Print

[John Joseph Barrett]

Ric,   I saw the Facebook posting which indicated that a working theory reference the Bevington Object is that the purported gear assembly may have detatched from the sunken Electra and drifted onto the reef. I hope I understood that correctly. If that is the case, does this change the reef landing theory in that the plane would have to had stopped further north than initially believed in order for the current to carry the object southward and onto the reef? Wouldn't the plane, when first pulled from the reef already have begun t0 drift southward or do you believe that it was already essentially negative and just slid down the reef face into deeper water right off of where it had stopped on roll out? Also, I think I asked this on a thread sometime ago, has anyone ever experimented with floating a similar sized gear assembly to see how well it would float? I understand that it can't be totally accurate as there is no way to know how much wreckage may have been attached, but given the shallow water in which the Object was photographed, is it possible for the gear to have floated across and then become lodged? I think it is given the right conditions, but would be interested in an experiment. Where would one come by a similar gear/wheel assembly?  LTM- John

[Greg Daspit]

Another possibility is it was tied down instead of tearing off and drifting there.
If the tide came in, it hit the tires first. Tying the wheels down, instead of the wings, could limit stress on the airframe. It could also cause them to be ripped off too.
There is the Bevington photo of the area and all that is visible is possible landing gear parts. If Emily saw something much later, what was it? Could it be that Emily saw the landing gear still there?  Or did other parts tear off for her to see? If she saw the Bevington object, something was holding it there for a long time.
Of course the giant air wheels is something that could float to the surface if it tore off. That makes sense. But from the previous Glickman analysis at DC last year, one of the struts didn't have a tire on it. How did it float?
See attached pdf to better explain the tie down idea and how the object could be that close to the edge for a long time.

[Tim Mellon]

Greg, nice sketch.

The debris field that I know, though, seen in both 2010 HD and 2012 HD/SD videos, is at 985 feet below sea level, and just West of the plotted location of the Bevington Object (Site #1 in the table prepared by Phoenix, Bulletin #63). The two wheels that I believe I see in the 2010 video are less than three meters apart from one another. They are both visible in the 2012 HD video too. One wheel is separated from its strut by another several meters, the other has its fork still attached and the strut is directly adjacent. It is difficult for me to believe, therefore, that the Bevington Object, if it truly were a landing gear assembly, would follow the wreck of the rest of the aircraft to precisely the same location 985 feet below sea level. But, of course, anything is possible.

[Greg Daspit]

The debris field that I know, though, seen in both 2010 HD and 2012 HD/SD videos, is at 985 feet below sea level

Thanks Tim,
I believe the "2012 Debris field video" was taken at a shallower depth

[Greg Daspit]

It is difficult for me to believe, therefore, that the Bevington Object, if it truly were a landing gear assembly, would follow the wreck of the rest of the aircraft to precisely the same location 985 feet below sea level. But, of course, anything is possible.

I agree. Maybe the gear got tangled up in control cables, wires and such, and the wreck was in a crevice just below and in front of the Bevington object. The location is close to reef edge. When the wreck finally fell it pulled the Bevington object down with it in a tangled ball.

Sort of related,  I remember a clip of Doolittle describing airplanes he built as a kid always getting blown away and getting "rolled up in a ball".  Different construction but still makes me laugh

[Tim Mellon]

I agree. Maybe the gear got tangled up in control cables, wires and such, and the wreck was in a crevice just below and in front of the Bevington object. The location is close to reef edge. When the wreck finally fell it pulled the Bevington object down with it in a tangled ball.

This scenario makes sense, although I don't see any cable, wire or rope attached to either landing gear at 985 feet down.

Yes, it's the update to Bulletin #63 that shows the table with Site #1, not the Bulletin itself. This has confused me before. 197 feet is what was originally published. There is little, if anything, of consequence at that depth, IMHO. If there were more, we would have seen claims or proof of it by now. The "Possible Rope" video is the one that shows the real Debris Field in 2012, the same area that is seen in the 2010 "entire" HD video. The Standard Definition version of the "Possible Rope" video identifies the depth at 985 feet.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric,   I saw the Facebook posting which indicated that a working theory reference the Bevington Object is that the purported gear assembly may have detatched from the sunken Electra and drifted onto the reef. I hope I understood that correctly.

I don't think it detached from the sunken Electra. The right main gear separated from the aircraft during the Luke Field wreck as the plane slid on its belly after the gear collapsed.  I think similar forces had a similar result as waves pushed the plane across the reef flat on its belly before it went over the edge. 

If that is the case, does this change the reef landing theory in that the plane would have to had stopped further north than initially believed in order for the current to carry the object southward and onto the reef?

That's one possibility.

Wouldn't the plane, when first pulled from the reef already have begun to drift southward or do you believe that it was already essentially negative and just slid down the reef face into deeper water right off of where it had stopped on roll out?

I don't know, but if it went over the edge further north than we thought and sank right way it could be in an area we didn't have time to search with the ROV.

 

Also, I think I asked this on a thread sometime ago, has anyone ever experimented with floating a similar sized gear assembly to see how well it would float?

We don't need to cannibalize a surviving Electra.  We've run the numbers.  If the tire was not punctured it should float.

[Tim Mellon]

If the tire was not punctured it should float.

All three tires appear to be on the bottom; the only one apparently inflated is the tailwheel tire.

[Greg Daspit]

From this article, the Bevington object may have drifted from the north where the wreckage may be.

From this bulletin, Mr. Glickman estimates an 80% chance the Bevington object is related to the 2012 dive imagery

Thoughts / questions and some speculation:
The 2012 Debris Field appears to have a lot of manmade objects. So a lot of debris, in addition to the Bevington Object, may have drifted south, if the main wreckage is in unsearched north areas. Yet these objects appear to be close together relative to the amount of area Dive 3 and other dives searched.
The Bevington Object may have a gashed tire if similar to the Luke Field accident and so may not have floated.
Previous prevailing current studies show objects possibly moved S.E towards the lagoon, so why did the Bevington object end up in the Debris Field? 
What kept it close to the volatile edge of the reef where it appears waves crash?
Why does there appear to be so much other debris close to the possible Bevington object parts as annotated in the Debris Field?

 Just speculating here again, but one possibility sketched out below in some more detail, could explain why the Bevington Object did not end up in the Lagoon, was held on the volatile reef edge, separated at that time it was photographed from other visible debris, yet ended up next to other debris in the Debris Field.

[Ric Gillespie]

From this article, the Bevington object may have drifted from the north where the wreckage may be.

Greg, I love your sketches but, having spent considerable time on that reef, I have a hard time believing that it would have been possible for Earhart and/or Noonan to stake down the airplane.  There were three "mooring rods," a "driving rod," and "tie down rope" aboard the airplane at the time of the Luke Field accident, but driving a rod into that reef, even in a natural crack, is the sticking point.  If they did, the hole should still be there even if the rod rusted away.  Something to look for next time we're on the reef.

[Dan Swift]

Here's another 'could they have' question that no one knows the answer to, but they could have found more materials on the NC to attempt to tie down the plane.  Just throwing logic that ropes and steal pieces may have been obtainable.  Oh if they had only left some sort of sign.  If course if they did on the NC...it too is at the bottom of the reef slope. 

[Greg Daspit]

Oh if they had only left some sort of sign.  If course if they did on the NC...it too is at the bottom of the reef slope.

A sign on the Norwich City? Did you see the possible SOS on Norwich City discussed in this old thread? I spent some time speculating ways it could be done.  Probably just odd weathering/ fire damage though.

[Greg Daspit]

I’m curious if the Debris Field is north or south (or just west) of the estimated location of the Bevington Object?
And if the suspected fender and tire in the 2012 dive video could be the other landing gear, closer to the main wreckage. Based on the amount of manmade objects near it.

[Ric Gillespie]

I’m curious if the Debris Field is north or south (or just west) of the estimated location of the Bevington Object?

South but not near the NC wreckage. I'll be releasing a map soon.

And if the suspected fender and tire in the 2012 dive video could be the other landing gear, closer to the main wreckage. Based on the amount of manmade objects near it.

Not sure what you mean.  The only underwater debris field we have is the suspected fender and tire.

[Greg Daspit]

And if the suspected fender and tire in the 2012 dive video could be the other landing gear, closer to the main wreckage. Based on the amount of manmade objects near it.

Not sure what you mean.  The only underwater debris field we have is the suspected fender and tire.

I meant the fender and tire from the other landing gear, Non-Bevington Object (NBO), may be seen in the video. If the Debris Field was North, it would be more likely that the fender and tire seen in it was from the NBO

Based on the amount of debris next to it, I wondered if it may be the other other landing gear, since it was speculated the Bevington landing gear may have drifted south, away from the main wreckage to the north.

Now that I know for sure the Debris Field is south, it explains what I was curious about

I guess if it is south, what is seen in the video could be either landing gear, but the map may show a strong link to the Bevington Object landing gear. Thanks