TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Matt Revington on February 12, 2016, 02:08:24 PM
-
This 1937 movie ( filmed in the fall of 1936) with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford supposedly used "Amelia Earhart’s $80,000 plane" in the film. According to this page:
http://dearmrgable.com/?page_id=3851
Might be interesting if anyone could find it. Apparently Paul Mantz flew it during filming ( from wikipedia)
-
The film was released November 20, 1936. Earhart's airplane was delivered July 24, 1936. They cranked out movies in jig time back then but that time frame still seems awfully short.
-
Interesting.
Some information on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_on_the_Run_(1936_film))
edit: I wonder if this explains the paint scheme on earlier photos?
-
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/600387/Love-On-The-Run-Movie-Clip-All-Snakes-Live-Till-Sundown.html
Clip
-
Interesting.
Some information on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_on_the_Run_(1936_film))
edit: I wonder if this explains the paint scheme on earlier photos?
Bingo! That's where the painted cowlings came from. They appear on the airplane shortly before the Bendix Race in early September.
-
Too bad the movie's in black and white, which is no help for the cowling colors ... but a different poster of the movie that showed the airplane would be in color ...
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
This topic needs to move up to General Discussion. Like the Miami Patch and the removal of the Bendix receiver before the second world flight attempt, this is a previously unknown episode in the short life of c/n 1055.
TIGHAR member Bill Davenport found the full film. You can rent or buy it on Youtube or get it on DVD from Amazon.
It contains great footage of Paul Mantz slinging AE's new airplane all over the ramp for comedy (probably not exactly what Purdue had in mind). The registration numbers on the tail and under the wings are altered but in one shot R16020 is clearly visible on the upper wing surface. The cowlings are painted as they were for the Bendix Race in early September and the original radio antennas are present but hard to see. There's a brief peek through the cabin door showing the bare metal interior. The cabin wasn't finished until later.
-
So, based on AE's known aeronautical expertise, this must actually be AE performing the landing in this clip. Sorry to all in advance.
-
By September 20 the paint on the cowlings was gone
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/epurdue/id/394/rec/22
-
MGM hired Earhart to fly ill starlette Jean MacDonald to Desert Inn to recuperate, https://books.google.com/books?id=H-9YAfoQ69QC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=jeanette+macdonald+flu+shirley+temple&source=bl&ots=-g66JOtMFN&sig=G_4pG1XMurg1efyJmyrATKzxc8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQme7z9_rKAhXExIMKHYAYAgAQ6AEIHzAC#v=onepage&q=jeanette%20macdonald%20flu%20shirley%20temple&f=false I believe in early 1936, ( SanFrancisco movie premired in mid 1936 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028216/ ) so before Earhart had the Electra,...but it provides previous contact with MGM by Earhart just before the filming of Love on the run, so maybe they thought of her and Mantz when they needed a plane for the movie a bit later on.
-
Ric and Pat have posted the taxiing and takeoff clip from the movie on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Y50OqFTOF5g&u=/watch%3Fv%3D7dvJFAlPdNM%26feature%3Dem-uploademail).
The maneuvers near the crowd give me the shivers ...
-
Things were a little different then. They also used to use expert marksmen to have bullets strike walls, etc. near people. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
-
Research seems to suggest there isn't any modern technology available whereby one can determine true color in a black and white image. Many people have old photos colorized, but they for the most part are guessing at color,....some use known objects of color as a guide, ....(the Lockheed logo,tire color, Gable or Crawford's clothes,etc in our case could be of help)... Someone might be able to use the fuselage shades to tell us what those colors may be...but then again,....might? Wonder if Jeff G. has a contact? Still looking for the written word.
http://www.phojoe.com/photo_colorization.html
-
Ric and Pat have posted the taxiing and takeoff clip from the movie on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Y50OqFTOF5g&u=/watch%3Fv%3D7dvJFAlPdNM%26feature%3Dem-uploademail).
The maneuvers near the crowd give me the shivers ...
From the movement of the people in the crowd it appears to me the film was shot at half or two-thirds speed. When shown at normal speed the action appears to speed up. Our Electra wasn't going nearly as fast as the film shows. Still, though. . . .
If anyone has MGM or Hollywood connections, a look through the MGM archives may turn up some good publicity stills that may feature NR16020.
-
It would be interesting to know how the airplane's use in the film came about. Putnam was dabbling in Hollywood around that time and Mantz, of course, was in the business of providing aviation services to film makers. Was this somebody doing somebody a favor or was it simply a way to make a buck on the side?
-
This photo and caption are from:
http://www.aerovintage.com/mantz-bio.htm
"Paul Mantz moved with the rich and famous during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, flying many of them in his discrete Honeymoon Express charter service to Las Vegas or Mexico. Here is Mantz with Carole Lombard and Clark Gable, probably around 1940."
Maybe it's from around the time of filming "Love on the Run".
-
Does anyone recognize the airport that the scenes on Love on the Run were shot at ( I can't believe that the Electra was brought to MGM's back lot where the rest of the movie would have been shot). Is it the Burbank airport where the Electra was normally kept?
-
Seems like the filming for Love On The Run must have taken place in the week between August 21 and August 28, and probably closer to the 28th than the 21st. It's not the sort of thing you'd think would happen while Elliott was there.
But here's something odd. In the Love On The Run clip (https://youtu.be/7dvJFAlPdNM), at :46, there are numbers on the upper surface of the right wing. Looks like " - 2". At :56 you can very briefly see something on the top of the right wing. Maybe "16". At 1:02 there is definitely nothing painted on the top of the right wing. At 1:08 the top wing is marked R16020 (although the middle 0 looks a bit funky). At 1:19 the right wing is marked "16 -2" but you can see where the "R" has been removed.
So the aircraft was photographed in three different iterations:
• With the right wing unmarked
• With the right wing marked R16020
• With the right wing markings altered to 16 - 2
Possible explanation. They shoot the scene before the wing is painted and they think they're done. The wing gets painted but the director decides he needs another take, so they shoot the scene again. Somebody then notices that R16020 can be seen in the new take. Damn! So they alter the number on the wing and shoot the scene a third time. The final cut is an amalgam of all three takes. It seems like this would all have taken at least two days.
-
Los Angeles, Aug. 22 (Universal Service)- Love on the Run "went into production" on Wednesday, August 19, 1936. (The San Antonio Light, Saturday, August 22, 1936)
Dan Brown, #2408
-
Los Angeles, Aug. 22 (Universal Service)- Love on the Run "went into production" on Wednesday, August 19, 1936. (The San Antonio Light, Saturday, August 22, 1936)
Bingo!
-
There may have been editing on the film itself to "white-out" some of the registration numbers, perhaps in an attempt to disguise the registration. That might also explain the varying numbers that appear in different frames.
-
So the aircraft was photographed in three different iterations:
• With the right wing unmarked
• With the right wing marked R16020
• With the right wing markings altered to 16 - 2
Possible explanation. They shoot the scene before the wing is painted and they think they're done. The wing gets painted but the director decides he needs another take, so they shoot the scene again. Somebody then notices that R16020 can be seen in the new take. Damn! So they alter the number on the wing and shoot the scene a third time. The final cut is an amalgam of all three takes. It seems like this would all have taken at least two days.
If repainting was done, I agree with the thought of the filming spanning multiple days. In that light, it is intriguing to read the biographical sketch of the movie's director, Woodbridge Strong Van Dyke II, known as "One-Take Woody," on IMDB.com. The lead paragraph reads:
For the better part of his career, Woodbridge Strong Van Dyke lived up to his sobriquet "One-Take Woody" by steadfastly adhering to his credo of shooting each scene as quickly and efficiently as possible. Over his 25-year career, he economically directed over 90 diverse entertainments, which not only saved the studios vast amounts of money but turned out to be some of the most interesting motion pictures created during this period.
And near the end,
In addition, he was known as a "film doctor", who would be called upon to re-shoot individual scenes with which the studio was dissatisfied
-
The French reviewer of the film in Aeromovies, Christian Santoir, speculated that the two colors decorating the engine cowlings in the film are black and gold, which are the school colors of Purdue University:
-l’avion ne porte aucune décoration, à l’exception du bord des capots moteurs peint en deux tons (peut être noir et vieil or, les couleurs de luniversité de Perdue qui avait payé l’avion ?).
This conjecture takes on even greater plausibility in light of the info that the plane was shown to President Elliott of Purdue University, right about the time that filming began, right?
Are we seeing here a convergence of interests? Earhart & Putnam want to impress President Elliott, and the producers of Love on the Run want to jazz up the appearance of the plane for the movie??
Is anyone else wondering who actually paid for the new paint job?
Maybe the same ones who paid to have R16020 painted or masked over into 16-2?
-
I should add that I found the link to the review by Christian Santoir of Love on the Run in the amazing French website, Aeromovies, as endnote 3 in the Wiki article on the film that was referenced earlier by Greg Daspit. Thanks for that, Greg. And yes, Wiki can be amazingly useful at times.
http://www.aeromovies.fr/articles.php?lng=en&pg=1316
-
at :46, there are numbers on the upper surface of the right wing. Looks like " - 2".
That would be consistent with the plane's fictional registration of "16-2" which seems to have been accomplished by the simple expedient of masking or painting over the "R" and both "0"s (with a hyphen inserted). In fact, if you look closely you can still make out the last "0" in this shot as a lighter and less reflective outline of the numeral.
At :56 you can very briefly see something on the top of the right wing. Maybe "16".
That would make sense for "16-2". In fact at :57 you can also make out that same fake registration on the bottom of the left wing.
At 1:02 there is definitely nothing painted on the top of the right wing.
So it would seem .. thanks to the magic of the movies :)
Actually the image has merely been flipped by reversing the negative. It's one of the oldest tricks in the film making book for creating two shots for the price of one. Good enough to fool most of the audience (and even the odd world renowned aviation history expert!) Take a closer look at you'll see a backwards "16-2" on the upper surface of what now appears to be the plane's left wing. The effect is most obvious at :59 when the shot begins and you can make out a mirror image of the words "THE LONDON" on hangar in the upper left of frame (part of the set dressing for the movie which is seen in an earlier shot to read "THE LONDON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT")
At 1:08 the top wing is marked R16020 (although the middle 0 looks a bit funky).
I'm not sure what's going on there. I suspect it was either the first or last shot of the day and the art department got caught in the middle of applying or removing the alterations (the "16-2" is present on the right horizontal tail).
At 1:19 the right wing is marked "16 -2" but you can see where the "R" has been removed.
The "R" is still there, but masked or covered (probably with a temporary water-based paint). The ghost outline is a little more discernible at 1:20 (especially around the "legs" of the letter).
It seems like this would all have taken at least two days.
All in all, the airport (probably Burbank Van Nuys) shoot appears to be no more than about a dozen individual set ups. Even if they weren't carrying multiple cameras, I doubt it would have taken a full day to shoot. I'm also fairly certain it would have been handled by a second unit crew while "One Take Woody" remained at the studio with his stars.
Russ Matthews
#0509ECBA
-
Good enough to fool most of the audience (and even the odd world renowned aviation history expert!)
What do you mean "odd"!!!
All in all, the airport (probably Burbank Van Nuys) shoot appears to be no more than about a dozen individual set ups. Even if they weren't carrying multiple cameras, I doubt it would have taken a full day to shoot. I'm also fairly certain it would have been handled by a second unit crew while "One Take Woody" remained at the studio with his stars.
Thanks Russ. Mystery solved.
-
What do you mean "odd"!!!
It means I couldn't remember how to spell "occasional" :D
-
Ric
What is the "round" port/object that can be seen on top of the fuselage at 0:14 in the video you posted on Facebook? It aft of the door that the actor is entering the aircraft. Is that an air scoop? Seems to be visible at 0:55, one of three on top of the aircraft.
Seems odd that it appears round. Maybe it is the shadow playing with me.
Andrew
-
What is the "round" port/object that can be seen on top of the fuselage at 0:14 in the video you posted on Facebook? It aft of the door that the actor is entering the aircraft. Is that an air scoop? Seems to be visible at 0:55, one of three on top of the aircraft.
The round thing on top of the cabin at 0:14 is a little round window in the ceiling of the lavatory. The three things you see at 0:55 are exhaust vents for the cabin ventilation system.
-
At least two people have correctly identified the airport in Love on the Run as the Van Nuys Airport, known in 1936 as the “Metropolitan Airport.”
First, Christian Santoir, in the Aeromovies review of Love on the Run:
“Les avions du film :
Il conviendrait mieux de dire, « l’avion » du film, qui apparaît au début de l’histoire, sur l’aéroport de «London Metropolitan airport », en réalité, le « Metropolitan airport » de Los Angeles….”
http://www.aeromovies.fr/articles.php?lng=en&pg=1316 (http://www.aeromovies.fr/articles.php?lng=en&pg=1316)
Russ Matthews was the first to do so in our Forum, in Reply # 24 above, his brilliant analysis of Ric’s YouTube clip from the film.
One way to verify this for ourselves is to find the YouTube version of the 1941 film Power Dive, which is documented to have been filmed at the Metropolitan - Van Nuys Airport:
http://www.aeromovies.fr/articles.php?lng=en&pg=1316 (http://www.aeromovies.fr/articles.php?lng=en&pg=1316)
Then look for the Van Nuys control tower in the background of the scenes at 2:31 & 52:37.
You will see that it is the same tower that shows up in the Love on the Run clip at 0:02 & 1:27.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dvJFAlPdNM&feature=em-uploademail (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dvJFAlPdNM&feature=em-uploademail)
The Van Nuys control tower that appears in both these films was replaced in the late 1960s by the one still in use:
http://www.lawa.org/welcome_VNY.aspx?id=1128 (http://www.lawa.org/welcome_VNY.aspx?id=1128)
-
I've been researching a more detailed follow up on the same subject. Like Leon White in reply #29 I started with the premise that the airport used in Casablanca was likely the same one seen in Love on the Run. Initially I thought Casablanca was shot at Burbank (now Bob Hope) and Leon stated that the now defunct airport in Glendale (also known as Grand Central Air Terminal) was used to stand in for French North Africa. However, further digging revealed we were both wrong and portions of the Bogart/Bergman classic were actually shot at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Airport in Van Nuys (which explains my edited post in which I stated that the airport used to film the Earhart Electra scenes was "probably
Burbank Van Nuys.")
It's easy to understand how the misunderstanding spread. People knew that some scenes in Casablanca used a local airport and it is only natural to assume that it was either Burbank or Glendale which are both located within 4 miles of the Warner Brothers lot. In fact, it seems the story took on such mythic proportions that an LA Times staff writer saw fit to investigate .. eventually finding definitive proof of the Van Nuys filming location in original daily shooting reports for July 23 and 24, 1942. If similar records still exist for MGM productions, it may be possible for us to learn more about the timing and logistics of the Love on the Run airport shoot. In the meantime, anybody interested in learning more about the Casablanca-Van Nuys connection can find an archived copy of the LA Times article I mentioned here ...
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-19/local/me-1361_1_burbank-airport (http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-19/local/me-1361_1_burbank-airport)
Now can any of this Casablanca trivia really help us determine where Earhart's Electra filmed its big screen debut? Yes. As Bill Davenport points out, the control tower is key.
First let's look at a still of Major Strasser's arrival from Casablanca. Note the distinctive tower in the right of frame. (As a bonus, it is in direct line with a couple of rounded hangars like the ones glimpsed in the Love on the Run clip)
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s144/TBDude00/casablanca02_zpsln2peop2.jpg)
Compare that to this Getty image of "an administration building with a control in the tower at the Metropolitan Airport" dated December 2, 1929.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/airport-and-airway-lighting-equipment-black-and-white-news-photo/176973994 (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/airport-and-airway-lighting-equipment-black-and-white-news-photo/176973994)
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s144/TBDude00/176973994_zps3boseut9.jpg)
And for the final link in the chain .. here is a screen cap of Paul Mantz's hair-raising takeoff in the Earhart Electra from Love on the Run. At frame left you'll see a familiar three-tiered Art Deco style control tower with a single row of vertical windows down each side.
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s144/TBDude00/tower_zpsxhhofhts.jpg)
QED the location was VNY!
You may be wondering, "Why did the producers go to Van Nuys when there were other airports closer to the studio?" I think the answer is that they wanted to use a non-commercial facility (like Van Nuys) where it would be easier and less expensive to lock up the entire location. Imagine trying to coordinate the plane stunts and crowds of extras between regularly scheduled passenger flights. Van Nuys offered a better situation only 8 miles further down the road .. a brief drive for the studio production vehicles and an even quicker hop for the Electra from their respective Burbank homes.
As additional proof, consider the screen cap below from Love on the Run. On first viewing I remember noticing that the filmmakers chose to help establish the location of the scene with a background hangar helpfully labeled, "THE LONDON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT." However, it puzzled me why they chose to make it a fictional locale and it just plain irked me that the sign included that awkward and seemingly unnecessary "THE." Of course, knowing what we know now, the reasoning is clear. The hangar must have normally read "LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AIRPORT" and the studio Art Dept redressed the first half with nine new letters in place of the original ten. The "THE" is only there so it doesn't look unbalanced :D
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s144/TBDude00/hangar_zpsfjqvns39.jpg)
Finally, bringing things full circle .. I ran across this image of Amelia at Glendale's Grand Central Air Terminal during her nationwide autogiro tour in 1931. The tower is visible frame left and it is easy to see similarities between this beautiful Art Deco structure and the one seen in Casablanca and Love on the Run .. but, likewise there are evident differences (such as the divided windows, the attached Spanish Colonial style terminal building, and lack of a "third tier.")
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s144/TBDude00/GrandCent_CA_31Jul7_EarhartPCA-2_zps3bt6ybs8.jpg)
As Leon noted, the airport is long gone, but this building still remains in what is now a light industrial area. It could easily have been lost like so many other touchstones from Aviation's "Golden Age." However, in this case it seems there will be a happy ending .. written, appropriately enough, by the Disney Corporation. Working in conjunction with the City of Glendale, Disney (which has owned the property since 1990) is rehabilitating this historic structure as the heart of its new Grand Central Creative Complex. When complete, this should be a sterling example of adaptive reuse and a new lease on life for a true national treasure. For more information, check out the article here ...
http://gizmodo.com/disneys-epic-plan-to-save-a-terminal-from-las-oldest-511934530 (http://gizmodo.com/disneys-epic-plan-to-save-a-terminal-from-las-oldest-511934530)
Russ Matthews
#0509ECBA
-
Thanks, Russ. The photos do tell the story. I noticed that the words "The London" also seem to be a slightly different shade than the remaining words "Metropolitan Airport". I always thought it was cool that Sherman Way, a major east-west corridor in the San Fernando Valley, went through a tunnel under the runway. Of course, I was young then and didn't know that this was rather common as airports expanded and lengthened their runways but it seemed rather novel for a kid growing up in Canoga Park a few miles to the west of VNY.
-
Los Angeles, Aug. 22 (Universal Service)- Love on the Run "went into production" on Wednesday, August 19, 1936. (The San Antonio Light, Saturday, August 22, 1936)
Bingo!
The photo (with the notation of Earhart studying her Squawk sheet on reverse side) , has several dates stamped on it, one which is Aug 19th,1936,in one position, faded a bit and under additional stamping. I wonder if Earhart has just delivered or is about to deliver the plane to the airport for use in the movie?
-
The caption is datelined August 18 so the photo was taken that day or earlier. Purdue president Elliott arrived to see the new airplane on August 19.
I think the filming probably took place later that week after Elliott was gone.
I doubt that Earhart delivered the plane anywhere. She was probably not yet qualified to fly it. All of her previous airplanes were single engine with fixed landing gear and adjustable, not constant speed, props. The Electra was a huge step up for her. Heavier, faster, more complex. That kind of transition takes time. (Been there, done that). In the Bendix race I'd wager that Helen Richey made the takeoffs and landings.
-
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1837.msg39965.html#msg39965
From Dan's research, it seems Elliott inspected the plane on the 20th, so if the date on the back of the photo describing Earhart as looking at a squawk sheet is the 18th or 19th, she may be getting things in tip top shape for his inspection tour.
As noted it seems amelia is MIA for the days following the inspection, until it was time to depart for New York. The movie shoot and her absence doesn't seem to allow for her any time to train further. I note in Dan's and other's research that Mantz accompanied Earhart part of the way to New York, maybe this was to provide a bit more inflight training and maybe Mantz did the takeoff from California, but he departed midway , and left Earhart on her own to land and takeoff several times before reaching New York.
-
Several old movie magazine sites offer excellent research;
http://mediahistoryproject.org/fanmagazines/
http://archive.org/stream/picturegoerjulde00odha#page/n551/mode/2up
Somewhere some old magazine article may reveal the Electra color scheme
-
The paint job in Purdue colors (old gold and black) is confirmed in a July 20, 1936 letter from GP to G. Stanley Meikle, director of research relations at Purdue:
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/search/searchterm/AEPb1f9i21
Dan Brown, #2408
Purdue '78
-
The paint job in Purdue colors (old gold and black) is confirmed in a July 20, 1936 letter from GP to G. Stanley Meikle, director of research relations at Purdue:
This will enable Pat to do an accurate color illustration of the plane at that point in its career.
-
It strikes me as politically astute to have adorned the "Flying Laboratory" with Purdue's colors.
But that paint scheme seems to have been removed shortly thereafter. I hope a Timeline entry will be found that documents that change back to the unadorned state. But in particular, why was the Purdue livery removed?
I'm equally intrigued (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1427.msg29789.html#msg29789) about when and why the hinge for the exit ("escape") hatch above the pilot's seat got switched from being over the window to being at the centerline of the fuselage. Was it as a result of the incident during the Bendix race (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1837.msg40080.html#msg40080) in September 1936 when there were in-flight hatch problems?
-
But that paint scheme seems to have been removed shortly thereafter. I hope a Timeline entry will be found that documents that change back to the unadorned state.
The painted cowlings were present during the Bendix race (September 4) and gone by the time she visited Vince Bendix in South Bend in late November, but we're woefully short of photos of the airplane that can be reliably placed between those dates.
But in particular, why was the Purdue livery removed?
unadorned state.
Much tougher question.
I'm equally intrigued (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1427.msg29789.html#msg29789) about when and why the hinge for the exit ("escape") hatch above the pilot's seat got switched from being over the window to being at the centerline of the fuselage. Was it as a result of the incident during the Bendix race (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1837.msg40080.html#msg40080) in September 1936 when there were in-flight hatch problems?
Why the heck Lockheed designed it to open outward is a mystery. I've used the center-hinged hatch to enter the cockpit of the Pensacola Electra and that's awkward enough. I can't imagine dealing with an outward-opening hatch. I never did figure out how to safely get out again. I used the cabin door.
On the standard version of the Model 10 the hatch was a true emergency exit but because Earhart's cabin was cluttered with fuel tanks she used it as the usual way to enter and exit the aircraft. She may have changed the hatch just because it made sense to change it.
-
The painted cowlings were present during the Bendix race (September 4) and gone by the time she visited Vince Bendix in South Bend in late November, but we're woefully short of photos of the airplane that can be reliably placed between those dates. [ quote]
But in particular, why was the Purdue livery removed?
unadorned state.
Much tougher question.
My guess is Mantz was involved, and he had the plane readied with what he thought would be a safety feature ( orange paint) in the event of a possible search and rescue operation.
-
My guess is Mantz was involved, and he had the plane readied with what he thought would be a safety feature ( orange paint) in the event of a possible search and rescue operation.
Mantz did recommend the orange paint but the painted cowlings went away at least three months before the orange paint went on.
-
The painted cowlings were present during the Bendix race (September 4) and gone by the time she visited Vince Bendix in South Bend in late November, but we're woefully short of photos of the airplane that can be reliably placed between those dates.
The pictures of Earhart and the coeds at Purdue are dated Sept 20 1936 and the paint is gone by then.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/epurdue/id/394/rec/1
-
The pictures of Earhart and the coeds at Purdue are dated Sept 20 1936 and the paint is gone by then.
Of course (duh!). That narrows it down a lot. The painted cowlings went away between Sept. 5 and Sept. 20 - and probably before she left Burbank for Purdue on about Sept. 17th.
-
It seems strange, though, that she'd want to not show-off the aircraft in Purdue colors while visiting the university. ???
[/(sent from Colorado Springs)size]
-
My best guess - By the end of the Bendix race the paint on the cowlings was beat up and starting to flake off. Easiest to just strip it off rather than have it look tatty.
-
The author of this book;
https://books.google.com/books?id=tsd2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=mantz+painting+earhart+plane&source=bl&ots=trRaWQlyB6&sig=lmNae2RiYhG_QJ3qpAilmv6jtqw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB1-CohbfLAhVsk4MKHR5bAugQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=mantz%20painting%20earhart%20plane&f=false
seems to give me the impression that Amelia was caught in-between two guys with differing opinions,( to be a fly on the wall, when these two guys were going at it) and so she just decided to go in the middle and get rid of the applied paint and leave it bare until and maybe,.... air regulations required some sort of bright color be applied to the plane when going long distances and over water. I will look for some rules pertaining to that from the era.
-
maybe,.... air regulations required some sort of bright color be applied to the plane when going long distances and over water. I will look for some rules pertaining to that from the era.
I don't think you'll find any. The orange markings on NR16020 may have been inspired by the markings used by Pan Am on their Martin M-130 Clippers then in service on the Pacific routes.
-
Came home this afternoon and turned on the television and to my surprise on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) at 3:00 pm. EST what should be airing but Love on the Run! So I caught the last 2/3 of the film, but missed the scenes with the Electra in them :-(