Print

[JNev]

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.

Sorry, guess I'm dense.  I, however, have not come to view that with certainty, no disrespect or disregard for other's opinions. 

[James G. Stoveken]

The window and its coaming were almost certainly removed before the patch was installed.

Isn't that one of those "opinions masquerading as a fact" that someone around here likes to point out?   

[Ric Gillespie]

End of subject.

Not end of subject. Think about it. You need to drill out the rivets in the coaming to remove the window so you've already removed the coaming. If you re-install it and then install a patch on top of it, your patch stands up higher off the airplane than necessary, creating more drag. I don't see any indication in the photos that the patch is sitting up on top of the coaming. If you do, show me.

[JNev]

End of subject.

Not end of subject. Think about it. You need to drill out the rivets in the coaming to remove the window so you've already removed the coaming. If you re-install it and then install a patch on top of it, your patch stands up higher off the airplane than necessary, creating more drag. I don't see any indication in the photos that the patch is sitting up on top of the coaming. If you do, show me.

Makes sense, no quarrel there.

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,

The value of the skin in Wichita might be of great value if the “patch” turns out to be 99 + % unauthentic.  Let me present a viable video sequence:

Aircraft production
The process of Lockheed cutting in the window      
   The installation of the plexus glass window
   The installation of the window framing

Miami Stopover
The removal of the window and framing
         Drilling out of the existing rivets that secure the window in the side of the aircraft
         The fitting of the interior vertical rib segment
         The back drilling of the window frame into the “patch”
         The riveting of the patch in place

Landing at Niku
        Then if you’ve got the ba__s, the blows from the inside of the aircraft with an escape axe to open the patch             in such a way that is what we are seeing today.  Smoking gun my butt – it’s the real McCoy only 76 years later

Ted Campbell

[Ric Gillespie]

The value of the skin in Wichita might be of great value if the “patch” turns out to be 99 + % unauthentic.  Let me present a viable video sequence:

I still don't understand how skins removed from a perfectly standard Electra would help us.

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,
Then it is up to you to show me (us)  : How the "patch" fits into the story!
Ted Campbell

[Ric Gillespie]

Then it is up to you to show me (us)  : How the "patch" fits into the story!

You're right.

[James Champion]

I still don't understand how skins removed from a perfectly standard Electra would help us.

As a background display prop for the 2-2-V-1 patch at a later date.

Skin from an actual Electra used to show how/where the patch fit would be good to have. Skin from this plane will be as close as anyone will ever get to the one-off c/n 1055 NR16020. Construction differences between c/n 1091 and c/n 1055 will be less important than having an actual Electra skin to put 2-2-V-1 in context.

If nothing else, something like this would be good for fundraising.

[Ric Gillespie]

Skin from an actual Electra used to show how/where the patch fit would be good to have. Skin from this plane will be as close as anyone will ever get to the one-off c/n 1055 NR16020. Construction differences between c/n 1091 and c/n 1055 will be less important than having an actual Electra skin to put 2-2-V-1 in context.

If nothing else, something like this would be good for fundraising.

I agree, but unfortunately it's not quite that simple.  Installing the window involved cutting two skins, 42R and 43R.

Something to note:
Skins 42R and 43R are .025" in thickness.  2-2-V-1 is .032".  If 2-2-V-1 is the patch, they used skin to make the patch that was heavier than the surrounding skins.  Would it make sense to do that?

[Joe Cerniglia]

I'm probably getting waaay ahead of the game here, but in thinking about the process of verification of all of this after Jeff Glickman completes his report, are we considering a way to do blinded experiments?  Here's a thought:  Present a panel of people who routinely work with hyperspectral imaging (or one such person if in short supply as I suspect they are) with 10 or so black and white, severely cropped image files of vintage aircraft, including a crop from the Miami photo.  They, of course, wouldn't know which image was the Miami photo. Then request they identify the photo or photos that best match Jeff's hyperspectral scan of rivet patterns on 2-2-V-1.  This, to me, has the benefit of enhanced validity over the alternative idea of simply giving free access to Jeff's files and conclusions and asking other experts if Jeff's (now TIGHAR's) conclusions on the patch are right.  (It also has the benefit of reminding me of a scene from a favorite movie, The Manchurian Candidate... Anyone remember that projector slide show scene where Sinatra says, "Hold it General, please...Hold the one on the right, please...")

I trust Jeff implicitly, of course, but he's our longtime expert and recognized as such.  We need a way to allow source(s) as objective as possible to weigh in with unimpeachable credibility. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECPR

[Ricker H Jones]

The value of the skin in Wichita might be of great value if the “patch” turns out to be 99 + % unauthentic.  Let me present a viable video sequence:

I still don't understand how skins removed from a perfectly standard Electra would help us.

I don't think we should presume that 2-2-V-1 is the only potential piece from the Earhart Electra that will turn up.  If nothing else, the markings and primer type might prove useful from the contemporaneous skin.  Care should be taken, however, to engrave or permanently identify such skin at the source so that TIGHAR is never accused of trying to pass it off as part of Earhart's Electra.

[Bruce Thomas]

If 2-2-V-1 is the patch, they used skin to make the patch that was heavier than the surrounding skins.  Would it make sense to do that?

The source of the aluminum to make the patch that replaced NR16020's lavatory window in Miami is still a mystery, right?

I guess one potential source could be the helpful Pan American folks on Dinner Key servicing that company's Sikorsky seaplanes. Did they have a nice stash of .032" ALCLAD on hand?

[Ric Gillespie]

The source of the aluminum to make the patch that replaced NR16020's lavatory window in Miami is still a mystery, right?

I guess one potential source could be the helpful Pan American folks on Dinner Key servicing that company's Sikorsky seaplanes. Did they have a nice stash of .032" ALCLAD on hand?

I would say that would depend on what kind of seaplanes they were operating out of Dinner Key at that time and weather those aircraft were skinned with .032 24ST ALCLAD.

[Bruce Thomas]

I would say that would depend on what kind of seaplanes they were operating out of Dinner Key at that time and weather those aircraft were skinned with .032 24ST ALCLAD.

Well, yeah. I hope some intrepid person with access to specs for the various Sikorsky types Pan American had at Dinner Key can research the thickness of aluminum on those birds. On the website of the Pan Am Historical Foundation (at www.panam.org, not www.panam.com thank goodness!) there is mention of the presence of S-38, S-40, S-41, and S-42 models at Dinner Key as early as 1934.