I fail to see the import of 'who's who' in the picture
It's important because it helps pin down the date that the patch was installed. Nilla and David visited shortly before departure. Earhart is dressed in the same outfit when the compass was swung on May 29. Earhart arrived in Miami on May 23 but it wasn't until sometime on either Sunday, May 30 or Monday, May 31 (Memorial Day) that the work was done. Why? Once the decision was made to remove the window and repair the hole someone had to design the repair, secure the materials, and perform the repair. The lack of any mention of this work in the press or other literature about AE's time in Miami is strange.
Here's a question for you Jeff. Let's say you're Bo McKneeley, Earhart's mechanic (the resemblance is uncanny). For whatever reason, after you arrive in Miami, you and AE agree that the window has to go. How long does it take you from the time that decision is made until the airplane is ready to go with the repair completed?
I could (and have done similar) effect such a 'covering' overnight, literally, using materials that most airports have about. The patch appears to be a simple 'cover' in 'scab' fashion - it was not fitted to be flush, but laid over the aperture by overlapping the edges to pick up the fasteners already existing in the window frame (some of which were original airframe fasteners).
The 'design' scheme would be simple: follow the original structure where possible, but that appears to be simplified in this case because the existing window frame, not withstanding the arguments about 'weakness' which remain unproven to me, is at least arguably a basis for continued strength. Hence the 'simple cover' I've described (
which is what 2-2-V-1 has always looked like to me, since Symposium 2012). Once the cover is in place, the need for stiffening would be apparent (and was probably anticipated) - it would likely have more to do with avoiding oil-canning in flight than lending strength, per se, in my view. In any case, some angle may have been on hand, or could have been bent from strips cut from the same material as the cover; in all likelihood there was a shear and brake in the area that someone was happy enough to help with, that's been the case for me even in the stix on occasion (I've made a number of temporary repairs to ferry aircraft out of some oddball places over the years).
The one tricky piece would be the vertical stiffener because in the field, fabricating on the bench, you'd be working with a straight "L" angle that needs to rest in contour with the skin curve (fore and aft members not so noticeable; vertical more so). That might be overcome with a shrinker on the field, easily enough. It may also help explain why it was never fully fastened - was that detail farmed out only to arrive too late for that finishing touch? Just a thought (caution, severe conjecture).
The engineering for such a 'patch' (I actually prefer 'cover') is 'canned' - right out of the guidance of the day (the forerunner of today's AC 43.13), there would have been no need of engineering oversight. The formalities of preparing and submitting a major alteration form was likely overlooked in the circumstance (sorry Aris, no foul... I didn't say I'd do it that way). I've encountered plenty of such repairs and alterations that were obviously regarded as 'minor' anyway, judging by the common dirth of attending records - mechanics by and large have tended to be more crafty with tools than paperwork, especially when trying to get someone like Earhart on her way.
Six to eight hours of effort to fabricate and install that patch, including the fore-aft stiffeners and now-known vertical member. The only help I'd need (other than local scrounging for materials and tools) would be someone to buck the rivets. Judging by the hob-nailed surviving rivet, that might have been someone like Fred... I'd give a lot to see what that finished work really looked like up close.
But we know the rivet lines were laid out with precision - Aris ticked them off with the calipers in Dayton, so some skill went into this thing. That does not add to my time estimate - good craftsmanship is assumed.
She surely as hell looks a lot like Jackie Cochran to me
Really?
Yes, really - how old was Jackie in the photo you added? But if Sally Chapman nailed her mother in that picture, it was good of you to share that with us; I'd say she'd know. Sally herself confounded things a bit by the "5 months pregnant" remark (no foul, of course) - that's typically an expectantly (pun not
) 'showing' thing. If it was Jackie Cochran, it would have zero effect on when / where the patch was installed because the salient fact is the cover isn't there yet - same difference, yes? It was merely a point of interest - don't get wrapped around the axle...
Why is there a question about whether the patch was effected in Miami or not?
It's vital. If the repair was effected in Miami it explains why there is no mention of it in the Lockheed repair orders and why there is no paint on the interior surface.
I think you're missing my point, which was - there is NO question that I can see that the patch was installed anywhere other than Miami. I fail to see why that was ever in question. If it WAS Cochran in the picture, and the picture WAS made in Burbank - the patch is NOT there... same as Miami, until the very last. Once again, I am vexed that I cannot lay hands on what I read about that patch, but I do recall it had more to do with securing the plane - cutting off curiosity seekers, than anything about structural concerns (which I do not recall reading). If I can ever find that, I'll lay it on here.
Sorry if I'm missing something in this, but I don't understand the touchiness. "The patch was most clearly installed in MiamI" to me - always has been clear since I first became aware of it at the Symposium in D.C. in June 2012, which is where I was first struck by how much 2-2-V-1 looked like something that might have been so-purposed. I didn't see where any of this exchange created any doubt about that.
