaps in the mystery word to suggest it’s actually two words.
4. Note the ‘tails’ hanging down below the line of the letters ‘g’ and ‘f’ in ‘fuel’ ‘by’ ‘original’ and ‘mfgrs’. The tails are distinct ‘fat’ loops compared to the upper strokes in ‘f’, ‘t’, and ‘d’. I do not see any trace of a ‘fat tail’ in the first work - I don’t think there’s letter with a tail: p, g, y, etc.
5. Note the letters ‘t’ in ‘tanks’ and ‘installed’. The upper portion of the ‘t’ is a single line (not a loop), and has a distinct ‘cross’ to make the ‘t’. The letter ‘f’ in ‘fuel’ cannot be mistaken for a ‘t’ (fat loop below); it looks like the mystery word has two ‘t’s with two letters between them.
6. Note the ‘s’ in ‘mfgrs’. It looks similar to the small letter just prior to the second ‘t’. ‘st’
What I think I’m looking at is a capital letter followed by two small letters then a ‘t’; one more small letter and then ‘st’. The last three are almost nonexistent, but look to me like three small letters and a ‘d’. Some endings that meet these criteria include: timed, tuned, but they dont’ fit with the rest of the word.
Just my two cents. Time to feed the livestock, but I’ll get back to this after dinner.
-
Ric,
I forgot to see if you might have any other notes written on the document. If so, they might give clues as to how the person writes, composes their thoughts, etc. If other written notes exist, could you share them so I can get a sense as to how they might help crack this word?
Thanks,
Pat
-
Ric,
I forgot to see if you might have any other notes written on the document. If so, they might give clues as to how the person writes, composes their thoughts, etc. If other written notes exist, could you share them so I can get a sense as to how they might help crack this word?
Thanks,
Pat
Pat, if you click on this link https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1824.msg39755.html#msg39755 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1824.msg39755.html#msg39755), it's a 2016 post of Ric's that has a link at its end that will bring up the 3-page Air Commerce report.
-
Thanks, Bruce
-
How about "Re-installed" ?
Reinstalled fuel tanks installed by original manufacturers? Would that make sense? Why wouldn't you say "Fuel tanks reinstalled by original manufacturers?
Depends on how articulate the writer was and how much of a he was in.
-
Not looking at the image.
Just brainstorming.
recalculated
reanalysed
reaudited
recalibrated
recertified (but no evidence of an f, of course)
remeasured (no t in that word)
recomputed
recounted
renumerate
re-estimated
re-installed
reinstate
reissued
rectified
requantify
rerated
retested
revaluated
revalidated
Drawn from browsing through "English words prefixed with re-" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_prefixed_with_re-) in Wiktionary.
The sentence may be about what the owner did to the aircraft rather than the inspector.
Worst case: admit defeat. Insert a guess in square brackets with a question mark. Not our fault that the handwriting is unintelligible!
-
I like this way of approaching it.
1. Note how spaced out the writing is: ‘tanks’ at the end of the first line, and ‘mfgrs’ at the end of the second. See how much space each of these five letter words uses. Whoever wrote this writes in a relaxed spacing of letters that suggests the mystery word might well include less (not more) letters than first meets the eye.
Agreed.
2. Note the spacing of ‘installed’ at the start of the second line, immediately below the ‘mystery word’. At nine letters, it takes up about the same space as the mystery word. From this, I believe the mystery word is nine letters long.
Your assessment below calls for ten letters. Let's make that assumption.
3. I do not believe the mystery word is two words totaling nine letters as the gaps between the words are consistently prominent and I do not see any gaps in the mystery word to suggest it’s actually two words.
Agreed. We're looking at a single word.
4. Note the ‘tails’ hanging down below the line of the letters ‘g’ and ‘f’ in ‘fuel’ ‘by’ ‘original’ and ‘mfgrs’. The tails are distinct ‘fat’ loops compared to the upper strokes in ‘f’, ‘t’, and ‘d’. I do not see any trace of a ‘fat tail’ in the first work - I don’t think there’s letter with a tail: p, g, y, etc.
Let's make that assumption.
5. Note the letters ‘t’ in ‘tanks’ and ‘installed’. The upper portion of the ‘t’ is a single line (not a loop), and has a distinct ‘cross’ to make the ‘t’. The letter ‘f’ in ‘fuel’ cannot be mistaken for a ‘t’ (fat loop below); it looks like the mystery word has two ‘t’s with two letters between them.
Let's make that assumption.
6. Note the ‘s’ in ‘mfgrs’. It looks similar to the small letter just prior to the second ‘t’. ‘st’
Let's make that assumption.
What I think I’m looking at is a capital letter followed by two small letters then a ‘t’; one more small letter and then ‘st’. The last three are almost nonexistent, but look to me like three small letters and a ‘d’.
That's actually ten letters. Let's assume you are correct.
Based upon the above assumptions, let's see what that gives us.
Our mystery word:
• is a single word
• is 9 letters long
• must NOT include a lower-case g, j, p, y or z
Position 1 - Capital letter
Position 2 - any letter except the excluded ones or t
Position 3 - any letter except the excluded ones or t
Position 4 - t
Position 5 - any letter except the excluded ones or t
Position 6 - s
Position 7 - t
Position 8 - any letter except the excluded ones or t
Position 9 - any letter except the excluded ones or t
Position 10 - d
So - [Cap] - - t - st - - d
-
From Marty's list, "retested" comes closest to fitting Pat's criteria.
-
The sentence may be about what the owner did to the aircraft rather than the inspector.
The government inspector is explaining that the fuel tanks were installed by the original manufacturers. We know that the tanks were taken out in August, changes were made, and the tanks were put back in. The mystery word must be an adjective that describes the changes made to the tanks, otherwise the inspector could have simply said "Fuel tanks installed by original manufacturer".
Let's think about that for a minute. Why was it important to explain that the "[something] fuel tanks" were installed by the original manufacturers? This looks to me like saying,"This change to the fuel tanks (described by the mystery word] was not done by the owner but by Lockheed." "Manufacturer," as described on the front of the inspection form, is Lockheed.
-
One interesting tidbit that comes from all this is that the fuselage tanks were apparently not manufactured by Lockheed. Thats new information.
Wrong again Gillespie. This is a government inspector inspecting an airplane owned by Earhart. The "manufacturer" is Lockheed.
-
All of this angst over one word may seem obsessive but there's actually a method in the madness.
We've long suspected that artifacts we found in the abandoned village on Niku are heat shields installed to protect the fuel system from the cabin heating ducts. See Detective Story (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/51_DetectiveStory.html).
Was the problem that occasioned the removal of the tanks in August the discovery that the cabin heat was creating vapor lock in the fuel lines? Was the installation for "heat shields" part of the fix? Does the "mystery word" provide any hint of what was done to the tanks?
We must not let our hypothesis color our deciphering of the word but that's why figuring out this word is worth the effort.
-
Ric,
Any chance of getting a better image of the document?
-
Any chance of getting a better image of the document?
Pat is making a cleaned-up facsimile that will be much easier to read than the horrid photocopy provided by the FAA. It was in the process of finishing that facsimile that she hit the "mystery word" snag. She and I struggled with it for a few days and couldn't come up with an acceptable solution. At that point I did what I always do when I hit a research dead end - invoke the awesome power of the Forum. I'll post the facsimile later today as a work-in-progress..
-
After looking at the complete document, I have some updated thoughts:
1. First things firsts. Ric: you’re right. Ten letters in the first word, vice nine. Who said Marines can count? (Now I think it might contain eleven). Smiles...
2. Every ‘T’ has a distinctly bold horizontal stroke. When I look at the mystery word, I can’t find one on what I thought yesterday was the first ‘T’. I question whether it’s a T...
3. The only cursive ‘C’ I could find was in ‘Nacelles’ up where it asked the location of the engines: ‘Outboard Wing Nacelles’. It may be the only ‘C’, but it lacks any curve and resembles an ‘I’ without the dot. That first ‘T’ might be a ‘C’.
4. Every ‘I’ has a distinct dot. Every ‘E’ is a short stroke and lacks a distinct loop, with the exception of ‘per’ in the sentence ‘Tanks installed per diagram’. Perhaps what we think is an ‘I’ is really an ‘E.’
5. Note that ‘S’ and ‘R’ look similar, particularly in ‘mfgrs’ where they’re next to each other. Perhaps it’s not ‘S’ before the second ‘T’ but ‘R’.
6. All the ‘Ds’ have sharp upper strokes (not loops). Yet ‘installed’ at the beginning of the second line sure looks like a sharp upper stroke of a ‘D’, PLUS some faint markings to the right of the stroke that just might (?) actually be the lower loop of a ‘F’, ‘G’, or ‘Y’, etc in the mystery word.
IF the first ‘T’ in the mystery word is actually a ‘C’, and IF there’s a ‘R’ before the ‘T’, and IF there is a lower-looped ‘F” just above the ‘D’ in ‘installed’, ‘Re-certified’ would fit nicely.
Tried real hard not to make things fit just because I want them to - but I can see ‘Re-certified’ as the first word.
-
I'm having a hard time making it re-certified.
-
Curious -
The original copy of the document contained in your 2016 post:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1824.msg39755.html#msg39755
does not appear to have a horizontal stroke across the first ‘T’ so when I look at that, I think it can’t be a T. But your original post to this thread, and your last one with the typed red letters superimposed both have a distinct horizontal stroke, making a clear ‘T’.
I don’t know why that would be and am not suggesting anything, just that it’s curious that the two copies appear different with respect to the first ‘T’.
Disregard my latest post - back to the drawing board.
-
I think we're looking at scans of two different photocopies (we have two sets of documents obtained from the FAA).
In the scan I posted in 2016 the mystery word looks more complex than in the scan we've been discussing. Let me dig into the paper files and confirm that.
-
I just reached that same conclusion. I made a file with both versions, including circles where the horizontal stroke was on one but not the other. While doing so, I noticed a lot of other bits and pieces that appear on one and not the other (note the object by the ‘i’ in installed to start line two - also not present in the other version).
-
Looking at the full document where the word is not enlarged it looks like the first 3 letters are “air” like in “air-Tested”. Or "air test incl."
The dot of the “i” below may be overlapping the first letter
-
Greg,
I may well be wrong, but I don’t see it.
If it’s ‘tested’: to me there are four letters after the ‘T’, and I can’t stretch ‘ed’ out to four letter spacing.
While ‘incl’ has four letters and fits in that regard, it lacks the spacing between words (‘test’ and ‘incl’) that to me is prominent between all other words.
But I really like the idea of the first letter being ‘A’ - I’ve run through the alphabet a few times using each letter to see what sparked... never came up with ‘Air’
Thanks for the spark - let me re-think things.
-
Pat, I agree with everything you noted. Interesting the way the uppercase a in Amelia is written.
edit:
Does it seem like the same person who wrote Amelia wrote the remarks?
-
As it turns out, we have three sets of AE-related documents sent by the FAA to various TIGHAR researchers who sent them on to me. Apparently when somebody asks the FAA to "send me everything you have on Amelia Earhart" whoever gets tasked with fulfilling the request goes and gets the file and makes photocopies. Different copy machines, different quality.
Here is a scan of the best photocopy we have of that sentence. It's quite a bit better than what we have been working with.
-
This could be as many as 13 friggin' letters.
-
Does it seem like the same person who wrote Amelia wrote the remarks?
It's all the same guy. He's the Bureau of Air Commerce inspector. He makes some of entries on the form in cursive and he prints others.
-
My brilliant wife just nailed. The word is Understand.
-
I can see that now - interesting exercise, though, and well worth the time examining history! Wouldn’t have missed it for the world.
-
"Understand" makes perfect sense. The earlier inspections were done at the Lockheed plant in Burbank. This inspection was done in New York or New Jersey while AE was on the East coast having radio installation work done by Bell Labs. The inspector does not have access to the Lockheed engineers who could verify Earhart's claim that the fuel tanks were re-installed at the factory so he qualifies his statement with "understand."
-
"Understand" makes perfect sense. The earlier inspections were done at the Lockheed plant in Burbank. This inspection was done in New York or New Jersey while AE was on the East coast having radio installation work done by Bell Labs. The inspector does not have access to the Lockheed engineers who could verify Earhart's claim that the fuel tanks were re-installed at the factory so he qualifies his statement with "understand."
Does this mean renublictioned is out of the running? :-X
-
My reading of the original report is that this is "Reinspection of fuel tanks installed by original mfgrs."
-
It’s funny how clear understand looks now when nothing was before. Pat is brilliant!