Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 633292 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1035 on: August 26, 2015, 03:30:54 PM »


Coupled with the other report (also on this very website) that shows it does not fit

The "other report" is an amateur analysis by an individual who is not a trained photogrammetrist. We published it as a courtesy, not to endorse it.  We don't agree with his findings.

The Lehigh Testing Labs' report is a professional report.  We fully endorse their findings.  Nowhere in the report do they say that 2-2-V-1 cannot be the patch.

As explained in the report spoken of, photogrammetry isn't the issue - direct measurements were possible using TIGHAR's own imaging and metrics.  A careful review of the report will bear that out to the reader.  I'm hardly amateur at those things - nor were the two others who arrived at similar results to mine (and who reviewed my work - both non-TIGHARs).  So I believe you are off base calling it 'amateur' since I am well credentialed for what was done and said in that report.

But of course you may disagree - and to that end, who are "WE"?  I've seen nothing other than basic responses from Glickman, Scarla, Cerniglia and yourself - none disqualifying of the report.  Now a broad brush "we disagree" from you here.  Where's the peer review, the academic / scientific process?

If you do disagree, I suggest you make your point by something substantial - like actual metrics, and not claims of things that Glickman 'sees' like the rivets in the Miami photo, for which we still await your long-promised report.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5330
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1036 on: August 26, 2015, 06:10:20 PM »

As explained in the report spoken of, photogrammetry isn't the issue - direct measurements were possible using TIGHAR's own imaging and metrics.

Photogrammetry is exactly the issue. Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points.  You did not make direct measurements.  You weren't there to make direct measurements. Glickman,Scarla and I were. You interpreted photographs
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1037 on: August 26, 2015, 08:21:40 PM »

As explained in the report spoken of, photogrammetry isn't the issue - direct measurements were possible using TIGHAR's own imaging and metrics.

Photogrammetry is exactly the issue. Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points.  You did not make direct measurements.  You weren't there to make direct measurements. Glickman,Scarla and I were. You interpreted photographs

I was viewing clear photographs of known, measureable points of reference, not lofty things of that science such as rivet lines in the Miami photo - which is explained in the report - so I disagree with your dismissal.

Which seems to be your sole, amateur dismissal since
a) "WE" is apparently "YOU" since you didn't answer as to who else was involved in that decision and I've heard nothing further from Glickman, Scarla, Cerniglia, yourself or others since those emails days after I submitted the report - which were not disqualifying, and
b) you are not a professional at photogrammetry OR the metrics assessment involved in my analysis and report. 

So if "WE" is "YOU" then you've made an unqualified judgment of my work. 

Conversely, if "WE" is true peer review, where is the 'courtesy' of advising of that 'scientific' process going forward?  You say you published my report as a 'courtesy' (which was done with no announcement on the forum, to me, or elsewhere); good manners and sound protocol would also call then for a more transparent scientific process it seems.

"WE" is looking a little thin now as I consider again that it was your words about Jeff Glickman's "I see rivets" and and not his, and the lack of technical explanation / follow-up report in all this time - where do we see an unfettered report from Glickman himself such as I undertook to provide? 

It looks even thinner as I wonder where Professor Eagar has gone after his initial flurry of support - did you share critical photogrammetric details with him?  How was he able to have such confidence without more information about fitment, or has he come to realize that there's much more to be discerned than what was framed-up for him in that discussion?  Where are the letters of confidence from the other qualified MIT professors present for that visit?  Why did MIT's name disappear from the initial credits?

So far, we seem to have -
- a letter of general enthusiastic support with some failure mode observations from Eagar, but no official MIT support,
- a metallurgical report from Lehigh Labs that doesn't explicitly deny the part's authenticity - but provides material evidence pointing distinctly away from that likelihood,
- my own report - metric in nature, which I openly suggested Glickman consider on his own terms, by the way, and
- we have numerous words from you about what Glickman and others see or have said, and now,
- we have "WE" ("YOU", amateur?) dismissing a report without substantiating critical comment. 

In this, so far we lack anything specific that can overcome the metrics observations of not just one, but those of at least three qualified individuals, with regard to measureable attributes on a 'living' airplane that is identical to Earhart's and the fitment issues of a part whose attributes are also not so difficult to establish.

Trust me - it was not with joy that I found what I did; but it is even less joyful to find this sort of dismissal at play here.  Where is the vaunted peer review and scientific process we've long heard of?

But perhaps "WE" will yet step forward and fulfill that promise.

So, who is "WE", Ric, and when will we hear from them as directly as I bothered to report (and not as written by you, an amateur in all these sciences)?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5330
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1038 on: August 27, 2015, 08:33:56 AM »

So, who is "WE", Ric, and when will we hear from them as directly as I bothered to report (and not as written by you, an amateur in all these sciences)?

I don't know why you're so upset. As you well know, as soon as you submitted your report I shared it with the members of the 2-2-V-1 commission and with Jeff Glickman. There was a good deal of email correspondence back and forth in which your methodology and conclusions were challenged and you offered your defense. That sure looks like peer-review to me. I later posted your report to the TIGHAR website without comment for anyone to see and judge for themselves.  If your report has not gotten the traction you think it deserves don't look at me.

I know you're frustrated.  I'm frustrated that some people (you for example) can't seem to see that Crashed & Sank has been thoroughly eliminated as a theory, but just because someone disagrees with you does not make them unethical or dishonest (see United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth District, Case#14-8062)

I'm writing a summation of what we've learned about 2-2-V-1 for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks. That's my job. If you and your friends are not happy with that I promise not to whine.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1039 on: August 27, 2015, 10:11:04 AM »

So, who is "WE", Ric, and when will we hear from them as directly as I bothered to report (and not as written by you, an amateur in all these sciences)?

I don't know why you're so upset. As you well know, as soon as you submitted your report I shared it with the members of the 2-2-V-1 commission and with Jeff Glickman. There was a good deal of email correspondence back and forth in which your methodology and conclusions were challenged and you offered your defense. That sure looks like peer-review to me. I later posted your report to the TIGHAR website without comment for anyone to see and judge for themselves.  If your report has not gotten the traction you think it deserves don't look at me.

I know you're frustrated.  I'm frustrated that some people (you for example) can't seem to see that Crashed & Sank has been thoroughly eliminated as a theory, but just because someone disagrees with you does not make them unethical or dishonest (see United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth District, Case#14-8062)

I'm writing a summation of what we've learned about 2-2-V-1 for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks. That's my job. If you and your friends are not happy with that I promise not to whine.

First, I'm not 'upset' at all, just asking who 'WE' is (are?) because despite the emails you describe, there was never anything approaching a disagreement.  Where is the consensus of 'we' that 'disagrees'?  I see only your own proclamation. 

I'll post said emails below.  In all, five were received - one each from Glickman (through you), Scarla, and Cerniglia, and two from you.  All were answered, but I never got a reply or further comment from any of you to my own responses to your emails.  So nothing has been received about "WE" not agreeing until YOU said so here, just to be clear.

Second, I'm not concerned about 'traction' - it has gotten plenty as I've received many supportive emails and PMs from onlookers - many with engineering backgrounds, etc.  So I have no complaint and don't know why you raise that point: I've merely pointed out your own lack of traction in declaring that "WE" disagree without producing the substance of your disagreement.

Third, I'm not 'frustrated' as I have a good life; this is but one small potato in the oven for me - an extension of a boyhood interest, in fact.

That said, when you mislabel and declare my efforts 'amateur' I have a dog in the fight, as it were: the report stands on clearly defined metrics, not the kind of fuzzy statements you laced around Jeff Glickman's 'I see rivets' exercise of 'photogrammetry' - where we never even got the benefit of his own words about how he did so.  To that gentleman's credit, it can be seen in his email (attached) that he applauded my temerity in bothering to personally author and release a report.  Why haven't you had him do the same in all these months?  Now you've promised another to come - will it contain substantial input from Glickman and / or other professionals, or merely your own words about what they saw and said as seen so often before?  Were I to be frustrated it would be with the editorializing of such material, not these other things you mention.

Fourth, I can understand and empathize with your own frustration regarding the difficulty in persuading others to see Niku 'your way'.  I respect the years of effort you put into it, and realize your passion.  I have merely come to respect a broader point of view - partly because it only seems rational to examine where we are in this search (and how we got here) and admit that we still dwell in a place of great risk if we adhere to the Niku hypothesis: how many years / much more money will be spent chasing the coral out there?  It seems obvious to me - and we disagree, I realize, that further land searches and shallows searches are not likely to be productive; in fact, the most recent effort there revealed a storehouse of goods that might easily explain things found at seven site that we've long labored over.  Now what is left in my view is a deep and wide search - on the unproven (and diminished, in my view) chance of an Earhart disappearance in those waters.

Sorry, but after years of studying this thing closely, I do not see 'crashed and sank' as so discredited - certainly no more so than your own hypothesis.  As to my friends, I have many - here and elsewhere, and they are all over the map on 'what happened to Earhart' - I'm clannish only to academic pursuit and open discussion in this matter, not particular groups or personalities.

I feel compelled to point out, although realizing your singular passion, that claiming 'crashed and sank' to be thoroughly 'eliminated' sounds highly promotional to my ears and discrediting of others without more substantiation than you've been able to put on the table in nearly thirty years.  Frankly, if you want 'believers', a bit of humility might draw more bees to your hive than the vinegar that such utterances sound like: you have an interesting theory, but it obviously still must contend with other rational possibilities; Long, for one, is a highly qualified man of navigation and aviation who has flown the path of Earhart and beyond - and his logic on L10 ops / that last flight are not unreasonable.  There remain many more unknowns than knowns; we may know of some places not to look, thanks to Waitt and Nauticos - and TIGHAR (Camp Zero for one), but we both understand something of the Pacific's abilities to keep a secret by now, too, don't we?  I find that humbling, don't you?

I haven't said you were unethical or dishonest - but I have pointed out some things that clearly fall short of the kind of academic environment you claim to foster here; if you sense the shoe fits, then that's your own concern to do something about.  BTW, I don't need the guidance of case law to understand the principle: it's not merely that we disagree, it's that I bothered to put up a substantial effort and report and you dismiss it without due process, as it were. 

Much of this adds to a growing problem TIGHAR seems to have of late, IMO: noticeably placing promotion before scientific substance.  You want to 'disagree'?  That's fine - but if you say that panel disagrees, then honor the academic process you so often claim to adhere to and put up the substance of your disagreement - including the substantiating words of qualified people such as Glickman, Scarla, Eagar and others if any - not just your own one line summary dismissal.

What is it you want to build, Ric?  A frenzy for the next expedition, however it can be tacked together, or a truly sound 'institute' as your homepage mentions - that attracts world-class academic interest and support for a variety of worthwhile pursuits?

As to "WE" per above and your explanation, here are the emails spoken of so that others may judge for themselves.  I've never heard further from the group after these things until you commented here yesterday:

Quote
From Aris Scarla -

Quote

On Feb 2, 2015, at 5:20 PM, <Aris.W.Scarla@-----> <Aris.W.Scarla@-------> wrote:

Jeff,

I’m always intrigued at what this project will bring next. I started to review the report you produced. Very comprehensive. As I digest it more thoroughly, I had a question, did you have a chance to consult with a DER?  I spoke with Ric about this when we were in Kansas, though I wasn’t able to follow-up on it due to my work schedule.

A designated DER who specializes in repairs for this kind of aircraft would have to do all the research and figures according to the standards to figure out the size and durability of the patch. With our comparable backgrounds I’ll speak in our AV tongue.  The DER would have to calculate edge distance, rivets pattern and size, and one overs and double overs, etc.

Do you think having a DER recalculate what it would take to patch the window would have value. He/she would still have to use the standards of that time, under the CARS, and CAB so it might have merit.

Thoughts,

Aris

My reply -

Quote

I understand the value of what you suggest, Aris.

That said, I learned such layout practices in A&P school and have applied them effectively for many years.  I think you would agree that it is a matter of conformity to approved data - which the guidance you've cited provides.

The standard edge distances involved have not changed since the data of the earliest days was published.  AC 43.13 carries forward what was sensibly laid down nearly 8 decades ago.

While edge distances are cited here to lend perspective to the margin surpluses, in of themselves they have no bearing.  What does bear directly is that we do have positive margins, and yet an absence of finished edges (or fractures that are too close to what would be expected to be finished edges to make sense), and no rivet holes where at least some remnant should be expected.

Should you wish to have this work further reviewed by a qualified engineer (our DERs busy themselves with compliance showings vs. cognizant engineers who do the nuts and bolts details - either being well qualified) I think that is fine, of course.  But I believe the dimensional analysis of the details before us is actually more the point: we know where the STA320 rivet line is; we know where the forward rivet line is, and we've allowed a further forward offset of 1/4" for tolerance' sake.  We also know the width of the artifact, all by direct observation.  By that we have, dimensionally, what has been put before you: I see little need to parse edge distances terribly further - it is clear that we happen to have what amounts to at least the nominal norm for edge distance - as checked against the guidance criteria.  Yet, again, we have fracture edges and no evidence of rivet holes.

I suppose a DER could revalidate my measurements, but as they are taken directly from his photo work and the very clear Nilla-Earhart shot, Jeff Glickman may be as good a choice for that.

Thanks for your input.  This is a very edifying discussion.

From Jeff Glickman:

Quote

From: Jeff Glickman <jeff@------>

To: 'Richard Gillespie' <tighar------>

Subject: RE: 2-2-V-1 fit issue

Date: January 30, 2015 at 4:23:53 PM EST

Hi Ric,

First, allow me express my sincere appreciation to Jeff for taking the time to write his paper. I appreciate his courage, dedication and commitment to discovering the truth behind 2-2-V-1, irrespective of the outcome: This is science at its best.

I have not had sufficient time to delve into the minutiae of Jeff's paper, so I am going to limit my first impressions to processes instead of details.  Suffice to say that measurements are considered objective, and are therefore seldom a point of contention.  There is however a larger framework within which we argue the meaning and interpretation of objective measurements.  This is considered so important, that without this framework, measurements by themselves are generally inadmissible in court: This is independent of whether a measurement originates from the use of ruler, or is measured forensically such as from a photograph.

All measurements are subject to error, and generally, for a measurement to be admissible, all of the substantive sources of measurement error must be enumerated, explicitly stated, and numerically quantified. Typical sources of error include, but are not limited to, the accuracy of the measurement instrument, locating the edges of the object to be measured, and the plasticity of the measurement instrument. Less typical sources of measurement error arise from underlying assumptions, which are often unspoken. For example, this includes, but is not limited to, measuring in the presence of an unknown amount of missing material, and measuring when an alignment is unknown. Each of these errors must be bounded, that is to say there must be conclusive scientific evidence as to the extent of each error, from an lower bound to an upper bound. Each error is typically subject to issues of repeatability, in which case a population of measurements are taken, which most often form a normal distribution around a mean. The final measurement is then expressed as the composition of the measurement and its fully enumerated error sources as a value, plus or minus of a second value, with a third value describing the statistical confidence.

When a hypothesis is being tested, such as does object A fit within object B, we compare the error bands around the two measurement means to accept or reject a hypothesis that an object does or does not fit, within a certain statistical confidence.  So it is the completeness of consideration to error sources, that drives the accurate interpretation of objective measurements, and not the measurements themselves.

Thank you,
Jeff

Of further relevancy to Glickman's comments were those of Joe Cerniglia:

Quote

On Jan 31, 2015, at 7:55 AM, Joe Cerniglia <joecerniglia@-----> wrote:

The prevailing assumption has been that the Wichita Electra represents a true facsimile in terms of airframe dimension to NR16020.  I have not encountered any reason to doubt that premise.  This does not necessarily mean I must accept it, but my acceptance carries little weight in either case.  Jeff Neville, with years of aircraft maintenance experience, accepts it.  TIGHAR accepted it.  Most reasonable people would accede to this experience.  If the measurements were made "in the presence of an unknown amount of missing material," the only source I can conjecture for missing material would be an Electra that does not match the Wichita Electra in every or most respects.  This is not to deny that the database one could build of measurements from all extant Electras with original airframe specs has not been built, but I am given to understand the Wichita Electra was a well-chosen example from among an extremely limited set of test cases.

It seems to me the artifact is one of the following:

- a piece of NR16020 from the NR16020's Miami patch

- a piece of NR16020 from elsewhere on the NR16020 airframe.

- a piece of metal carried aboard NR16020 (ability to test is decidedly limited)

- a piece of metal from some other aircraft that for unknown reasons sat in sea water for an extended period (per Dr. Eagar's analysis), probably as a result of an aircraft accident and, by chance only, matches many other geometries expected for the Miami patch.

- other possibilities that would not typically be expected but are not impossible.

The order of the list intends no suggestion of probability.

All of this is not to deny or downgrade any of the wisdom of Jeff Glickman's response.  His statements are matters of fact with regard to statistical methodology, in my opinion.

Joe

My response to Jeff Glickman's and Joe Cerniglia's kind comments:

Quote

On Jan 31, 2015, at 8:40 AM, J C Neville <jeffrey.-------> wrote:

Thanks, Joe.

I know of no reason to believe that the formers, skin laps and rivet line placements on Earhart's airplane would differ by more than the normal build tolerances, which I have stated already.  I would not be surprised at the occasional minor difference in terms of a slight rogue rivet placement (not meaning 'rivet row', but one or two here or there).  But that would have no effect on my effort; significant features, such as we are reliant upon like formers, and more especially lap placements and rivet lines, are dictated by fixtures during build.

Jeff Glickman's points are sterling.  What the reader must judge is whether adherence to those standards has been accomplished within the range of fidelity required for what is demonstrated.  I believe this will easily withstand objective scrutiny.  As I've offered, the report can be easily amended to demonstrate how the tapes, etc. were validated for our purposes, if desired.

Are the aggregate tolerances adequate to support a fit within an error of 1/4"?  That would be the crucial difference (actually slightly less would do) considering the normal edge distance for the forward and aft rivet rows vs. the fracture edges we see.  1/4" is well outside a manufacturer's tolerances for member placement where fixtures are being used; It is also demonstrably significantly greater than any error of elasticity in the pictured tapes - which was carefully considered and found insignificant.

Actually, the fractured edges drive a tighter definition when fully considered: had that forward 'straight' fracture occurred along a rivet line, there should be evidence of rivet holes - if not there, then surely at the resulting surplus of margin at the aft extremes of the part.  Conversely, had that fracture occurred not at the rivet line but further aft, say at the edge of the window opening, then there should be an even greater chance of rivet holes appearing in the aft extreme margins (in effect, the part 'slides aft' in this case, creating more (and actually excessive) margin at the aft edge).

I invite those scrutinies - it is an interesting puzzle and it really helps bound the issue properly.

As to presumed similarities between the two Electras, again, yes, we are on safe ground.  Were that not understood there would have been no premise for the Wichita effort - as you noted.

Thanks -

Jeff Neville

I did receive two replies from you, Ric -

Quote
On Jan 31, 2015, at 11:48, Richard Gillespie <tigharic@me.com> wrote:

Good God. Are we really talking about one quarter of an inch???

If we are talking about a 1/4 inch discrepancy, then what other aircraft are out there that would match up to Lockheed L10 rivet line and hole spacings AND have the serendipity to end up on Niku?

And -

Quote

From: Richard Gillespie <tigharic@me.com>
Date: January 31, 2015 at 12:21:20 PM EST
To: Mark Smith <---->, Joe Cerniglia <joecern------------>, Jeff Neville <jeffrey.n--------------->, Mark ------------ <--------------->, Karen --- <------->, Jeff ------ <--------------->, Bill ----------- <--------------->, Monty -------------- <------------->, Lee ------------ <--------------->, Aris Scarla <Aris----------------->
Subject: Re: 2-2-V-1 fit issue

I wonder about this.   I think we can safely say that this piece of metal separated from a larger piece of metal due, at least in part, to being hit on the interior surface by an extremely strong force.  Might that have caused some stretching of the sheet before it failed?

Ric

In response, Ric, I could only affirm that "yes we're talking a quarter inch (after another quarter inch was liberally given for leniency)" and "too many correlating measurements demonstrate that such stretching did not occur in measurable amounts - including the uniformity of the one inch hole spacings measured by Aris Scarla himself before both of us in Dayton, and as seen again in the Wichita photos".

I hope this helps clarify.  For any who wish to peruse further for themselves, here is the metrics report we are speaking of.

As always, I do appreciate being able to post here.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 10:19:27 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Steve Lyle Gunderson

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1040 on: August 30, 2015, 02:37:22 PM »

The 'same' window does exist in the Finch Electra; it has a different 'hatch' arrangement, however, whereas:

- The Earhart Electra clearly has a square-cornered 'patch' overlying the entire aperture and frame as a 'scab' cover,
- The Finch Electra clearly has a well-radiused and vertically-braced 'hatch' that fits flush to the skin (not on top as on Earhart's bird).

And since pictures are worth a thousand words, I'll quit writing and work on recovering the pictures from my old camera tonight...
[/quote]

I found my picture of the patch and thought I would post for info.

Steve G
#3911R
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1041 on: September 01, 2015, 11:39:01 PM »

Quote
I still view NR16020's RH lavatory window (oversized - apparently for nav use and later not needed) as a strong candidate - but need information about how covered including pictures, if it can be found.

I refer back to this August 2012 post from Jeff Neville as the first I'd heard of the theory that artifact 2-2-V-1 might be the Electra window patch. I thought it was an intriguing idea worthy of investigation, and said so at the time. Now three years later, much research has been done but many of the key questions remain a matter of dispute. Reading through this 70-page thread, there are so many claims and counter-claims and reversals of opinion that I am somewhat confused as to what TIGHAR's current "official" opinion of 2-2-V-1 is. I expect many of us would appreciate clarification on the following subjects, in particular:

1. What are the estimated dimensions of the window patch as installed on the Electra in Miami?

The material posted from the Wichita trip shows Jeff Glickman placing ruler tape on the aircraft to match his best estimate of the patch's size and location. What are those estimated dimensions, and how do they compare to artifact 2-2-V-1? The work of Jeff Neville and Greg Daspit of this forum both suggest 2-2-V-1 is physically larger than the window patch in both height and width, so what do the Glickman figures say?

2. Is there evidence that the interior of the Electra window patch is covered in rows of rivets?

The only evidence I am aware of offering proof of interior rivets are articles like this one from September 2014 stating that Jeff Glickman's analysis confirms 4 out of 5 rows of rivets. Since a report describing these results and the methodology used to arrive at them has not been published, can TIGHAR at least share the final product of Mr. Glickman's work showing that rivets are present?

3. What original markings are believed to have been present on 2-2-V-1?

Photos indicate the artifact is marked with the letters "AD" and a second "D" in another location. Way back in 1993, TIGHAR's research suggested this was short for ALCOA .032" ALCLAD 24S–T3 AN–A–13. Comments upstream in this thread indicate that is no longer the prevailing view. What full stamping is now believed to have originally marked 2-2-V-1, and what do those markings indicate about the time period when the aluminum sheet was manufactured?

4. What does the 2-2-V-1 chemical analysis indicate about the aluminum sheet's origin?

The Lehigh Labs report suggests 2-2-V-1's composition is more similar, but not an exact match, to samples of World War II vintage than the 1935 period when Earhart's Electra was built. TIGHAR has suggested the "recipe" for aluminum sheets was changing during this period, and a sheet from 1937 when the window patch was manufactured may have a chemical composition intermediate between the 1935 and WWII examples. What evidence, if any, has been found to support this belief?

If my questions are premature, will these topics be addressed in the pending issue of TIGHAR Tracks?
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP