MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo

[Paul Atkinson]

From a 2009 MysteryQuest episode on the Bermuda Triangle.  They were exploring the wreck of an airplane.  Looks eerily similar to the proposed landing gear photo by Bevington.

[Matt Revington]

Paul

Thats interesting
What was the story with this aircraft? Was this arrangement of debris the result of an impact/crash or of storm/wave action on one that was once fairly intact?

[Paul Atkinson]

Matt,

It was pretty interesting.  If you YouTube the keyword "MysteryQuest Devil's Triangle" you can find the episode and watch it.  Might give you a better answer than I would.  Also, it wasn't the only plane they looked at.  This one, however, was a twin engine and some of the underwater footage was striking in comparison to much of what is discovered here.  If anything, it would be a great visual reference for how things look under water.

Paul

[George Pachulski]

I like this photo from another part of this web site , concerning electra wheels struts , ( not a pic of Nickop site) and the testamony about what was in the water near nicko , notice how rusty and steel like it looks .....

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2346;image

[Matt Revington]

George

I believe the wheel struts along with engines were made of steel so the rust is not surprising. 

A post from another thread last year where this picture also showed up

Malcolm

I'm not suggesting that Emily saw any aluminum, she specifically says she didn't see aluminum, only the rusty stuff.

RG:   You saw none of the other parts of the plane. The aluminum, the shiny parts?
ES:   No, all gone. Nothing.

I'm thinking the landing gear only - rusting away, with the rest of the aircraft floated off the reef into the deep where we will hopefully find it in reasonably large pieces this coming July.

By the way, I believe the main wing spar which ran throughout the cabin was made of steel, not aluminum.  That would be about the largest structural member found within the entire aircraft, but it wasn't tubular as described by Emily, but the landing gear structure was.

{UPDATE - OK, the main beam through the cabin was not steel.  Not sure where I got that notion, seemed odd, but I thought it came up in some previous discussion.  I guess I'm suffering from information overload!}

............


Andrew

[Tim Mellon]

Can someone please help me to find the Scale by which it has been determined that this "Bevington Object" is an Electra landing gear? Is there something else in the water of known length?

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Tim, in the un-cropped original Bevington photograph the Norwich City is in the background. Now, we know the length of the Norwich City but, that was when it was seaworthy. If you look at it in the Bevington photograph it has begun to fall apart so, the length is questionable and therefore not much use for scaling. If we could get some accurate info for funnel and masts sizes it would be better, they look to be in good nick in the photo, then the number crunching could begin. Apart from that there isn't much else to go on regarding scale in the Bevington photograph. IMHO of course.

[Gary L Kerr]

Tim, you can look at http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf about half way down. It gave me a rough
idea of what is involved (math). For more specific info check with your experts on how they do it.
It would be nice if we all shared...

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

The math was to triangulate the location, not he possible size of the Bevington object?

"Jeff calculated the object's position by triangulating features that are identifiable in both the 1937 photo and in a modern satellite image of the island. With the ship of known dimensions providing a convenient scale, Jeff was able to place Nessie 416 meters – about a quarter of a mile – north of the shipwreck and at the very edge of the reef flat."

Would the dimensions of a ship wreck be the same as when it was constructed Gary?

[Tim Mellon]

Exactly, Jeff. I can see how the NC could provide scale to something just adjacent to the ship, but not something 416 meters away.

[Gary L Kerr]

In the picture the NC was not the reference point - they know the scale with some precision:

"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart's
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."

In Tims posted cropped pic there are no beaches or ships - way to go Tim...
your experts methods and expert findings are not available to us your peers, but you seek
the specifics of our methods and findings. We just want to find the Electra why wont you help
us now like you did?

[Ted G Campbell]

For you math wizards out there:

If you triangulate from the shoreline to the Bevington Object and come up with a distance from the shore can't you reverse the calculations and estimate the height of the Bevington Object + - the height of the shore objects?

Ted Campbell

[Ric Gillespie]

Exactly, Jeff. I can see how the NC could provide scale to something just adjacent to the ship, but not something 416 meters away.

That's because you're not trained in forensic imaging.  Neither am I.  Jeff Glickman is.  It's a complicated process that begins with establishing exactly where the object is with relation to known objects and distances.  Here is the schematic Jeff used to find where the Bevington had to be when he took the photo (yellow cross) and where, therefore, the Object was (red dot).  As you see, he correlated terrain features and objects on the reef identifiable in the Bevington Photo with the same features in a modern-day geo-referenced satellite image.  Once you have the object placed in a matrix where you have multiple checks on sizes of objects (such as the NC) and distances you can reliably solve for the size of the object in question.  This is precisely what we do not have in the underwater video imagery.

[Tim Mellon]

So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?

[Ric Gillespie]

So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?

You'll have to ask Jeff.