The Question of 2-2-V-1

[Friend Weller]

My best guess:  It's either a reflection that makes it look there's a dent there or it's a dent caused during ground handling (aka "hangar rash").

Although 2-2-V-1 has now suffered from a bad case of "island rash" :D, are there any alignments in which the piece could be oriented (perhaps using the grain of the material to assist in that orientation) that might reveal a connection between the possible damage we see in the photo and the artifact?  Or has 2-2-V-1 seen too much of the South Pacific from the Niku point of view to "connect the dots" to the possible dent in the photo?

[Ric Gillespie]

Although 2-2-V-1 has now suffered from a bad case of "island rash" :D, are there any alignments in which the piece could be oriented (perhaps using the grain of the material to assist in that orientation) that might reveal a connection between the possible damage we see in the photo and the artifact?  Or has 2-2-V-1 seen too much of the South Pacific from the Niku point of view to "connect the dots" to the possible dent in the photo?

Pure opinion, but I think that if there had been a dent in 2-2-V-1 there would still be a dent in 2-2-V-1.

[Jeff Palshook]

Ric,

For the second world flight attempt after the extended stop at Miami, your theory about why the lavatory window was covered over doesn't make much sense to me when I look at the path of the sun across the sky for points along her flight path.  Earhart's flight during this time period happened a bit before, during, and shortly after the summer solstice on June 21.

At the location of each stop on Earhart's second world flight attempt, the sun rose in the northeast and set in the northwest.  At most of these locations, the sun's highest altitude above  the horizon on the day or days when Earhart was there actually put the sun slightly north of Earhart's flight path.  Here are the specifics for the most northerly stops during Earhart's flight.  (These values are for 2014, but they change very little from year to year; 1937 values would have been very, very close to these.)


Miami, FL (Lat = 25.7891 N, Lon = 80.2040 W)

departed 1 June

Sunrise azimuth:  065 deg. T
Sunset azimuth:   295 deg. T
Sun maximun altitude:  86.3 deg @ azimuth 181 deg. T.

San Juan, PR (Lat = 18.4663 N, Lon = 66.1057 W)

arrived 1 June

Sunrise azimuth:  066 deg. T
Sunset azimuth:   294 deg. T
Sun maximun altitude:  86.4 deg @ azimuth 001 deg T

Karachi, Pakistan (Lat = 24.8615 N, Lon = 67.0099 E)

arrived 15 June

Sunrise azimuth:  064 deg. T
Sunset azimuth:   296 deg. T
Sun maximun altitude:  88.4 deg @ azimuth 176 deg T

Calcutta, India  (Lat = 22.5726 N, Lon = 86.3639 E)

arrived 17 June

Sunrise azimuth:  064 deg. T
Sunset azimuth:   296 deg. T
Sun maximun altitude:  89.2 deg @ azimuth 007 deg T


Thus, for almost the entire second world flight attempt after Miami, the sun was north of Earhart's flight path for the entire day, putting the right side of the aircraft (with the lavatory window, had it been there) slightly in shadow.

Jeff P.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

For the second world flight attempt after the extended stop at Miami, your theory about why the lavatory window was covered over doesn't make much sense to me when I look at the path of the sun across the sky for points along her flight path.

I'm pretty sure Ric has granted that he could be wrong. 

If I'm not mistaken, he said something to that effect in his last post.

He said along the lines that it really doesn't matter WHY the window was replaced.  We can see the FACT that it was.

This mini-mystery does not have to be solved in order to find out where our heroes ended their lives.

Ric asked people who don't like the high-heat explanation (pun intended) to offer their own speculation about why the window was replaced.  If we need to have a theory about why the work was done, then you have failed to advance the argument by taking potshots at Ric's view.  It seems to me that devastatingly demonstrating that Ric's idea does not match your understanding of skylight doesn't advance the investigation one bit.

I think the issue is trivial and irrelevant to begin with.  Nature abhors a vacuum, especially human nature, and we always want to know "the rest of the story" (Paul Harvey & Son).  But if the fact is that we don't have the facts about WHY they made the change, we will have to live content with the fact that they DID make the change, and go from there.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric,

For the second world flight attempt after the extended stop at Miami, your theory about why the lavatory window was covered over doesn't make much sense to me when I look at the path of the sun across the sky for points along her flight path. 

As we've all said, it's hard to imagine how understanding the reason for the change would help us find the plane, but patching over the window was a change to the aircraft's configuration and it' s only natural that we would be curious about why it was done.

I offered the only explanation I could think of.  So far nobody has offered an alternative but you and Steve Lee were quick to do research to prove me wrong. That's fine.  Any time I, or anyone else, advances a theory it's an invitation for others to try to shoot it down.

In this case, both you and Steve have missed the target.  Steve tried to claim that over-heating of the cabin was not possible because the temperature gets cooler with altitude, but Steve doesn't know (because nobody knows) what altitudes were flown on the legs between Burbank and Miami.  Those are the only legs that count because that is apparently when the decision was made to replace the window with a patch.

You made a similar mistake, researching the sun's position for the legs AFTER Miami. If the cabin was uncomfortably warm during the flight across the southern U.S. do you really think Amelia Earhart would research the position of the sun during future legs before deciding whether to get rid of the window? (Getting that information was a tad more difficult before the internet.)

But if you really don't like the cabin-too-warm theory, try this.  Maybe Earhart's bone-jarring arrival in Miami cracked the window and they said, "We don't have time to get another custom-made window and install it. Screw it. Just replace the window with a patch."
See? That wasn't so hard.

[Chris Johnson]

But if you really don't like the cabin-too-warm theory, try this.  Maybe Earhart's bone-jarring arrival in Miami cracked the window and they said, "We don't have time to get another custom-made window and install it. Screw it. Just replace the window with a patch."
See? That wasn't so hard.

Strange I was about to ask the question "What would they do if the glass broke, how easy would it be to get another piece of glass cut for the window or would it have been quicker just to cover it over?

That also then suggests that if the window was broken or missing and just skimmed/patched over then it makes it more possible for the patch to be blown out by an in rush of water.

Just idle speculation :)

[Ric Gillespie]

That also then suggests that if the window was broken or missing and just skimmed/patched over then it makes it more possible for the patch to be blown out by an in rush of sea water.

Ahhh, but 2-2-V-1 is not an intact patch.  It was part of a larger piece of aluminum that failed in various ways on all four edges. The artifact may be PART of the patch but it is not THE patch.

[James Champion]

So, about the window - Between California and Florida could Amelia have found herself on the ground taking a leak in the lav when someone came up the window?  :o  I'm sure her first response would be "That %$#! window has got to go!"   ;D

[Ric Gillespie]

So, about the window - Between California and Florida could Amelia have found herself on the ground taking a leak in the lav when someone came up the window?  :o  I'm sure her first response would be "That %$#! window has got to go!"   ;D

That's an interesting thought but I don't know why anyone would use that horrible little can if there was a real bathroom available.

[Steve Lee]

Ric,

For the second world flight attempt after the extended stop at Miami, your theory about why the lavatory window was covered over doesn't make much sense to me when I look at the path of the sun across the sky for points along her flight path. 

In this case, both you and Steve have missed the target.  Steve tried to claim that over-heating of the cabin was not possible because the temperature gets cooler with altitude, but Steve doesn't know (because nobody knows) what altitudes were flown on the legs between Burbank and Miami.  Those are the only legs that count because that is apparently when the decision was made to replace the window with a patch.

Not quite, Ric, I was pointing out something that your hypothesis needed to take into account—lower temperature and humidity at altitude.  Your hypothesis is valid only if they flew significant portions of those U.S. legs flights at altitudes where more comfortable temperatures and humidities weren't present, and as you admit, you don't know that to be true.

Your hypothesis also relies on the Electra being so poorly ventilated, regardless of altitude flown, that solar heating of the cabin via the window in the lavatory (which presumably could be isolated from the rest of the cabin simply by shutting the door) couldn't be compensated for by cabin ventilation. That seems unlikely to me, but if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll say so.  Regular passenger carrying Electras had lots of cabin windows, probably having a greater total area than the lavatory window, but as far as I know they weren't Flying Finish Saunas.

Since Tighar is all about hypothesis testing, I note that it would be fairly easy to calculate the maximum amount of solar energy that could be absorbed via lavatory window (Andrew McKenna, paging Andrew McKenna...),  so I think you could put your hypothesis on firmer ground if you determined the increase in the cabin temperature that could occur on the U.S. legs of the flight for whatever cabin ventilation rate you think is reasonable.  Be my guest and assume the Electra flew in cloudless skies, even though you don't know that to be true.

You made a similar mistake, researching the sun's position for the legs AFTER Miami. If the cabin was uncomfortably warm during the flight across the southern U.S. do you really think Amelia Earhart would research the position of the sun during future legs before deciding whether to get rid of the window? (Getting that information was a tad more difficult before the internet.)

I don't think it would be so difficult, I think all she would have to do is consult with Fred Noonan.

[Ric Gillespie]

Your hypothesis also relies on the Electra being so poorly ventilated, regardless of altitude flown, that solar heating of the cabin via the window in the lavatory (which presumably could be isolated from the rest of the cabin simply by shutting the door) couldn't be compensated for by cabin ventilation. That seems unlikely to me, but if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll say so.

I wouldn't want to disappoint you.  As you can see from the attached document, Earhart's Electra did not have a cabin ventilation system nor did it have the usual lavatory equipment.  The big window was there for a reason.  It was one of the elaborate modifications made to the plane before Noonan came on board. Manning and/or Mantz apparently decided that the navigator would need an optically correct window on each side of the cabin, so they put one in the door and one in the lav. They also installed various flight instruments and chronometers in the navigator's station.  When I interviewed AE's mechanic Beau McKneeley early in the project I asked him if all that stuff was still there after the plane was repaired.  He said, "No. That Noonan guy said he didn't need all of that stuff."

So if I'm Fred Noonan and I have a window I don't need that is making the cabin a Flying Finnish Sauna and I'm thinking about navigating this bird across the Amazon jungle, the Sahara desert, and across India and Southeast Asia, I'm going to vote for getting rid of it.

I don't know that that's why they removed the window but it's one possibility. Let me know when you've come up with a better hypothesis and I'll approve your further submissions on this subject.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Since Tighar is all about hypothesis testing ...

Some hypotheses are worth more than others.

Let's suppose that Ric is 100% wrong about his theory that it was excessive warmth that led to skinning over the window.

What difference does that make in the search plans for this year?

What research agenda flows from demolishing this hypothesis?

What fact in evidence is changed by the hypothesis demolition?

What is your alternative hypothesis for the expenditure of time and money?

What difference does that alternative theory, if true, make true to research projects on the mainland US, on Niku, underwater, or overseas?

[Andrew M McKenna]

I note that it would be fairly easy to calculate the maximum amount of solar energy that could be absorbed via lavatory window (Andrew McKenna, paging Andrew McKenna...), 
[/quote]

Irradiance at the the earth's surface on a surface perpendicular to the rays of the sun on a clear day at sea level is considered to be 1,000 watts per sq. meter, aka one full sun.  Converting to BTUs that would be 3,413 BTUs per hour at sea level in full sun.  At 10,000 ft, the irradiance is about 10% greater, or 1100 watts per sq. meter.  The annual average hitting the atmosphere from space is 1366 watts per sq. meter.

I suppose that one could do the math based upon the size of the window, but in the end I don't think it would amount to enough heating to make a significant difference during flight given the outside air temps and some level of ventilation. 

Ric, wasn't there an air vent on the roof of the Electra just forward of the main cabin door?

Best

Andrew

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, wasn't there an air vent on the roof of the Electra just forward of the main cabin door?

Yes, a small scoop was standard on Electras but in Earhart's case it wasn't attached to a ventilation system.  I don't know if it was even open to the cabin.

[JNev]

Don't recall where I read it now but I do remember some concern for security of the airplane and that the window, being low and unnecessary, may have come to be considered an attractive nuisance that might lead to pilfering at some point.

I guess it would be an interesting thing to know - but it has zilch to do with 'whether' the window existed and was covered by a sheet of metal - it did, and it was, as can be seen.