Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: March 23, 2019, 07:30:54 AM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Ric Gillespie
There is small plastic kit of the electra, configurable as AE's, that might serve as a starting place for some kinds of tests. However it is of typical small model scale. It does have gear tho it may be the later gear.

I have the kit.  The gear has only the tire, wheel and strut and includes neither the bull gear nor the later knuckle mechanism.

 2 
 on: March 22, 2019, 05:02:18 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Leon R White
Greg, thank you for the recap of thinking so far on the arrival of the object.  Re: getting started with the model.  There is small plastic kit of the electra, configurable as AE's, that might serve as a starting place for some kinds of tests. However it is of typical small model scale. It does have gear tho it may be the later gear. But, there should be a number of TIGHARS that can build or modify a plastic kit landing gear.  I have said kit in storage.  Bigger scale and the autodesk work would be ideal as it could be 1:1 scale, of course.

Leon

 3 
 on: March 22, 2019, 09:25:58 AM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Ric Gillespie
Gentlemen,
This sounds like a fascinating project.  Its greatest value would be in demonstrating how convincingly the Bevington Object matches the wreckage of the Electra gear assembly.  Despite all the excellent work by Jeff Glickman and Greg Daspit, to many people the object in the photo is still just a blob.

 4 
 on: March 22, 2019, 09:20:01 AM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Greg Daspit

It might be possible to get AutoDesk’s help building a model. Their CAD/CAM BUILD Space is in my building in Boston and they accept applications for protects to utilize it, I think for free if non-commercial. See https://www.autodeskbuildspace.com/

They have an amazing array of robotic fabrication tools that can work with a variety of materials. In this case we might want to use something easy like high density foam - I am not sure we could create a “working” model (with moving parts) without a lot of difficulty.

The BUILD Space studio has huge windows to the promenade and I have seen lots of fascinating projects fabricated there. I also notice that it is fairly underutilized and they appear to like projects that capture the imagination of passers-by.

I can reach out to them if you think it is worthwhile.

Alternately, it could be built on a standard 3-d printer but it would have to be a large one - most design firms like mine have printers that are too small, although the model could be scaled down and still work, I think.

Jon
I like the idea of foam as a medium for a large model.  The lighter the better because some system or a device ( like the adjustable arm to a lamp) would be needed to be able to make position adjustments. The fork has 4 different axis you need to align. Both the fork and worm gear assemblies need to be rotated about all axis as well as move vertically and horizontally in all directions. You would probably also need a monitor close to the model with a live feed from a video camera. The camera is too far away to go back and forth to check the image and make adjustments to positions.

As far as worthwhile doing this?  After doing close to a thousand rendering runs with the object in different positions I personally don’t think it’s needed. But some have asked me about an overlay and I think the large scale, real camera test might be the best way to do it.
 
I would caution to not get too much into modeling every detail because the distances involved don’t let you see them. At one point I considered buying a program from Autodesk that had attributes you could enter for both the Worm and the Worm Gear to model the teeth. This program is used to actually design worm drives. I finally decided to just make the teeth straight because you probably can’t tell they are enveloped (slightly curved) if you looked at them from 30’ away, much less from 300’ away.

 5 
 on: March 21, 2019, 06:26:12 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Jon Romig
Would it be worth it to evaluate the Luke Field broken landing gear using your methods? I am assuming we know when the pics were taken at Luke field. This would help validate your
Gardner island analysis.

I think to validate the study more it might be better to build an actual full size model and use a real camera just to validate the angles and positioning of the components. In the full size real model study you would not be studying shadows but just the angles of the components, specifically the fork. Once the components angles are validated you could then go back and check them again with the autocad model. This method would also allow you to do an “overlay” of an enlarged real photograph with the enlarged Bevington Photo to check the angles and sizes.


Hi Greg,

Nice work!

It might be possible to get AutoDesk’s help building a model. Their CAD/CAM BUILD Space is in my building in Boston and they accept applications for protects to utilize it, I think for free if non-commercial. See https://www.autodeskbuildspace.com/

They have an amazing array of robotic fabrication tools that can work with a variety of materials. In this case we might want to use something easy like high density foam - I am not sure we could create a “working” model (with moving parts) without a lot of difficulty.

The BUILD Space studio has huge windows to the promenade and I have seen lots of fascinating projects fabricated there. I also notice that it is fairly underutilized and they appear to like projects that capture the imagination of passers-by.

I can reach out to them if you think it is worthwhile.

Alternately, it could be built on a standard 3-d printer but it would have to be a large one - most design firms like mine have printers that are too small, although the model could be scaled down and still work, I think.

Jon

 6 
 on: March 20, 2019, 03:51:41 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Greg Daspit
Could someone refresh me on the details of how TIGHAR thinks the landing gear got into the nessie position?  If the tire is deflated, it didn't float with the gear part hanging below it.  If the tire deflated and some part of the gear caught on the reef, would it stay fast in the "tire showing" position? If the tire is torn, it isn't floating, but if the tire is OK it could be floating when the pic was taken? Did the entire assembly get dragged across the reef and then get stuck in a crevice in an upright position?  Understanding the story should explain, or at least not contradict, the theoretical position of the remains.  thanks to all.
Leon
It’s my understanding the object is on the edge of the reef in very shallow water, in a few inches or less. It’s right next to where the reef starts to slope down and it gets deeper. There is also a hole in the area as seen in the video Tighar has on YouTube. I don’t know if an exact tide analysis was done for the window of time the lighting works. That window is around 1pm, give or take about ½ hour. There are several sharp edges that could get stuck in a groove or hole. Some broken struts could still be attached to the mounting bracket which may have broken off with the worm gear / oleo strut assembly. These parts would be hidden by the tire or under water.

A few possibilities for why it’s there:
1.   It’s not stuck and has been moving from somewhere else, maybe even kicked back up from a storm.
2.   It’s stuck in a groove, crack or hole. Maybe the same hole that might have contributed to the gear failing.
3.     The crew, in attempt to save the plane, somehow found a way to secure it, via the landing gear, to the reef. Contributing to it's failure.
4.   My favorite: It’s tangled up with something heavier that could survive the dynamic conditions there.  For example a length of one of the several control cables which ran to the engine located just above the landing gear. The other end of the cable still tied to the engine in the deeper water next to it. The engine being easily identifiable as an airplane part by Emily’s father and rusty as she remembered. Possibly it's the same aircraft cable John Mims saw a fisherman using as a fishing leader. This line may have held the gear there a while, flopping around a bit, sometimes lower in the water, until the fisherman cut it lose and it eventually tumbled down to the debris field ledge.

 7 
 on: March 20, 2019, 12:37:37 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Leon R White
Could someone refresh me on the details of how TIGHAR thinks the landing gear got into the nessie position?  If the tire is deflated, it didn't float with the gear part hanging below it.  If the tire deflated and some part of the gear caught on the reef, would it stay fast in the "tire showing" position? If the tire is torn, it isn't floating, but if the tire is OK it could be floating when the pic was taken? Did the entire assembly get dragged across the reef and then get stuck in a crevice in an upright position?  Understanding the story should explain, or at least not contradict, the theoretical position of the remains.  thanks to all.
Leon

 8 
 on: March 19, 2019, 07:04:45 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Greg Daspit
Would it be worth it to evaluate the Luke Field broken landing gear using your methods? I am assuming we know when the pics were taken at Luke field. This would help validate your
Gardner island analysis.

I don’t know the camera angles and distances at Luke Field. Jeff Glickman did a detailed analysis of the camera location and the object location and how they are oriented at Gardner Island. I used that data for my study but don’t have it for Luke Field.

I think to validate the study more it might be better to build an actual full size model and use a real camera just to validate the angles and positioning of the components. In the full size real model study you would not be studying shadows but just the angles of the components, specifically the fork. Once the components angles are validated you could then go back and check them again with the autocad model. This method would also allow you to do an “overlay” of an enlarged real photograph with the enlarged Bevington Photo to check the angles and sizes.

In Autocad you typically “zoom in” to see something better. It’s like you walked closer to the object. An “enlarged” Bevington Photo and the “zoomed in” Autocad image of the landing gear have different perspectives so you can’t do an overlay.


FYI for the autocad study multiple cameras were used. One to check the fork’s angles using a camera from where Bevington took the photo, hundreds of feet away. Using this camera, extension lines projected from the different angled parts of the fork had to be added just to see the angles from about 300’ away. You can actually see one of these leftover extension lines in an image in the report. (The one taken above the entire model including the Norwich City and shoreline.) Another autocad camera was set closer to the components to be able to more easily adjust their position. This was the “working camera”. Images from this camera are what you see in the computer rendered images. 

If the positioning is right then the rendering of the shadows would not need to be validated. (edit others have asked me this):  It’s not me guessing where the shadows are by “drawing” or “sketching” any of it. It’s a computer rendering of  a “model” based on the actual location, day and time the photo was taken. 

 9 
 on: March 19, 2019, 03:22:41 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Jim Zanella
Would it be worth it to evaluate the Luke Field broken landing gear using your methods? I am assuming we know when the pics were taken at Luke field. This would help validate your
Gardner island analysis.

 10 
 on: March 19, 2019, 12:30:17 PM 
Started by Greg Daspit - Last post by Greg Daspit
A question on another string came up about if the landing gear failed and consideration of that in tidal studies.

Based on the sun analysis of the Bevington photo, at least the upper part of the tire was significantly pushed in right next to the wheel hub. The deformity in the tire could be caused by the landing gear failure but it could also be caused by the tire being flat and the plane being pushed and twisted around on the reef. Then the landing gear failing after this and the worm gear getting stuck in the tire opening.
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/82_BevingtonAnalysis2/82_BevingtonObjectNewAnalysis.html


The possible “tire” in the Debris Field video from 2012 appears to show what might be the hub significantly extending up from what would be the tire. The proportions of what would be  the tire and hub in this object are right.
If this was the case it could be the tire was cut around the hub’s rim like paper being cut on the edge of the table.  If the tire was flat and the plane was pushed by tides sideways and also forward/back sharp coral might cut the tire from the hub like that. The coral almost acting like a can opener. The tire being the can and the hub the lid. Another analysis of the tides could include an assumption where a tire or both tires were flat.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP