Print

[Will Hatchell]

In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?

Not sure I follow where you're going with this, Randy, maybe missing your point.  2-2-V-1, whatever it was or where ever it came from, was simply cut from a larger piece of metal somewhere. 

If memory serves, those rolls or sheets of stock are about 4 feet wide - maybe wider in some cases, and can be rather long.  Small shops order smaller quantities cut from large stock, whereas a shop like Lockheed or PanAm might easily have full sheets or rolls in inventory to take something like 2-2-V-1 from.  Typically the larger stock would be sheared to the desired size.

Elgen and Marie Long, in their book "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved," p. 112, make reference to what may be the same lavatory window in debate here, but add to the confusion:

"In its normal passenger configuration, an Electra had an escape hatch over the wing on the right side of the cabin. This was the only exit on the right side of the plane, but because of the fuselage fuel tanks it was covered over on Earhart's plane. In January two new windows had been installed in her Electra, one in the cabin entrance door and one in the right sidewall of the lavatory compartment. During repairs it was decided to make an exit of the window in the lavatory compartment by replacing it with an aluminum hatch. Not only did this provide an escape route, the hatch could be opened on the ground for cabin ventilation."

Seems that the Longs are saying that the lavatory window was converted into a hatch, but of course, they could have been mistaken, or confusing it with window. Does all photographic evidence prior to the Pan Am Miami modifications point to this as definitely a window immediately after the Lockheed Burbank repairs (in January 1937), or was there ever any actual aluminum hatch installed in the lavatory compartment? Anyone know?
 

[Ric Gillespie]

Elgen and Marie Long, in their book "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved," p. 112, make reference to what may be the same lavatory window in debate here, but add to the confusion:

"In its normal passenger configuration, an Electra had an escape hatch over the wing on the right side of the cabin. This was the only exit on the right side of the plane, but because of the fuselage fuel tanks it was covered over on Earhart's plane. In January two new windows had been installed in her Electra, one in the cabin entrance door and one in the right sidewall of the lavatory compartment. During repairs it was decided to make an exit of the window in the lavatory compartment by replacing it with an aluminum hatch. Not only did this provide an escape route, the hatch could be opened on the ground for cabin ventilation."

Seems that the Longs are saying that the lavatory window was converted into a hatch, but of course, they could have been mistaken, or confusing it with window. Does all photographic evidence prior to the Pan Am Miami modifications point to this as definitely a window immediately after the Lockheed Burbank repairs (in January 1937), or was there ever any actual aluminum hatch installed in the lavatory compartment? Anyone know?

Long provides no source for that information other than in "Notes" he says, "March, 1937 photos show a window. May, 1937 photos show an aluminum hatch both open and closed."
The photo provided to me by the Miami Herald (still waiting for permission to show it to you guys) confirms that the window was still there upon AE's arrival in Miami on May 23, 1937.  By June 1st the window had been replaced with aluminum sheet.  No subsequent photo of the airplane shows an opening in that location. Long's statement that it was a removable hatch seems to be pure speculation.

[Bill Mangus]

Sure would be nice to know what May, 1937 photographs he's talking about and where they are now.  Oh, well. . . .
"Oh bother!"

[Ric Gillespie]

Sure would be nice to know what May, 1937 photographs he's talking about and where they are now.  Oh, well. . . .
"Oh bother!"

I've seen Long's collection.  He doesn't have any photos we don't have.  Elgen has a habit of accepting his own speculation as established fact.

[Michael Calvin Powell]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/28/4208139/piece-of-metal-may-offer-clue.html

[Monty Fowler]

Overall a good article! said the former newspaper reporter.

And I was VERY glad that Betty got her due in it; she would no doubt be pleased.

LTM, who wishes Betty well,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[JNev]

In reference to the patch...and the link to Lockheed Martin the beginning...at mark 14.54 it shows laborers moving sheets of aircraft sheet metal into the factory and then cutting them to size. What I'd like to know is if we took this "patch" measured it, and then broke that size out into halves or quarters...would it add up to a full sheet of metal. Be interesting to know what the actual size of the full sheets would be. Anyone know Ric?

Not sure I follow where you're going with this, Randy, maybe missing your point.  2-2-V-1, whatever it was or where ever it came from, was simply cut from a larger piece of metal somewhere. 

If memory serves, those rolls or sheets of stock are about 4 feet wide - maybe wider in some cases, and can be rather long.  Small shops order smaller quantities cut from large stock, whereas a shop like Lockheed or PanAm might easily have full sheets or rolls in inventory to take something like 2-2-V-1 from.  Typically the larger stock would be sheared to the desired size.

Elgen and Marie Long, in their book "Amelia Earhart, The Mystery Solved," p. 112, make reference to what may be the same lavatory window in debate here, but add to the confusion:

"In its normal passenger configuration, an Electra had an escape hatch over the wing on the right side of the cabin. This was the only exit on the right side of the plane, but because of the fuselage fuel tanks it was covered over on Earhart's plane. In January two new windows had been installed in her Electra, one in the cabin entrance door and one in the right sidewall of the lavatory compartment. During repairs it was decided to make an exit of the window in the lavatory compartment by replacing it with an aluminum hatch. Not only did this provide an escape route, the hatch could be opened on the ground for cabin ventilation."

Seems that the Longs are saying that the lavatory window was converted into a hatch, but of course, they could have been mistaken, or confusing it with window. Does all photographic evidence prior to the Pan Am Miami modifications point to this as definitely a window immediately after the Lockheed Burbank repairs (in January 1937), or was there ever any actual aluminum hatch installed in the lavatory compartment? Anyone know?

There was no window in the lavatory originally, Long is apparently mistaken on that point (and upstring somewhere here is a photo showing just that - original metal with no window, no patch, prior to the 'window mod').

What the full intent of the modification to create a window really was isn't clear to me so far.  The size of it could relate to an emergency exit, or a viewing window for say, an aerial navigator.  The latter has been suggested.

The 'patch' does not appear to be a removable panel - but I'm not sure that can be said for certain without more detailed information by photo or other record.

All the fascinating story per the Herald, etc. is just that - fascinating.  Until we have a truly good picture by photo, blueprint or work-order / record, it is IMO impossible to know for certain whether 2-2-V-1 relates or not; the 'why' of the window matters not a whit, IMO, either - res ipsa - the thing (the 'patch') just is for a fact, there.  It (the 'patch') wasn't when the bird got to Miami; it (the 'patch') was when it (the bird) left Miami.

Nice to have attention from the Herald then, but all it does is perhaps raise interest and maybe promote a deeper search for photos, etc. - but of itself it does nothing to prove that 2-2-V-1 relates.  It does stir the 'Elgen said / Ric said, et al' pot, I'll give 'em that.

[Ric Gillespie]

A little history:

First photo below
As originally constructed, there was no window in the door or in the lavatory.  For some reason, the standard cabin windows (only two of which were installed) were in two sections with the stringer running through the middle.

Second photo below
Taken in early September 1936 at Floyd Bennet Field in NY before the start of the Bendix Race.  No lavatory window. Stringer through the cabin window.

Third photo below
Taken in Burbank some time in early 1937 (probably late Feb or early March). This is the earliest photo showing the window.  The Hooven DF is still there (faired dorsal loop), not yet replaced with the Bendix loop over the cockpit. The stringer through the window is gone.

[JNev]

Good depiction of evolution regarding original absence / eventual presence of lavatory window, but as to the other window / stringer arrangement -

A little history:

First photo below
As originally constructed, there was no window in the door or in the lavatory.  For some reason, the standard cabin windows (only two of which were installed) were in two sections with the stringer running through the middle.

I see what could be a stringer, but unless you have stronger evidence of it I suspect we're seeing either a reflection off of bared plexiglass between where the paper covering separates, or a piece of tooling inserted into the perhaps unfinished window frame.

Second photo below
Taken in early September 1936 at Floyd Bennet Field in NY before the start of the Bendix Race.  No lavatory window. Stringer through the cabin window.

Again, I believe we are seeing a reflection that is suggestive of a longitudenal member through the window, but not really a stringer.

Third photo below
Taken in Burbank some time in early 1937 (probably late Feb or early March). This is the earliest photo showing the window.  The Hooven DF is still there (faired dorsal loop), not yet replaced with the Bendix loop over the cockpit. The stringer through the window is gone.

I don't think it was there to start with, Ric, but an illusion.  But again, this does show the evolution of the lavatory window, good on that. 

I cannot imagine why anyone would run a stringer through open-air across an open aperture like that.  Not being fastened to adjoining skin (where the opening is), it would have defied the intent of a stress skin design and would have had very poor compressive / buckling resistance (essentially zero benefit) and is likely to add nearly miniscule tension / fuselage bending resistance.  It would also be subject to damage and a hinderance to the intent of a window altogether.  It is not that difficult to adequately frame around such an aperture so as to assure full rigidity and strength to the overall structure.

---

As an aside, I have gotten some sense that the covered windows (amidships, not at lavatory) on NR16020 were not all about functionality, although they certainly were not needed with tanks being installed, etc.  I rather get an idea that Earhart may have stressed visual differentiation from other Lockheed 10's - she spoke of her 'flying laboratory', and it being visually different wouldn't have hurt that image.  The normal windows were certainly not needed, so no foul, and the coverings would have been easy to sheet over at Lockheed, so a no-brainer to meet that preference if it was the case.

[Greg Daspit]

In this early interior picture of the cabin window, it looks like the horizontal piece is part of the window and not a stringer.

[Ric Gillespie]

There is a stringer that lines up with the bar and, in this exterior photo, it sure looks to me as if the window is in two sections.  There's paper covering the plexi.  If the bar was just on the inside we would see paper over the entire window.  Whether the bar is the stringer or just a longitudinal bar, it seems clear that the window is comprised of two pieces of plexi.  Why would they do that?

[Ric Gillespie]

Jeff Glickman has just agreed to try to bring out enough detail in the Miami photo to see the rivet pattern on the patch.  In putting together materials to send to him I realized something that had not occurred to me before.

As we all know, one of the unusual things about the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 is the absence of a crossing line of rivets.  Looking at the structure of a Lockheed 10 in the area where the patch was, Station 593 5/8 is a bulkhead that includes the door to the lavatory compartment.  Station 320 is the bulkhead at the rear of the lavatory compartment.  Station 307, however, is not a bulkhead.  It's a just a circumferential stiffener. 
If the patch had a vertical row of rivets at Station 307 the hypothesis fails, but we know there was no NEED for structure there. It was apparently okay to have a gap in the Station 307 circumferential stiffener when the window was installed so there would be no need to replace and rivet the missing section of the stiffener.

[Bill Mangus]

 "Whether the bar is the stringer or just a longitudinal bar, it seems clear that the window is comprised of two pieces of plexi.  Why would they do that?"

If it were hinged, could be for ventilation, probably opening inward.

[JNev]

"Whether the bar is the stringer or just a longitudinal bar, it seems clear that the window is comprised of two pieces of plexi.  Why would they do that?"

If it were hinged, could be for ventilation, probably opening inward.

Good pix, gang - and agree, there is a 'bar' clearly enough (I like that term better than stringer, which it does not seem to be).  Purpose?  Something to do with Fred's celestial shots, maybe?  A way to open the upper portion perhaps, or to install a more optically correct panel in one-half (glass)?  Dunno.

[JNev]

Jeff Glickman has just agreed to try to bring out enough detail in the Miami photo to see the rivet pattern on the patch.  In putting together materials to send to him I realized something that had not occurred to me before.

As we all know, one of the unusual things about the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 is the absence of a crossing line of rivets.  Looking at the structure of a Lockheed 10 in the area where the patch was, Station 593 5/8 is a bulkhead that includes the door to the lavatory compartment.  Station 320 is the bulkhead at the rear of the lavatory compartment.  Station 307, however, is not a bulkhead.  It's a just a circumferential stiffener. 
If the patch had a vertical row of rivets at Station 307 the hypothesis fails, but we know there was no NEED for structure there. It was apparently okay to have a gap in the Station 307 circumferential stiffener when the window was installed so there would be no need to replace and rivet the missing section of the stiffener.

Precisely so, one reason always thought this was a good candidate - and glad Glickman will look at this; my eyes are shot from trying to discern rivets among the pixtel clutter...