Print

[JNev]

Trouble is, that is not "THE" window, i.e. not the lavatory "special large window" we're talking about; that's the normal cabin window.

That raises two problems for a comparison where 2-2-V-1 is concerned: the patch would logically be over the known-patched lavatory window, not the smaller normal cabin window, and being at a different fuselage station you cannot get a direct comparison of structure there.

As to the now-found vertical member (non-riveted but imprinting found), I am not clear on how it was found.  Here you've cited the hyperspectral imaging effort - and I think because like many of us that was implied because it was found during Glickman's exercise at TIGHAR HQ recently while also doing hyperspectral imagery.  But it is not really clear to me that that method found the evidence of the vertical member.  Somehow I got the impression that was by direct visual examination - did I miss something?  I would appreciate a clarification as to how that evidence was found.

[Mark Pearce]

Trouble is, that is not "THE" window, i.e. not the lavatory "special large window" we're talking about; that's the normal cabin window.

That raises two problems for a comparison where 2-2-V-1 is concerned: the patch would logically be over the known-patched lavatory window, not the smaller normal cabin window, and being at a different fuselage station you cannot get a direct comparison of structure there.

This image/overlay helps in comparing the 'patch' to the window frame.   

[Bill Mangus]

Mark, that is very well done!  Brings everything that's been talked about in this thread into much sharper focus.

[Greg Daspit]

Thanks Mark! The similar angles in the pictures does help see it better.
Does it look like the patch may have extended slightly further down than the coaming of the window did?

The approximate 1-1/2” between the 5/32" rivet row and the next projected rivet row on 2-2-V-1 still suggests an added stiffener, IMHO. (similar to when we were looking at the keel)

[JNev]

Very good detail in that - and I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother).

It's this kind of study of detail that can help us move this along, IMO.  I'm sure Glickman is looking at this and perhaps more as well.  Ultimately it has to be nudged and received positively into the minds of qualified critical reviewers to succeed, of course.

[Ric Gillespie]

Have you guys not read the report on the TIGHAR website? http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html

[JNev]

I have.  Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?

[Ric Gillespie]

Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?

You said, " I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother)."

You seem to be wondering about things that have already been established.  That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.  The edge above that line is not a finished edge so there had to be additional skin above that line and it had to be riveted to something.

[JNev]

Did I say anything contrary to what it should have told me?

You said, " I can see what looks very much like a tell-tale rivet line up near where could be the window edge - which makes me wonder if there was an added angle at the top of the window frame, which could explain the now-surviving 'upper' rivet row we see on 2-2-V-1 (perhaps there was another higher up prior to the part being separated from mother)."

You seem to be wondering about things that have already been established.  That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.  The edge above that line is not a finished edge so there had to be additional skin above that line and it had to be riveted to something.

Thanks for the clarification.  Somehow that didn't jump out at me before.

[Ric Gillespie]

Somehow that didn't jump out at me before.

My failure.  Not yours. It's an example of how damned difficult it is to clearly explain this whole line of investigation.

[Mark Pearce]

That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.
 

Ric, how are the rivet lines confirmed?

Earlier you said, "I don't think exact measurement are possible.  There's not enough resolution in the photo to see hard, defined edges."
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg33726.html#msg33726

[Ted G Campbell]

Jeff Carter,

Great work concerning your “Patch” depiction posted by you – ref. reply # 508 on  9/16/2014 and your Nb Tw Qwx.jpg

There are a couple of puzzling questions concerning the alignment technique you used.  Would you please clarify:

How did you get such a clear and detailed photo of the window frame?  Did you use Ric’s “window-offset.jpg” photo?

How did you get the tear tab detail on the patch, in the upper right hand corner, to show almost perfect alignment with the tab sticking out on the window frame?  I question if the window frame had a male tab pointing aft.  Was this tab in the original photo you used?  See above question.

Thanks,

Ted Campbell

[Ric Gillespie]

That tell-tale rivet line has been confirmed.
 

Ric, how are the rivet lines confirmed?

By seeing them. The "tell-tale" rivet line Jeff Neville pointed out near the top edge of the patch is fairly easy to see.  The others only show up with the specialized analytical programs that Jeff Glickman has, but I saw them myself when he was here last month. So far, one rivet line on the patch still escapes us.  It should be there but it's in the dark area of the reflection on the patch and there's just not enough contrast there to tell whether there's a rivet line there or not - but four out of five ain't bad.

Earlier you said, "I don't think exact measurement are possible.  There's not enough resolution in the photo to see hard, defined edges."

You don't need to be able to see crisply defined edges to see that rivet lines on the patch line up with lines of rivets on the airplane.

[Ric Gillespie]

On Tuesday, October 7, Jeff Glickman, Aris Scarla and Your Obedient Servant will spend the day at Wichita Air Services.  TIGHAR video cameraman/producer Mark Smith will be there to document our research. We will have full access to Lockheed 10A c/n 1091, including the interior structure in the area where the window and later patch were installed on c/n 1055.  Unlike c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum, the area in question on c/n 1091 was not restored as a lavatory but rather as a simple baggage compartment so there is no sink riveted to the wall.  We'll have a nice clean fuselage, inside and out, to compare with 2-2-V-1. We'll also have full access to the skins that were replaced. (Wichita Air Services re-skinned 90% of the airplane, including the skins in the subject area.)

This is a unique and timely opportunity. We have decided to spend the money (money needed for other things) to make it possible to put our best experts on site to collect photographic and structural data.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this will be make-or-break for the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch.

Aris, Jeff, Mark, and the restoration staff at Wichita Air Services are donating their time. TIGHAR is covering the travel costs.  The tab is $2009.51.  We're doing this on faith that you will respond with contributions to the 1937 Fund to help cover these costs.  Thank you.

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,

Ask Wichita Air Service if I could buy the old skin in the area of the “Patch” for say $500 (or less).  Maybe we could get someone else to pick up the cost to ship the skin back to TIGHAR HQ.  All this is left up to you guys to determine if this has any value in the investigation of the “Patch”.

Ted Campbell