Print

[Ric Gillespie]

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

You have a point. There's quite a bit of information available from various sources about what AE did and what work was done by Pan Am while she was in Miami (mostly struggling to get the radio working).  Elgen Long devoted eight pages of his book (most of "Chapter 8  World Flight Resumes - Oakland to Miami") to a day by day description of events in Miami but there is no mention at all of replacing the window with a patch. 

Earhart's disdain for government requirements is well documented.  This smells like an expedient "just do it, don't talk about it" fix.  If we build a careful chronology of known events in Miami we may be able to narrow down a window (sorry) of time when the work was done.

[Greg Daspit]

Was the new window framed like an original window, with a rounded rectangular channel? Or was it just straight channel? That is, given the vertical channel that seemed to be added at station 294(ish), would there be a horizontal channel at the top edge of the new window? How is this actually constructed to hold a window. I know, these are not necessarily known details. But how does this play into the inclusion/exclusion of 2-2-V-1?

As to the double rivet row - I am having the same issue with that as you - the 'doube row' does not seem to match the pitch found along the bottom edge of the window to me.  Rotate 2-2-V-1 and consider whether the pitch matches - it appears to be close; then the question is, would the modifier have laid-in a second row, staggered, of rivets - and very well may have: in some pictures the upper edge of the 'patch' appears to be slightly tooled over, as if 'turning the corner' slightly to overlay the existing window frame and perhaps more tightly close the rain gap.  A second row of rivets would be ideal to do so.

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.

The way they framed around the original windows has the stringer at the top of the window not continuous across the entire opening. (edit: the framing may be notched to allow the stringer to be continuous)
Assume they framed around  the Lav window in the same manner and then removed the window frame. What would be remaining might need to be reinforced with a continuous stringer/ stiffener all the way across the opening. That could explain the wider spaced double row of rivets on 2-2-V-1. The attached sketch shows the suggested framing at the top. The same speculation might apply for the bottom of the window with 2-2-V-1 flipped.
edit- upon seeing another picture the stringer may be continuous. However providing a stiffiner still may be a good idea

[Ric Gillespie]

I had a long talk with Jeff Glickman.  He has been traveling and just got home last night.  He'll start working with the print I FedExed to him.   It's really lucky that we got that print from the Miami Herald when we did. It was probably made from the original negative, now long lost.  All the other images are now digital scans which introduces distortions that make forensic analysis unreliable (that's why we had to go to NZ to take photos of the 1938 negatives). How much detail he can pull from the print remains to be seen.

Jeff and I agreed, as I'm sure all of you will, that the potential importance of this research is so great that we must proceed with the utmost diligence.  We're still in the preliminary stages of testing the hypothesis that 2-2-V-1 is the patch, or rather, most of the patch.  So far, the quick and dirty comparisons look promising but we now need to get much more precise.  Here's the plan.

Jeff will spend the next few weeks working with the print and with the other images we have that show the patch.  Sometime probably in early August we'll rent a portable Hyperspectral Imager.  Jeff will come here and we'll do a detailed hyperspectral examination of 2-2-V-1.  It's Jeff's feeling that a hyperspectral analysis of 2-2-V-1 could bring out new information critical to confirming (or disproving) the hypothesis.  Jeff will donate his time but renting the imager and Jeff's travel will run about $2,000 so we'll have to find the money.  We'll solicit donations to the 1937 Fund for that purpose.

This new research is getting good media coverage and, if all continues to go well, should help attract sponsorship for NIKU VIII.

[Jay Burkett]

Ric,

I totally agree with your "just do it, don't talk about it" fix theory.  The earlier photos seem to show a very clean window installation.  The edges in those photos are not distinct.   Likewise, those lower skin panels do not appear to be "sprung" or abnormally deformed.  The location of damage in that area would be consistent with very hard landing.
 
The upshot of this whole recent investigation of the "patch" is that we may have visual proof that she was making the flight with a "bent" bird.  Aircraft bent to that magnitude quite often do not fly straight.  They quite frequently require more trim in one direction or another.  This would use more fuel, etc., etc.  Kelly Johnson's fuel vs. range estimates were based on an aircraft assumed to be in the condition it left the factory (aerodynamically speaking).
 

[Don Dollinger]

A little national coverage always helps!
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/07/01/photo-may-offer-crucial-clue-in-amelia-earhart-mystery-report/

LTM,
Don

[jgf1944]

Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R

[jgf1944]

erratum: rivit
JGF

[Ric Gillespie]

Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R

Hooo Boy, that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.  I have some way-outside-the-box thoughts about that but before I say anything let me ask this.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2-2-V-1 is most of the patch:
If the airplane broke up in the surf, presumably scattering torn sections of skin all over the place, what are the chances that the only intact piece of skin we've found is from that little patch?
What force(s), other than water, could cause the variety of failures we see on the edges of the artifact?
In other words, how could almost the entire patch get broken out like that?

(To members of the Commission: You already know my loopy theory. Let's see where the others take this thought experiment.)

[jgf1944]

erratum II (a record?):RIVET (2nd coffee finally got the crank moving…which could make things even worse!)
      The concaveness and rough edges could, I presume, have happened any time (an islander bends the patch and axes/shears away some of patch to fit a certain application). My scenario is an islander finding a piece of fuselage that had been washed ashore. Seeing utility in the patch, he axes the rivets away from the stringers (? I am not an engineer) and then removes the patch. (Remainder of fuselage returned to the sea per a superstition.)
      The pounding ocean scenario is one where I see the patch literally forced over the heads of the rivets; that is what got me thinking about telltale signs around the rivet holes.
      G.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R

If the airplane broke up in the surf, presumably scattering torn sections of skin all over the place, what are the chances that the only intact piece of skin we've found is from that little patch?

Maybe there were many parts, but only 2-2-V-1 seemed useful for use. A later inhabitant  took it away. So it was saved when other parts were lost.

Oskar, #4421A

[Jay Burkett]

OK.  First thought is that to not put too much faith in the contour as it exist in the artifact.  Whether torn free by wave action or by someones hand the contour would have been altered.  Also, if I recall that the part had been heated as in a fire, more distortion would  have occurred.  I would put more faith in trying to get a flat pattern of the artifact to match up some place.

[Ric Gillespie]

I would put more faith in trying to get a flat pattern of the artifact to match up some place.

Flat or curved. the artifact does not fit anywhere on a Lockheed 10 and cannot be from any of the repaired areas either.  It's either from the patch or from some other aircraft.

[Tim Mellon]

Students of 22V1;
     Are stress markings around the 22V1 revit holes part of the 22V1 hypothesis? (as per 22V1 being separated from A/C by wave force).
     Guthrie #3422R

Hooo Boy, that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.  I have some way-outside-the-box thoughts about that but before I say anything let me ask this.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2-2-V-1 is most of the patch:
If the airplane broke up in the surf, presumably scattering torn sections of skin all over the place, what are the chances that the only intact piece of skin we've found is from that little patch?
What force(s), other than water, could cause the variety of failures we see on the edges of the artifact?
In other words, how could almost the entire patch get broken out like that?

(To members of the Commission: You already know my loopy theory. Let's see where the others take this thought experiment.)

Well, Ric, I'm sure you'll be just ecstatic to hear my loopy theory:

NR16020 lands on the reef, parks pointing North.

The sun heats the interior of the plane above 130^oF.

Eyeing the weakest piece of the fuselage, Fred kicks out the panel covering the window opening, basically in order to create a cross draft inside the rear of the fuselage through the open main doorway (the prevailing wind being from the East, or Starboard side of the aircraft).

The metal piece falls onto the reef and is taken in by the tide, while the remainder of the aircraft eventually gets swept off the reef into the abyss.

[Bill Mangus]

Not bad!

One wonders though that if after one, two or three days in the heat, without food or water (or whatever might have been left from what they brought with them) either AE or FN would have had the strength or energy to do this.

Might be easier to exit the a/c and find shade and breeze on the beach.

[Tim Mellon]

Not bad!

One wonders though that if after one, two or three days in the heat, without food or water (or whatever might have been left from what they brought with them) either AE or FN would have had the strength or energy to do this.

Might be easier to exit the a/c and find shade and breeze on the beach.

Logic would dictate that Fred mitigate the heat ASAP.

The radios could not be used from the beach.

Walking across the reef is extremely slippery and hazardous.

Don't mention the sharks, please.