Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Nothing absolute about it, but given the detail of the front edge of the window now available, and what can be seen in the post-patch pictures, is 2-2-V-1 too long to fit the patch?

It's not rocket science.  The station numbers are the distance in inched from the tip of the aircraft's nose, so Station 293 5/8 where the window and patch begin is 293 5/8 inches from the tip of the nose.  Station 320, the aft edge of the window/patch is, therefore 27 3/8 inches from station 293 5/8 so length of the window/patch (the envelope please)  .... is 27 3/8 inches. 
Artifact 2-2-V-1 is, as measured by the NTSB, 23 inches long. The court finds for the Defendant.
In the photo of the artifact being held up against the New England Air Museum Electra, remember that the artifact is several inches closer to the camera than the skin of the airplane and therefore looks bigger than it would if it was flush.

[Will Hatchell]

It's not rocket science.  The station numbers are the distance in inched from the tip of the aircraft's nose, so Station 293 5/8 where the window and patch begin is 293 5/8 inches from the tip of the nose.  Station 320, the aft edge of the window/patch is, therefore 27 3/8 inches from station 293 5/8 so length of the window/patch (the envelope please)  .... is 27 3/8 inches. 
Artifact 2-2-V-1 is, as measured by the NTSB, 23 inches long. The court finds for the Defendant.
In the photo of the artifact being held up against the New England Air Museum Electra, remember that the artifact is several inches closer to the camera than the skin of the airplane and therefore looks bigger than it would if it was flush.

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

[Ric Gillespie]

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

No way to do that without cutting a hole in the side of the airplane. The museum is TIGHAR-friendly but not THAT friendly.

[Albert Durrell]

320-293 5/8 = 26 3/8

[Ric Gillespie]

320-293 5/8 = 26 3/8

Thanks. I knew I would screw that up.  26 3/8 it is. Still fits with 3 3/8 inches to spare on the length. 

Harder to judge the width.

[Randy Conrad]

I'm not entirely sure whether this exercise (about the "bar" and window) is in fact irrelevant or not.  If indeed the bar can be attributed to a structural function then clearly additional strengthening was deemed necessary at that point in the body of the craft. It also stands to reason that if it were to be replaced/filled in, that additional bracing to the replacement structure would also be needed as it wasn't an integral part of the whole surrounding structure, hence the additional rows of rivets indicating additional underlying bracing. Unfortunately, the fact that the bar disappears from later fotos suggests it might not have been structural.  I'm beginning to suspect that the "bar" may have functioned more to protect the plexi than to strengthen the structure. Just a guess though.

So much for that theory. But is it? Look at the skin to the fore and aft of the smaller window farther forward, where there are multiple longitudinal rows of rivets on either side of the window. Stands to reason that skinning over a hole where a larger window had been would would have been reenforced similarly.  Now we just need to see the rivet lines  to confirm.  Does 2-2-V-1 fit the pattern suggested by rivet lines on either side of the smaller window?



In reference to Tim's comments...I have to agree that the bar was primarily used to protect the plexiglass window. Although, the bar is part of the structure of the plane. One of things that caught my eye was how the window in question is bigger than the window used to do experiments. So my question is....was the window closed up because it couldn't handle the stress of the equipment that was in that particular window at the time in the past...or was it because the landings were very hard and caused weakness in the window or causing the window to pop out from the jolt of the landing? One thing that I thought of...is it possible that the window was closed up not so much because of possible structure failure or anything related to the window itself...but was Fred Noonan able to make accurate readings from this location in the plane, and is it possible that the wing may have caused interference in taking those readings? Could this be a reason? The two pictures I have show clearly that experiments were taken in the rectangular window and not the large square one!

[Monty Fowler]

So would a second row of staggered rivets be a natural if someone wanted to lay-in a doubler to both close the upper edge more effectively, and possibly restore rigidity by picking up added internal material where it may have been compromised earlier by the window cut?  I could see that possibility.

As we imagine all the what-ifs? let's also remember this. The lavatory window was skinned over in Miami. Amelia knew the meter was running (figuratively) on getting the second effort going in time for maximum media attention, book deals, etc. Not to mention the weather. I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.

Which might help explain the irregular spacing of the larger rivets. It's one thing to set up a simple jig to drill the holes at the 1-inch pitch we're seeing. That could be done in the shop, on a flat surface, where everything was easy to get to and with maximum speed. It's another thing to hold the patch up to the hole and and have to, ahem, "make it fit" once you see what you're up against.

LTM, who thinks the dry paint was worth staring at,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP

[Ric Gillespie]

I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.

So can I, but Aris Scarla is quite sure that work like this would require a engineering drawing approved by the local Bureau of Air Commerce office and the finished work would have to be signed off by a BAC inspector.  I don't think PanAm would risk a violation by doing otherwise.  Finding that paperwork would be great but it's hard to know where to even start to look. It apparently didn't end up with the rest of the airplane's documentation.

[Ric Gillespie]

The two pictures I have show clearly that experiments were taken in the rectangular window and not the large square one!

There were no experiments.  The photos show the pelorus that was mounted in the standard cabin window.  A pelorus is a simple sighting device used for taking a bearing on an object or terrain feature on the ground.
The standard cabin windows were made of plexiglas and had a subtle compound curve which made them inappropriate for taking celestial observations. The special window in the cabin door and the big window in the lavatory were presumably to provide an optically correct way to take star and sun shots.

[Tim Collins]

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

No way to do that without cutting a hole in the side of the airplane. The museum is TIGHAR-friendly but not THAT friendly.

Haven't you made a mylar template for this purpose?

[Will Hatchell]

Seems eventually, and perhaps the sooner the better, we might need an image taken with 2-2-V-1 flush with the surface of the New England Air Museum Electra.

No way to do that without cutting a hole in the side of the airplane. The museum is TIGHAR-friendly but not THAT friendly.

Ric,

What's the interior cabin surface exposure like?

[Ric Gillespie]

Haven't you made a mylar template for this purpose?

The template we have is paper and now pretty tattered but we could make a new more durable one.

[JNev]

I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.

So can I, but Aris Scarla is quite sure that work like this would require a engineering drawing approved by the local Bureau of Air Commerce office and the finished work would have to be signed off by a BAC inspector.  I don't think PanAm would risk a violation by doing otherwise.  Finding that paperwork would be great but it's hard to know where to even start to look. It apparently didn't end up with the rest of the airplane's documentation.

I respect Aris's view of that and agree with the 'requirement', but life isn't always so neat.

These kinds of things DO happen WITHOUT official oversight - and think about it: the last thing Earhart needed was public scrutiny over yet another mishap (presuming for a moment that the hard landing may have necessitated some attention to the window area, including perhaps even a precautionary reinforcement by covering over).

No, PanAm likely would NOT want that entanglement - and may well have lacked the official capacity to do ANYTING to a Lockheed 10 anyway: they were likley 'rated' for working on their own ships, not just any that came along; repair stations are still 'rated' that way, and I'm not sure PanAm would have had need of an unlimited rating and therefore likely had nothing like that granted to them.  The guidanc of the day also pointed toward the manufacturer doing this sort of work, field stuff of that magnitude was discouraged (stress skin work was still in the relatively early days, somewhat more art than science in a way).  Obviously there were exceptions - but despite extensive Air Bureau files on the belly, etc. (I've now seen some of it), nothing has turned up so far either to install this window, or to cover it - nada.

That's not saying PanAm didn't support - but it may have been with materials and looking the other way while some of their guys unofficially helped Earhart out.

I'll stop short of confessing to the point that a sitting FAA FSDO manager might want to know how I, an A&P and former IA happen to realize these things personally ( ), but I'm sure he realizes it can, does and has happened before.  Shouldn't, but does - and Earhart arguably had reasons to want to breeze by in this case, IMO.  Of course I would never do such a thing, ever...

Funny what you notice if you work late enough into the evenings around a few airports, though.  I know a gent (now retired, I'm sure) who rose prominently at FAA to HQ level for maintenance.  Grand, smart guy - used to go to country airports where some questionable work was occasionally suspected; would drive up in his U.S. Guvmint motor pool sedan and sit in the heat with A/C on while the hangars all closed their doors, and wait... until the heat in the hangars started driving the owners out - where he'd meet them in friendly fashion and start asking about their prized birds... uncovered some mischief and helped keep things more honest, apparently.

Not a perfect system - but think where we'd be if we didn't have it.

[Ric Gillespie]

What's the interior cabin surface exposure like?

Not sure what you mean.  The New England Air Museum airplane has the full airline lavatory installed.  The stringers are covered with insulation and furnishing. There's a small sink mounted on the wall where the window/patch was on 1055

[Will Hatchell]

What's the interior cabin surface exposure like?

Not sure what you mean.  The New England Air Museum airplane has the full airline lavatory installed.  The stringers are covered with insulation and furnishing. There's a small sink mounted on the wall where the window/patch was on 1055

Thanks kindly – it's all much clearer now. Seems the template approach then is best.