Print

[Ric Gillespie]

If the patch was about 25 3/8" long [the distance between stations 293.625 and 320, less one inch,] and 2-2-V-1 is about 24 3/8" long, the scaling in the overlay photo needs to be adjusted. 

I don't think you understand what's going on here. We can't "adjust" the the scaling of the overlay to make everything fit the way we'd prefer.  Jeff Glickman scaled the photo of the aircraft-with-patch and the photo of the pressed-down artifact as best he could to the same scale.  Then he overlaid the photos.  The artifact is smaller than the full patch, as it would have to be because none of the edges on the artifact is an original finished edge. Positioning the artifact vertically within the patch was easy because of the alignment of the rivet lines but Jeff didn't know how to position the artifact fore-and-aft until I pointed out that we can anchor the lower right-hand edge because we can see that it failed from metal fatigue against a rigid underlying structure.  Once we positioned the artifact that way it became obvious that the mysterious impression of an un-riveted vertical structure aligned perfectly with Station 307.

In other words, the overlay is correct.  If anything needs to be adjusted it's the measurements for the exact size of the patch and artifact.

[Ric Gillespie]

1. Is the somewhat straight, regular edge of the patch (at top of previous photo) supposed to be an original cut made by the patch fabricator?

No.  That edge appears to have been chopped out with some kind of tool.

2. Since the patch was found at south-west corner of the island after storm action (as read in archives), is it assumed that island inhabitants ever laid their hands on it or did it get "churned up from below the reef"?

Good question.  There is evidence of heat damage to part of the artifact.  We have an anecdotal account from a former island resident of a sheet of metal that sounds a lot like 2-2-V-1 being used to cook fish.  The hyperspectral imaging data may be able to confirm the presence of carbon.
What I think we can say with some certainty is that whatever happened to this piece of wreckage was somehow different from what happened to the rest of the airplane.

[Mark Samuels]

Anybody have the wherewithal and resources to do a fuselage mock up? Just a small section of course.  Not sure what use it could be, but might prove informative in working out scenarios as to how the window hole was patched.

I believe to accomplish that, you would have to have a bill of materials and a set of working drawings.  Neither of which I believe anyone has.

[JNev]

Anybody have the wherewithal and resources to do a fuselage mock up? Just a small section of course.  Not sure what use it could be, but might prove informative in working out scenarios as to how the window hole was patched.

I believe to accomplish that, you would have to have a bill of materials and a set of working drawings.  Neither of which I believe anyone has.

That's a good point for accuracy's sake, and accuracy is of course vital.

That said, as to a reasonable representation of the original structure, it is dimensions that count the most.  That includes an accurate portrayal of the outer skin - air passage - to include an accurate placement of all rivet lines, window outline and placement of associated window framing rivets.  That means an accurate 'skin'; the underlying structure could be simplified by the accurate placement of plywood ring formers (the vertical pieces), and simple "L" sections for stiffeners.  I think it would be good to leave the window aperture uncut, but clearly drawn, such that the artifact (or a facsimile of the flat pattern of same) could be applied.

We see this in accurate mock-ups in this industry all the time, and it works well - but it has to be high-quality / held to accurate dimensions.  That takes us back to the drawings to get it right, plus, since we have no drawings that we know of for the window installation itself, we have to derive accurate dimensions from the photo evidence.  I'm sure that can be done (already has to some degree by Glickman's work, apparently): it is a matter of scaling off the evident landmarks on the visible skins - rivet lines vs. known stations, etc.

Contours could be a challenge, since the Electra was graced with compound curves - but I don't think the longitudenal axis is critical here - a 'barrel' would do for a reasonable illustration as I think the vertical contour is the more critical.

A good, long weekend project for somebody.  Getting accurate dimensions set to paper would be the biggest part of it and the drawings would surely go a long way toward making it possible.  Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

[Mark Samuels]

Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

True enough but who is going to let anyone strip the insides of an Electra in that area to get the true dimensions.  Measuring on the outside gets you close but no cigar.  I don't think fractions, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8  cut it in aircraft construction or maintenance.  Then again in 1937 who knows how close the tolerances were.

[Matt Revington]

Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

True enough but who is going to let anyone strip the insides of an Electra in that area to get the true dimensions.  Measuring on the outside gets you close but no cigar.  I don't think fractions, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8  cut it in aircraft construction or maintenance.  Then again in 1937 who knows how close the tolerances were.

maybe they could talk to these guys if its not too late, they were stripping off and replacing the aluminium skin
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article1311223.html

This link was posted the other day by "Jack" in another thread

[JNev]

Short of that, I guess a real Electra could serve as a source for reverse engineering the thing.

True enough but who is going to let anyone strip the insides of an Electra in that area to get the true dimensions.  Measuring on the outside gets you close but no cigar.  I don't think fractions, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8  cut it in aircraft construction or maintenance.  Then again in 1937 who knows how close the tolerances were.

In the end, it is the rivet lines that govern most of this; the location edge of the visible window forward aperture tends to govern the assumed fatigue failure line (where the sheet apparently failed by repeated bending against a stiff, straight piece of structure).  Also, true - the dimensions of the 'phantom' (now know) unfastened mid-panel vertical brace needs understanding - the original structure is probably a good guide (and seems similar).

I'd say their tolerances were good - those lines of airframes in the factory display marvelous consistency.  These planes were largely jig-built - the fixtures no doubt were quite rigid and provided a very repeatable result.  Plus or minus .030 is a generally accepted practice for most general sheetmetal areas, concerning placement of fasteners and components, and I'd guess that was well within Lockheed's grasp in the '30's by what I can observe (anecdotal observation, I confess - my eyes are not truly calipers, but one's eye 'reads' these things after some time and the work is consistently crisp in the factory photos).

Agree we're talking about some license here, but with some trouble a reasonable physical representation could be made short of tearing apart an old gem.

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

This is going to be a really, really, REALLY long shot but has there ever been any DNA analysis done on the artifact?  It would seem, looking at those jagged edges like that, that someone could get a nasty cut from trying to pry it off, especially someone who is potenially dehydrated, starved, sunburnt, and a physical/emotional/psychological wreck, desperate for a cooking surface, weapon, tool material, or whatever it might have been used for. Just a far-fetched thought.

[Ric Gillespie]

This is going to be a really, really, REALLY long shot but has there ever been any DNA analysis done on the artifact?

Nice thought Krystal but no, there is no chance that contact DNA would survive.

[Ric Gillespie]

maybe they could talk to these guys if its not too late, they were stripping off and replacing the aluminium skin
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article1311223.html

I just talked to Dan Weatherford, CEO at Wichita Air Service. He wasn't sure whether that part of the interior had already been covered over or not but even if it has, he's willing to open it up for us. (Dan is familiar with our work. It's nice to have the reputation we have.  He's eager to help.)  I've sent him a link to the A Smoking Gun? paper.  He'll share it with the guys in the shop.  They're willing to take photos for us but they're also happy to have us come out and and do hands-on research.  After they've had a chance to familiarize themselves with the research we'll talk again and decide whether we can get what we need with photos or whether a visit is in order. 

[JNev]

Very cool! Wish I could be there for that!

[Jeff Lange]

This is going to be a really, really, REALLY long shot but has there ever been any DNA analysis done on the artifact?

Nice thought Krystal but no, there is no chance that contact DNA would survive.

Actually, Krystal-we would have a better chance to find DNA traces of most of the TIGHAR members and Jeff Glickman, or anyone of the MANY persons who have handled the artifact since it was retrieved from the island, than of someone from Niku in the years it was there.

[Ric Gillespie]

Good article in today's on-line Philadephia Inquirer.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Amelia_Earhart_search_postponed_till_next_year.html

[Monty Fowler]

Nice to see some positive publicity that gets all of the basic facts correct. Disheartening to see some of the snarky comments under it, but, well ... that's one of the things you have to get used to and shrug off as a TIGHAR member.

Remember, the tortoise put up with a TON of crap. But he did cross the finish line!

LTM, who had turtles as pets eons ago,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Ric Gillespie]

Let's think about exactly what information/photos we want to get from the Electra being restored by Wichita Air Service.
My thoughts:

• We need a straight-on photo of the interior starboard wall from Sta. 293 5/8 (the bulkhead at the front of the lavatory) to Sta. 320, the circumferential structure to which the aft edge of both the window and the patch were riveted to.  That will, of course, encompass the narrow vertical stiffener at Sta. 307 and the heavy former that goes across the top of the cabin.  The photo needs to include tape measure or yard stick held against the wall so that we can measure the interval between stringers.

• We need detail photos of all of the stringers, bulkheads, and stiffeners with a tape measure or ruler laid across to show the width of the structure.

• We need an exterior photo of that same area.

• We need the opinion of the people who have been doing the restoration about the consequences of cutting a hole for the window and how you would go about replacing the window with a patch.

Anything else?