Print

[Tim Mellon]

Of course, I suppose it is also theoretically possible that the piece of metal fell off of Lambrecht's search aircraft in early July of 1937.

The picture below shows what is believed to be a sponson from the Martin seaplane that terminated its last flight just off Howland Island.

[Bill Mangus]

Agree, if you think they never left the a/c for any reason.  Seems to me they'd be a just little curious about that big shipwreck just up the beach from them and if Betty's Notebook has any credence, and I believe it does, they learned the name somehow.  Maybe from the wreck or from the lifeboats on the beach where the crew ended-up.  If any of the ships name was left on the bow I'd bet it wasn't readable from much of a distance.  I think one estimate here someplace put the Bevington object a quarter of a mile away or so and perhaps the final rollout location a bit further.

I like the idea of kicking out the patch for ventilation though, especially if they were reluctant to open the cabin door and possibly get water in the cabin.

[jgf1944]

FN kicking out the panel would mean what in terms of the rivet holes? Back to the forensic question of what, if anything, might be expected for the 22V1 rivet holes.
G.

[Tim Mellon]

Agree, if you think they never left the a/c for any reason.  Seems to me they'd be a just little curious about that big shipwreck just up the beach from them and if Betty's Notebook has any credence, and I believe it does, they learned the name somehow.  Maybe from the wreck or from the lifeboats on the beach where the crew ended-up. If any of the ships name was left on the bow I'd bet it wasn't readable from much of a distance.  I think one estimate here someplace put the Bevington object a quarter of a mile away or so and perhaps the final rollout location a bit further.

I like the idea of kicking out the patch for ventilation though, especially if they were reluctant to open the cabin door and possibly get water in the cabin.

Perhaps they could read the name using the binoculars on board.

[Bill Mangus]

"Of course, I suppose it is also theoretically possible that the piece of metal fell off of Lambrecht's search aircraft in early July of 1937."

If it had he would likely have told someone about it or the crew chief would have asked, "Sir, just what did you do to my airplane?"

[Ric Gillespie]

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).

For once we agree.  My loopy theory is pretty much the same as yours - that the damage we see on the artifact was caused by AE and/or FN.  My thought was that the other means of egress (cockpit hatch and cabin door) might have somehow become unusable and they knocked out the patch to escape the aircraft, but I like your ventilation motivation better.  It's simpler. Doesn't much matter which way the airplane is facing. During the day the interior of the airplane would be unbearably hot, 130° is certainly within the realm of possibility. 

There are dents, scratches, and a cut on the interior surface of the artifact that show up under low angle lighting.   Were they made by AE and/or FN?

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.

Leaving the Bevington Object behind.  Which explains why we only have this one piece of skin, but what of all the anecdotal accounts of wreckage seen on the reef edge, and a control cable being used as a fishing leader, and the piece of plexi we found that matches the standard cabin window?  The airplane's fate may have been more complex than simply "into the abyss."  Perhaps the aircraft partially broke in the surf.  Pieces of wreckage remained in shallow water for several years until being washed up, salvaged and used by the locals.  2-2-V-1 never went over the edge and therefore traveled a different path to where we found it.

Maybe it's a loopy theory.  Maybe not.  But first we have to determine, if we can, whether all the dimensions fit and whether the rivet patterns match.

[John Ousterhout]

Tim points out that "The radios could not be used from the beach."
The radio could not be used from the back of the aircraft, either. 

Tim also states "Logic would dictate that Fred mitigate the heat ASAP."
Why would Fred need to mitigate heat ASAP, rather than Amelia?  Is your assumption that Fred stayed in the back, and Amelia in the cockpit?
Ventilation at the back of the a/c would have little effect up in the cockpit, which had opening windows on both sides for cross-wind ventilation, a great big overhead hatch to open, and a door to the aft section that could close off heat from back there.  The cockpit was also the only place with access to the radio.  I'd argue that logic would dictate that anyone in the back of the plane leave ASAP to get out of the heat.  There's nothing constructive to do back there once they're on the ground.
Perhaps the only way to get out was by kicking out the panel, if the cockpit door and the cabin door couldn't be opened, as Ric suggests.  That sounds like a badly bent bird.

[Ric Gillespie]

It's worth noting that we have no evidence (via the credible post-loss signals) that they were aboard the aircraft during the heat of the day on any day until Monday, July 5 (f we have the date of Betty's reception right).  At that time Fred seems panicked to get out of the aircraft.

[Greg Daspit]

That lav seems kind of cramped to get momentum or accuracy in a crouched position to kick the panel between the stringers. Knocking out the cabin plexiglass makes a lot of sense. I can see if they thought of that, and after saw an improvement, then they might look for anything else to open up, even if it may not have had as big an impact being that far back. Perhaps with some kind of tool or combination of tools, maybe extended through the door.
I think the more holes the better in trying to get cross ventilation. In this case the hot air might rise and escape through the cockpit hatch and the more inlet holes at the lower rear the better. see stack effect

[Bill Mangus]

That lav seems kind of cramped to get momentum or accuracy in a crouched position to kick the panel between the stringers. Knocking out the cabin plexiglass makes a lot of sense. I can see if they thought of that, and after saw an improvement, then they might look for anything else to open up, even if it may not have had as big an impact being that far back. Perhaps with some kind of tool or combination of tools, maybe extended through the door.
I think the more holes the better in trying to get cross ventilation. In this case the hot air might rise and escape through the cockpit hatch and the more inlet holes at the lower rear the better. see stack effect

The cabin window might have been a good option for ventilation and might account for the way the plexiglass fragment ended up looking the way it does, but is awfully small for a quick exit.  Conversely, can you imagine the kinds of cuts and scrapes you'd get trying to leave through the hole where the patch was.  Ugly! 

[Joe Cerniglia]

My loopy theory is pretty much the same as yours - that the damage we see on the artifact was caused by AE and/or FN.

I think this hypothesis is extremely smart.  Congratulations to Tim Mellon for intuiting what Ric was hinting at and to Ric for sharing it.  The hypothesis stands somewhat at odds with retired Lockerbie investigator Walter Korsgaard's interpretation of the artifact's having been exposed to a "fluid force (air or water) sufficient to blow the heads of the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal."

Had Mr. Korsgaard seen the dents, scratches and cut? 

I suppose it's somewhat academic.  The kick-out hypothesis requires a leap outside the box of accident investigator.  Korsgaard properly applied his expertise to the question of what event in the category of aircraft accident would cause the metal to look this way.  It's only when one reframes the question as what event of any kind under the circumstances imagined would cause it that this plausible extra answer emerges.  I think Smart World author Richard Ogle would approve.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

[John Repischak]

Hi, my first post on this forum.

While this particular photo may be new (and the best view of the patch), there are at least two more photos that show that "there is nothing new under the sun".

The following photo, perhaps mis-captioned, of arrival in Miami:

http://www.womeninaerospacehistory.com/23-may-1937-amelia-mary-earhart/

And this photo taken over the Dutch East Indies (a careful study of some of the small structures on top of the fuselage also "shows" the patched window):

http://www.womeninaerospacehistory.com/27-june-1937-amelia-mary-earhart/

[Chris Anderson]

I'm just casually following this so forgive me if I'm completely missing the boat, but..  from what I've read the repair/patch was made in Miami after the landing.  However on this page http://www.deejay51.com/amelias_life_in_pics_p3.htm and a couple others that have the same photo the patch is there and the caption always reads "Arriving at Miami".  Is this just a mistake or was the patch already in place at the time of the landing in Miami?

[Jeff Lange]

Based on the crowd and the shiny appearance of the patch I would say this is her departure from Miami, not arrival. Most likely a  mistake in captioning.

[Ric Gillespie]

Based on the crowd and the shiny appearance of the patch I would say this is her departure from Miami, not arrival. Most likely a  mistake in captioning.

Clearly a bad caption. We have a photo of the airplane the day it left Burbank with the window intact; there wasn't time to change it on either of the overnight stops en route to Miami; and we have a Miami Herald photo of the plane with the window intact.  Earhart is dressed exactly as she is in other photos known to have been taken in Miami. Case closed.