Possible Rope video (2012)

[Bob Lanz]

This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.

Ric, I am going to bet that is not a "new old stock" cable for a model Electra L10-E of which there were only 14 built.  That would appear to be a retrofit cable for functionality with the fittings being much more modern than were produced in 1937.  Scale makes no difference in this case.

[richie conroy]

Hi Tim

Well No

Why is only Emily's story real ?

If all the story's told the same story then fair enough.

However interviews with different people on different islands over the years, Have told of the same aircraft wreckage, Except what the piece's were used for, Have been used in different ways every time

Thanks Richie

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric--Pics of the rebuild? I would think that would be useful----to some of us anyway!

We have dozens if not hundreds of photos of various Model 10s in various states of disassembly.  Scanning and publishing them would be a huge job.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, wouldn't you agree that Emily is the only real witness here? The others saw "parts" reworked for particular purposes, or "heard tell" of an airplane wreck. Or is my interpretation too strict?

Emily, Tapania, and Pulekai all remember seeing parts in situ, although at different places at different times. Each person's recollection is consistent in time and location with the known forces that act on debris on the reef.  We know from tracking the break-up of Norwich City that debris on the reef surface moves southeastward over time.  Emily sees what she sees on the reef edge north of the shipwreck in 1940 or '41. Tapania sees debris on the reef and shore southeast of there in the late 1950s.  Pulekai sees debris around the same time that has apparently floated through the main passage and fetched up on the lagoon shore.  We know of examples of buoyant Norwich City wreckage that has done the same thing.

Mims and Geisinger saw material that had been salvaged, brought to the village and worked, but the stories they were told about the origin of the material are identical. 

And come to think of it, wasn't  Emily relying on her father's interpretation of what was on the reef?

That's right.  What Emily saw did not look like airplane wreckage to her, but she saw it only from shore -a distance of about 600 feet.  The question is what made her father think it was airplane wreckage? 

[Bob Lanz]

This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.

Ric, I am going to bet that is not a "new old stock" cable for a model Electra L10-E of which there were only 14 built.  That would appear to be a retrofit cable for functionality with the fittings being much more modern than were produced in 1937.  Scale makes no difference in this case.

I don't know, Bob - you are likely correct that the particular cable is newer - death comes to cables over time, but I'm not sure the 'AN style' cable swages were not around then, I think they were.

Jeff, I suppose my point is, what are the chances that they found a brand spankin' new cable in a warehouse or wherever of the right length and fittings 70+ years later?  Slim to none??

[Tim Mellon]

Ric, wouldn't you agree that Emily is the only real witness here? The others saw "parts" reworked for particular purposes, or "heard tell" of an airplane wreck. Or is my interpretation too strict?

Emily, Tapania, and Pulekai all remember seeing parts in situ, although at different places at different times. Each person's recollection is consistent in time and location with the known forces that act on debris on the reef.  We know from tracking the break-up of Norwich City that debris on the reef surface moves southeastward over time.  Emily sees what she sees on the reef edge north of the shipwreck in 1940 or '41. Tapania sees debris on the reef and shore southeast of there in the late 1950s.  Pulekai sees debris around the same time that has apparently floated through the main passage and fetched up on the lagoon shore.  We know of examples of buoyant Norwich City wreckage that has done the same thing.

Mims and Geisinger saw material that had been salvaged, brought to the village and worked, but the stories they were told about the origin of the material are identical. 

And come to think of it, wasn't  Emily relying on her father's interpretation of what was on the reef?

That's right.  What Emily saw did not look like airplane wreckage to her, but she saw it only from shore -a distance of about 600 feet.  The question is what made her father think it was airplane wreckage?

So I conclude, from all of this, that several people see "debris" of one sort or another, but no-one actually sees a complete aircraft. In other words, most of the aircraft could have been swept off the reef before Lambrecht arrived, yet components could have been left behind (such as the Beviington Object) or later resurfaced and deposited in the lagoon or on the reef to be retrieved by the new habitants. Am I over-simplifying?

[Ric Gillespie]

So I conclude, from all of this, that several people see "debris" of one sort or another, but no-one actually sees a complete aircraft. In other words, most of the aircraft could have been swept off the reef before Lambrecht arrived, yet components could have been left behind (such as the Beviington Object) or later resurfaced and deposited in the lagoon or on the reef to be retrieved by the new habitants. Am I over-simplifying?

No, I think that's exactly right. 

[JNev]

This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.

Ric, I am going to bet that is not a "new old stock" cable for a model Electra L10-E of which there were only 14 built.  That would appear to be a retrofit cable for functionality with the fittings being much more modern than were produced in 1937.  Scale makes no difference in this case.

I don't know, Bob - you are likely correct that the particular cable is newer - death comes to cables over time, but I'm not sure the 'AN style' cable swages were not around then, I think they were.

Jeff, I suppose my point is, what are the chances that they found a brand spankin' new cable in a warehouse or wherever of the right length and fittings 70+ years later?  Slim to none??

I see now - and agree, not likely - probably "slim to none".

But we don't know if we're looking at a cable that was removed and rolled up for later installation or a newer one fabricated for the restoration, etc.  It's merely a matter of the right length, terminal hardware and swaging tools.  Most common / small shops don't have the nicer 'AN' tooling (expensive set-up and calibration) and resort to occasional cable making with nico-presses.  Cables can of course be ordered from a number of suppliers who do that sort of thing.

My point was that it may well be faithful to the original in terms of hardware type, that's all.  I pretty sure the 'modern' AN type terminals have been with us for 75 years.  As Ric mentions, there is a wealth of photos out there - it's a matter of chasin down this kind of detail among them.  I can understand that he likely doesn't have time to rifle through all that to answer this...  :P 

Nor would I, but out of curiosity I think it's a detail I'll watch for as I might peruse some of those pictures - just something else to learn about this great old machine and her time in the industry, and enjoy knowing.

[Tom Swearengen]

Ric---I was referring the the rebuild of NR16020 after the Hawaii accident. That way we are talking about the same plane, and not someone else's, that for no particular reason, might have been different.
Tom

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric---I was referring the the rebuild of NR16020 after the Hawaii accident. That way we are talking about the same plane, and not someone else's, that for no particular reason, might have been different.

I agree, but I'm aware of no photos taken during the rebuild except a few general-view shots of the fuselage on sawhorses and Amelia watching the work.  There's newsreel footage of the engine mounts being x-rayed by someone waving around what looks like one of the old x-ray machines once used by dentists. 

There are a few photo-op pictures of AE in the Electra's unfinished cabin taken during original construction.

[Tom Swearengen]

Ok. Got it. Was just thinking that pics during the rebuild 'could ' reveal what was actually done.

[Tim Mellon]

Again, a detail found in both High Definition videos, 2010 and 2012, is the WC and the toilet, here seen from "uphill". Compared to 2010, the bulkhead to the rear of the WC seems to have tipped to the left. I think the location of the vent on top of the fuselage can be seen clearly.

The photo shows the toilet looking through the window that was skinned over prior to the flight.

[Tim Mellon]

While I was looking at the landing gear, I think I may have found the right rudder, outside surface up. The telltale feature is the space for the trim tab, which was on the left rudder only (the Harney drawing is attached for reference). The trim tab itself is now missing.

In the 2010 view, the rudder surface is seen from above, with the trim tab opening away from the viewer. CORRECTION: The HF antenna is draped over the top of the rudder.

In the 2012 view, the rudder is seen from up-hill, with the trim tab opening closer to the viewer. The HF antenna has shifted more away from the rudder, and no longer seems to be taught.

[Jeff Palshook]

Tim -- Doesn't it seem odd to you that what you are calling the antenna wire/cable is so prominent in the 2010 image (an obvious thin, black line) and it's so very vague in the 2012 image?  Frankly, I don't see the cable/wire at all in the 2012 image.

Another discrepancy ... In the 2012 image, there is a relatively flat, featureless area in the background (at the top of the image) beyond the object you have labeled as the landing gear tire.  In the 2010 image, the area around this "tire" is filled with lumpy, bumpy rocks and coral debris.  There's no sign of the flat, featureless area in the 2010 image.

I don't see any obvious matches in the bottom features between the two imgaes.  The wire/cable is clearly visible in the 2012 image; I don't see it at all in the 2010 image. It's not at all convincing to me these two images show the same piece of ocean floor.

Jeff P.

[Tom Swearengen]

Jeff-----I believe these were taken around the 800 foot depth, on the reef slope. The ocean bottom is around 3200 feet+-. Dont know what it looks like because we dont have pictures of that. But we do know the reef slope has some very rough features, so I'm not surprised that features of the 2 videos dont necessarily match up.
(Sure would have been nice to have been able to go to the bottom, and work back towards the slope. Bet there is some interesting things there.)
Tom