Print

[Alfred Cramer]

Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?

No, sir.  You're misreading both my meaning and my arithmetic. I did not say "add 9 inches"--I meant that the 7.5 in the formula from my reply #15 should perhaps be as high as 9:

h_BO = .5 / 9 * 50 ft = 2.8 ft

or as low as 6:

h_BO = .5 / 6 * 50 ft = 4.2 ft

In order to have both the Norwich City and the BO in the same image, I was working from the low-res photo available in several places on the Tighar website.  (Maybe if I joined Tighar I would have access to a higher-res version of the entire photo )  The low-res image is vague enough that I can't tell exactly how the high-res with reconstruction fits to it, so I can't answer your other question; I can't tell whether the top of the "tire" is or isn't part of the dark area visible in the low-res image. That's why .5 in my formula is also vague. The object, then, is between 2 and 6 feet high, most likely in the middle of that range. 

If you want a hard-and-fast exact scale, I can't offer it.  I merely meant to argue that even a schmo in an armchair like me has enough information to easily infer a scale and that that scale is consistent with the size of what Tighar hypothesizes it to be (it's not 10 feet tall, and it's not 6 inches).  Maybe it's not a landing gear, but I haven't yet seen evidence that it can't be.
 

[Tim Mellon]

Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.

I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?

That's interesting, Greg - where did you see that?  I don't recall anything like that being posted here and can't find such a critter on the TIGHAR site.  Is it published somewhere like Nauticos or similar?  Sounds like a serious study, I would love to see that.

It was posted by Tim, I'm pretty sure it was an attachment in his first post of this thread. It was up for a while. Several people were on-line while it was up.
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".
Is that the name of the report done for you Tim?

Nice try, Greg. My first post on this thread was about the lack of scale in the most recent variation of the Bevington Object, which is the only attachment to that post.

[Bruce Thomas]

We've been down this path before: Amateurs attempting to naysay the work of experts in the field of photogrammetry; amateurs trying to show that a picture shows that something could never be what the professional has determined through years of experience and availability of first-rate tools; amateurs trying to make inferences about sizes without any existing reference to scale.

For instance, look at any of the illusions that can be seen on YouTube. My favorite, a link that I've posted before, is a classic for fooling the unsuspecting amateur who would swear that something is one way, and most certainly cannot be any other way, when in fact some easily-grasped extra knowledge about scale reveals things to be surprisingly otherwise.

Let's not go down that trail of amateur photogrammetry again (e.g., "were AE's maingear tires 35" or 27" in diameter?") concerning the picture of the Bevington Object. There is sophisticated mathematical computation that went on to measure the size of the components in that picture -- things that an expert like Jeff Glickman can fully understand and use, and can document in a detailed report that mere mortals like us can then read and begin to understand. But in the absence of any shred of documented expertise, amateur musings here are just so much blithering nonsense and noise.

[Greg Daspit]

Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.

Could you have attached it by mistake? Maybe a path glitch?  I recall it did not match the text of your post well.
Is "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition" the name of a report done by your experts?
Where did you get the picture of the worm gear with the scale on top? 
Was that picture taken for use in your report?

[Tim Mellon]

Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?

No, sir.  You're misreading both my meaning and my arithmetic. I did not say "add 9 inches"--I meant that the 7.5 in the formula from my reply #15 should perhaps be as high as 9:

h_BO = .5 / 9 * 50 ft = 2.8 ft

or as low as 6:

h_BO = .5 / 6 * 50 ft = 4.2 ft

In order to have both the Norwich City and the BO in the same image, I was working from the low-res photo available in several places on the Tighar website.  (Maybe if I joined Tighar I would have access to a higher-res version of the entire photo )  The low-res image is vague enough that I can't tell exactly how the high-res with reconstruction fits to it, so I can't answer your other question; I can't tell whether the top of the "tire" is or isn't part of the dark area visible in the low-res image. That's why .5 in my formula is also vague. The object, then, is between 2 and 6 feet high, most likely in the middle of that range. 

If you want a hard-and-fast exact scale, I can't offer it.  I merely meant to argue that even a schmo in an armchair like me has enough information to easily infer a scale and that that scale is consistent with the size of what Tighar hypothesizes it to be (it's not 10 feet tall, and it's not 6 inches).  Maybe it's not a landing gear, but I haven't yet seen evidence that can't be.

Sorry to not understand your calculations, Mr. Cramer. Thank you for the clarification.

I am likewise a schmo that infers scale from the things I see. I catch hell for it every day.

[Tim Mellon]

Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.

Could you have attached it by mistake? Maybe a path glitch?  I recall it did not match the text of your post well.
Is "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition" the name of a report done by your experts?
Where did you get the picture of the worm gear with the scale on top? 
Was that picture taken for use in your report?

I took that picture myself in Grace McGuire's hangar. That is my ruler. Those are my boots. I have permission from Grace to use the picture in any way I see fit.

[JNev]

"Sectored ring gear" works for me, Jeff. Is that what you use on the Gulfstreams?

It's kind of a generic term, but we did use 'sector' linkage in the primary control linkage throughout the GI through G550 (G650 is 'fly by wire' but still uses some conventional mechanical linkage for actuation at the surface of course).  Same principle.

Sorry to be so picky!  Just a pet peeve on terms - as grey as the rest of me usually is on stuff, the old A&P is hard-headed black and white! 

[Monty Fowler]

Amazing thing, this screen capture program ...

LTM, who knows what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Tim Mellon]

There is sophisticated mathematical computation that went on to measure the size of the components in that picture -- things that an expert like Jeff Glickman can fully understand and use, and can document in a detailed report that mere mortals like us can then read and begin to understand. But in the absence of any shred of documented expertise, amateur musings here are just so much blithering nonsense and noise.

Bruce, could you kindly provide a specific reference to Jeff Glickman's detailed report about these measurements?

Thanks,

[Greg Daspit]

See attached sketch with letters assigned to various parts.
If the Lockheed assigned name is not known, what would be the generic name for the parts shown?

[Greg Daspit]

I think what is seen in the Bevington Object may include part of the oleo cylinder in the light area that is curved.
Also, the orientation of the gear, how much is covered by water, how much may have penetrated the tire, the angle at which it is viewed and the distance the worm gear is in front of the tire changes the proportions.
The dimensions in the attached sketch are ballpark estimates but are provided to show how adding parts and changing orientation may affect the proportions.

[Tim Mellon]

See attached sketch with letters assigned to various parts.
If the Lockheed assigned name is not known, what would be the generic name for the parts shown?

Greg, Uncle Jeff Neville is correct in insisting that we use the name "Sector Ring Gear" to describe the part attached to the oleo strut. The "worm gear" is merely the screw attached to the motor that causes the ring gear to change position (up or down) in response to a command from the landing gear lever in the cockpit.

[Tim Mellon]

Also, the orientation of the gear, how much is covered by water, how much may have penetrated the tire, the angle at which it is viewed and the distance the worm gear is in front of the tire changes the proportions.

Oh, more variables to account for! I love it.

The Bevington Object is just a Moveable Fiest!

[Tim Mellon]

Where was that declared by TIGHAR, Tim?  I've seen you 'declare' some things as 'definite', but not TIGHAR.  Maybe I missed it - respectfully, can you link us to a statement made by TIGHAR 'declaring' that the Bevington object 'is actually' an Electra gear?

Here, Jeff. "There is only one possible source..." (end of first full paragraph of the article).

[Ric Gillespie]

I expect to have a copy of the Lockheed engineering drawing for the landing gear installation some time this coming week.  That should clear up any questions about names of components.