Print

[Jeff Carter]

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

Took the patch from the Miami photo with Earhart and the lady and scaled to the 18" height (where the 18" height was calculated as described in the earlier post).

Not sure I understand the other question?

[Mark Samuels]

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

Are the images below what you are referring to?  I don't see the match feature that is depicted on the image with the artifact overlay in the raw image with the rivet detail.

[Ted G Campbell]

You got it Mark!

[Greg Daspit]

Jeff Carter,

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 think I understand the question. I beleive the answer is Jeff trimmed 2-2-V-1 out of another image and there is some extra shadow from 2-2-V-1 cut out a little offset from the edge at the upper right. The image Jeff trimmed out, with the dark offset area, is overlayed on the image of the window.  There is no negative tear tab on the coaming. The black that you think may be on the coaming(outer "window frame" ) is part of the 2-2-V-1 image Jeff cut out. Or it's some similar photoshop cutting and alignment issue.

There shouldn't be any match like that anyway. The image of the window is before the patch was installed. Also, I don't think the coaming was left on the plane. However if it was, and the rivets were left on it, then the impressions of the coaming rivets might show up on the backside of 2-2-V-1. I just  can't see them leaving the coaming rivets there because the patch would not fit tight against the coaming skin with its rivets heads sticking out.

[Tim Collins]

Re the first of the two fotos posted above: what's that whitish arc in the top of your drawn yellow circle? Does it appear in the actual metal or is it just a reflection?  Interesting how it seems to follow the arc of the corner of the window flashing. Something or probably nothing?

[JNev]

Re the first of the two fotos posted above: what's that whitish arc in the top of your drawn yellow circle? Does it appear in the actual metal or is it just a reflection?  Interesting how it seems to follow the arc of the corner of the window flashing. Something or probably nothing?

Was just wondering that myself (about 'whitish arc') - and it's very important.  If that is virgin image from 2-2-V-1 then it could be another tell-tale signature item that might just thumbprint it to the Electra; if real but not from having been on the ship, hell of a coincidence.

Otherwise... ah, is it part of the original image - or a product of the reproduction effort somehow?  Curiosity...

And the answer is... it is a virgin highlight - see image Ric posted previously (which was inverted for use above, so look at bottom left appropriate corner to see it here (my stupid Mac SW keeps rotating it various ways... ghost of Jobs I guess)) -

Now question is, is that just 'light' in Ric's photo, or does the artifact bear what might actually be a contour-following impression from you-know-what?  It appears awfully close to the window aperture radius in form, if it's actually a distortion in the metal.  Ric, can you examine that detail to see why it highlighted so in the picture?  My guess is there may be a little distortion in the metal from being pressed against a previously underlying feature (like a certain window coaming?).

[Ric Gillespie]

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”.

Shipping would be no problem. TIGHAR can ship anything anywhere for free thanks to sponsorship by FedEx.  The question, as you say, is whether having the old skins would be of any real value.

[Mark Samuels]

Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch? Rivet line 'C' is in a very odd place considering that there is an upper stringer already within an inch or less that would have likely been utilized.  I do find it curious that 'D' window frame matching, seems to have been manipulated to match the patch.  For effect, or to Mr. Daspit's comment; "Or it's some similar photoshop cutting and alignment issue"?  I don't buy that it is a shadow since the lighting seems to be straight on or slightly to the right, which would put any shadow under the patch.  As to 'E', why would there be an imprint of the curve, if the old frame was removed and replaced with 2-2-V-1?  I also won't buy that the patch was placed over the existing aperture.  Than again, Amelia had freckles, didn't she? 

[Tim Collins]

As depicted in the fotos, I would think that the patch (2-2-V-1) would need to come down a bit and move a bit to the right to line up the arc imprint (if that's what it is) with the window flashing. I wouldn't necessarily see it as a continuation of the curve as it is seen in the foto. But that would mess with the alignment of the rivet lines along the bottom? I agree that it would be suspect to think they would have left the window flashing in place when the opening was covered over. Bit then again why not leave it in place to add a bit of re-enforcement.

Is there any idea as to what the window opening looked like underneath what seems to be the outer flashing of the opening? Rounded corners too?  Any insight as to how the window was factory-created to begin with - framed in from the start when paneling was done or cut in after the fact?  Surviving Electras with such windows give any evidence to this?

[Ric Gillespie]

Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

[Mark Samuels]

Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Well 'Hallelujah', that is a bit more scientific than what I've witnessed here lately. 

[JNev]

Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Not to quarrel, but the coaming removal may be a toss up - I can see it both ways (and granted all fasteners therethrough would have to be removed anyway, but leaving it might help keep some desired rigidity - an .032" think panel isn't very substantial).

To the point though, that 'deformity' probably isn't related to the coaming... but the skin behind the coaming might be radiuses very closely to what we see of the coaming.

The professional scaling does help - thanks for puttying that up to get us back on track.

[JNev]

Would there be an explanation as to why 'A' extends above the original window frame and why the line of rivets 'B' would not have been the placement on the upper edge of the patch?

Yes, all of these amateur overlays are just that - amateur overlays.  Here again is a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the patch. We do not have a professionally scaled overlay of the artifact on the window and I don't think we need one. The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Well 'Hallelujah', that is a bit more scientific than what I've witnessed here lately. 

Well, dang it man, most of us are just sitting in armchairs whittling our fingertips off here, not too many of us have that much grey matter traction where this stuff is concerned... 

[Greg Daspit]

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.

I contributed something to the fund. Thanks for the link. It took only a minute. Good luck!

[Tim Collins]

Not to quarrel, but the coaming removal may be a toss up - I can see it both ways (and granted all fasteners therethrough would have to be removed anyway, but leaving it might help keep some desired rigidity - an .032" think panel isn't very substantial).

To the point though, that 'deformity' probably isn't related to the coaming... but the skin behind the coaming might be radiuses very closely to what we see of the coaming.

Weren't you listening?!! Ric has already determined that the coaming was "almost certainly removed before the patch was installed." End of subject.