I ran across something this evening and I want your guys input on this matter. Granted I'm no expert here, but I am still confused as to why anyone would want to put a bigger window on this plane. As I was looking at this photo I noticed that the so called patch window has a frame around it. Kinda of like when we customize car windows or install a window. As you can see in the orange arrows....the window was encased....unlike the window to the right that has the red arrows. This is the actual window design of this aircraft. Now here is where I am really questionning this whole window concept. At the bottom of the patch window you notice a series of rivets outlined by blue boxes. If you were to make any changes to windows...why on earth would you change your rivet pattern to do so? Anyway, why I say that...the patch window does not line up along the main support that runs up and down. Also, noticed a slight gap in the metal of the plane (outlined in gold). At the bottom of the plane...you have a series of rivets that run along the metal....but as soon as they get to the area where the patch window is...they stop? Why is that? To be honest...I feel that this window wasn't intended to be a window afterall, but a door!!!! Give me your feedback!!! Thanks!!!
Speaking only as my experience drilling out rivets. The holes usually get drilled out just a slight larger. So I have used slightly larger rivets. Or made new rivet holes.
Why a picture window in the bathroom or the reasons for a different installation are well beyond me.
What catches my eye is the last row of rivets toward the tail below the window have been cleaned around very carefully. This MAY be a clue as to why the patch replaced the window.
Neff
Randy,
You might want to review the extensive strings on this window more closely - much has been written as to at least a few of these details you have noticed.
As to my own thoughts -
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
Granted I'm no expert here, but I am still confused as to why anyone would want to put a bigger window on this plane.
To facilitate celestial navigation as envisioned during the first world flight attempt, as I understand it. It was also covered later for reasons not entirely clear, but much speculated upon. It may have been as simple as a desire to close off an unneeded hole in the bird since Noonan apparently felt differently about how to do celestial navigation from this ship than did the primary navigator on the first world flight attempt. This window having been covered, Noonan seems to have believed he could work adequately from the existing (remaining) windows in the cabin, and perhaps at times from the cockpit. I believe a similar window was covered by re-skinning the main entry door as well (on the opposite side of the cabin).
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
As I was looking at this photo I noticed that the so called patch window has a frame around it. Kinda of like when we customize car windows or install a window. As you can see in the orange arrows....the window was encased....unlike the window to the right that has the red arrows. This is the actual window design of this aircraft.
I suspect it had to do with the oversize window being built into a non-standard window location where no existing bracing or extra reinforcement existed, and that the visible external 'coaming' was fabricated and installed as a retainer for the new window's transparency and to add a finished edge to the opening. It may have also been added to restore some strength and rigidity where the new opening had removed material from the original semi-monocoque membrane. All conjecture on my part, but seems to make sense given what we can see.
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
Now here is where I am really questionning this whole window concept. At the bottom of the patch window you notice a series of rivets outlined by blue boxes. If you were to make any changes to windows...why on earth would you change your rivet pattern to do so?
Those are original rivet placement patterns, not modified. The only added fasteners I see beyond the coaming itself are the two in the vertical line extending above the forward edge of the coaming.
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
Anyway, why I say that...the patch window does not line up along the main support that runs up and down.
Correct. It is offset 'aft' of the former at (or near) STA 293 5/8 - perhaps due to flange placement at that former which may have made attachment difficult or impossible at that location, or for some other reason. In any case, consider that this placement of the window's edge is roughly consisent with the placement of the stock window you've referred to, which also does not reach the formers fore and aft of the stock opening. It seems of little importance, if any, as to the scheme of things to me, for what it is worth.
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
Also, noticed a slight gap in the metal of the plane (outlined in gold).
My own belief is that the slight 'gap' there is not much of a 'gap', but more of a slight 'step' - which is normal to the build. I believe it is visually exaggerated by some shadowing effect. Some have held that this may be evidence of damage from a hard landing, but I point to the absence of wrinkling (diagonal between formers and stiffeners would be typical), etc. and disagree that we're looking at signs of distress from overstrain. I believe this is a normally appearing feature because of my own recollection of having looked rather closely at many similar structural features in my 37 year career as an A&P mechanic and more lately (20 years), engineer. I am not a structures engineer but a generalist (Certification) by profession, but am keenly familiar with structural design and build, by long experience.
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
At the bottom of the plane...you have a series of rivets that run along the metal....but as soon as they get to the area where the patch window is...they stop? Why is that?
Not sure I follow, but I'm trying to sort out what you refer to. I believe we are seeing normal rivet patterns for an L10, excepting the vertical forward row and upper longitudenal row that we can see in the edge of the window coaming. 'Normal pattern' includes the double-staggered row along the bottom edge of the coaming, which indicates that the original fastener pattern was picked up by the window installer - a common practice where practical.
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 04, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
To be honest...I feel that this window wasn't intended to be a window afterall, but a door!!!! Give me your feedback!!! Thanks!!!
I believe it was intended as a window, hence the size that does not extend further toward the belly - and far from the lavatory floor, for instance (why would they stop so short if a door was intended). It was clearly not stock, but a specialized window - apparently for navigation purposes - which I believe is supported by the extra height of the window (I suppose to allow a greater view of the heavens).
" Some have held that this may be evidence of damage from a hard landing, but I point to the absence of wrinkling (diagonal between formers and stiffeners would be typical), etc. and disagree that we're looking at signs of distress from overstrain."
It appears that just forward of the gold circle is wrinkling of the panel in question.....
LTM
Quote from: Richard Lyon Metzger on March 05, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
It appears that just forward of the gold circle is wrinkling of the panel in question.....
LTM
Enjoy.
Quote from: Jeffrey Neville on March 05, 2015, 10:18:39 AM
I believe a similar window was covered by re-skinning the main entry door as well (on the opposite side of the cabin).
No. The window in the door (which seems to have been added at the same time as the lab window) remained unchanged throughout the world flight.
As to the motive for replacing the lab window with a patch, I find it hard to believe that they would go to all that trouble just because Noonan said he didn't need the window. I have to think that something happened that made the change imperative.
Quote from: Jeffrey Neville on March 05, 2015, 10:18:39 AM
My own belief is that the slight 'gap' there is not much of a 'gap', but more of a slight 'step' - which is normal to the build. I believe it is visually exaggerated by some shadowing effect.
Note that part of the plane is already in the shadow of the direct sunlight. Direct sunlight is not causing any shadow there. I believe that gap is a "cave" where no light is reflected.
This quote comes to mind when we discuss the timing of when the patch was made:
From Amelia Earhart: Mystery Solved (https://books.google.com/books?id=Gc1-98NLfEYC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=elgen+long+miami+landing+Bo&source=bl&ots=G5bAj8eyDF&sig=rMgJUe5_X1gYrhn4HOeb9zIihEs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_T5VN_TB8uvyASrqoKoAQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=elgen%20long%20miami%20landing%20Bo&f=false)
"while coming into the correct Airport she misjudged her speed and height above the runway and made a very hard landing. The creak of metal could be heard all over the field as the plane came down with a thud"
(emphasis added to the "creak of metal")
"this was the hardest landing she had ever made in it"
In the book it is noted that Frederick Ralph Sias (http://www.uff.ufl.edu/scholarships/ScholarshipInfo.asp?ScholarshipFund=008565) was an amateur photographer who took several pictures of the instrument panels. I wonder if his son has some other pictures not published before?
We have several photos of Sias in Miami, none of them helpful in terms of the patch. The photo of the instrument panel that Long says was taken by Sias in Miami were not taken in Miami. See http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/53_MiamiPhoto/53_MiamiPhoto.htm
Quote from: Greg Daspit on March 06, 2015, 12:19:22 PM
This quote comes to mind when we discuss the timing of when the patch was made:
From Amelia Earhart: Mystery Solved (https://books.google.com/books?id=Gc1-98NLfEYC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=elgen+long+miami+landing+Bo&source=bl&ots=G5bAj8eyDF&sig=rMgJUe5_X1gYrhn4HOeb9zIihEs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_T5VN_TB8uvyASrqoKoAQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=elgen%20long%20miami%20landing%20Bo&f=false)
"while coming into the correct Airport she misjudged her speed and height above the runway and made a very hard landing. The creak of metal could be heard all over the field as the plane came down with thud"
(emphasis added to the "creak of metal")
"this was the hardest landing she had ever made in it"
In the book it is noted that Frederick Ralph Sias (http://www.uff.ufl.edu/scholarships/ScholarshipInfo.asp?ScholarshipFund=008565) was an amateur photographer took several pictures of the instrument panels. I wonder if his son has some other pictures not published before?
THanks for the link to the chapter excerpt. There sure are a lot of details about a lot of stuff there, which to me raises a big red flag. Has anybody actually looked at his sources to see what is actually in them?
Quote from: Tim Collins on March 06, 2015, 12:39:05 PM
THanks for the link to the chapter excerpt. There sure are a lot of details about a lot of stuff there, which to me raises a big red flag. Has anybody actually looked at his sources to see what is actually in them?
You'll find a lot "conversation with author."
Jeff.....Noticed something and wanting to know if you guys have record of all the modifications done to the Lockheed Electra between the first failed world flight attempt and the second one? Found this very odd and interesting while we've been on the subject of windows and patch work. In the first photo we see a simple door on the left hand side of the plane. On the second photo we have a door with a window in place? When were these changes made? This is getting really interesting...Anyone agree???
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 07, 2015, 11:59:15 PM
When were these changes made?
You can answer simple questions like this by using the various excellent search functions of the Forum, the TIGHAR website, and the Ameliapedia. It takes about 30 seconds to find Ric's answer to this one; it's in a document dated in 2000.
QuoteAs delivered in July 1936, the airplane had only two windows in the cabin. These were the aftmost standard airline windows and were directly opposite each other. Then in January of 1937 a window was installed in the cabin door on the port side and a larger-than-standard window was installed on the starboard side. This last window is the one that was later skinned over in Miami.
Quote from: Bruce Thomas on March 08, 2015, 06:10:36 AM
Quote from: Randy Conrad on March 07, 2015, 11:59:15 PM
When were these changes made?
You can answer simple questions like this by using the various excellent search functions of the Forum, the TIGHAR website, and the Ameliapedia. It takes about 30 seconds to find Ric's answer to this one; it's in a document dated in 2000.
Ric also answered this seven posts above (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1651.msg36270.html#msg36270).
Having said that, I do second Bruce's recommendation that people should familiarize themselves with various and sundry methods provided to "Search TIGHAR." (http://tighar.org/info) The "Two Toms" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Tom_Willi) got TIGHAR involved in the Earhart investigation in 1988. TIGHAR has learned a great deal since then, and much of it has been shared on the website.