Print

[Monty Fowler]

All of this is fascinating, and can keep you up wayyyyyyyyyyyy to late at night, mapping scenarios in your mind.

But ...

We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If the rear door is jammed for some reason, why whack away at aluminum when you have two Plexiglas windows right there? Granted, Plexi is still very tough stuff, but not as tough as aluminum riveted to more aluminum. Although as Krystal notes so elegantly, human beings are capable of doing amazing things while under stress. And I can think of few things more stressful than being trapped in an aircraft as the ocean waves pull it over the reef edge into the abyss.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

P.S. - I agree with Ric that an expert may be able to give us some guidance on the story that the various kinds of failures tell. The key is finding that expert. I see another internet quest for whoever is willing.

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

I know its not Lockheed, but St. Louis is big Boeing (Formerly Douglas aircraft) hub. I literally live down the street from the local metal workers union office.  They might be able to recommend someone or at least point us in the right direction..

[Ric Gillespie]

I'm going to call NTSB and ask them to recommend a forensic metallurgist with experience in aircraft crash investigation.

[Bruce Thomas]

We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Newer Forumites may benefit from knowing about what Monty refers to as "the razor." There's an entry about Occam's Razor in TIGHAR's FAQ, and a deeper explanation can be studied on Wikipedia. But in the spirit of The Razor, the good old short explanation summarizes it nicely: K.I.S.S.

[JNev]

K.I.S.S. is key, agreed; 'what if' is fun and might lead to some considerations when the time comes to further sort details out, but the start has to be 'the thing got removed somehow; gee, look at this rip line...'

Which supports Ric's suggestion - and that would be a great thing.  Hopefully they'll help or point us well - after all, they helped with 2-2-V-1 before; may give them some cause to wish to help a bit further.

I believe a good metallurgical exam can reveal a great deal about the two modes of failure that are evident - the tension failure where the 'shark teeth' are along the double rivet row, and the cyclic fatigue failure near FS 293; the latter almost certainly had to occur after the former, IMO.  The rest seems up for grabs since it looks like the part was hacked-out of the host structure somehow.  Which is of course only MHO.

The razor should prevail.

[C.W. Herndon]

We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Newer Forumites may benefit from knowing about what Monty refers to as "the razor." There's an entry about Occam's Razor in TIGHAR's FAQ, and a deeper explanation can be studied on Wikipedia. But in the spirit of The Razor, the good old short explanation summarizes it nicely: K.I.S.S.

Great explanation Bruce One of the best I have seen. I even understand it

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses no zebras.

Im familiar with the "razor" reference. I'm not trying to present any kind of "new theory."  Im a flight dispatcher not a metallurgist or mechanic so I cant tell you if its truly plausible or not. The question was presented "Why would someone kick/cut/rip out a metal plate from the airplane when they had a cabin door/cockpit hatch/ plexiglass wind screen etc."  I just stated one scenario...maybe it wasnt a "Get out of the airplane" thing so much as it was a "Get whatever we can from the airplane" thing.  Im sure we could come up with a million and a half uses for a big scrap of metal if we were marooned on a God-forsaken island in the middle of the oblivion that is the south Pacific.   Then it was presented that it might be "impossible" to remove the patch without tools, weapons, a priest etc.  I provided a scenario where a woman of similar height, weight and build to Earhart did the "impossible" out of sheer desperation.  Not saying that it's fact or fiction.


Krystal "Will never be that skinny again" McGinty

[Mark Pearce]

We have to remember the razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Newer Forumites may benefit from knowing about what Monty refers to as "the razor." There's an entry about Occam's Razor in TIGHAR's FAQ, and a deeper explanation can be studied on Wikipedia. But in the spirit of The Razor, the good old short explanation summarizes it nicely: K.I.S.S.

K.I.S.S. links 2-2-V-1 to sources like the 1943 C-47A crash on Sydney Island, or the wrecks on Canton Island, before AE's Electra.  It's not a popular view here I know, but that's the way I see it.  Both the Sydney Island crash and Canton Island are mentioned in the 2012 book "Guano and the Opening of the Pacific World,"  By Gregory T. Cushman;
Page 236....

"Islanders throughout the central and western Pacific were intensely dissatisfied by their treatment by both sides during the war.  On occasion, brief prosperity rained down from the skies.  An airplane fell to earth on Sydney Island, presenting a valuable source of sheet aluminum. American warplanes dropped Hershey chocolate bars, Wrigley's gum, bars of soap, and cigarettes over the  Phoenix Island settlements.  Colonists were mostly indifferent to North American consumer goods, although they greatly valued the opportunity work at the bustling new airport on Canton Island and to supply its souvenir shops with handicrafts.  On their home islands, many Gilbertese protested against the reimposition of British rule after the departure of the Americans at the end of the war, especially when they dumped vast numbers of vehicles and other military "surplus" out at sea, based on the supposition the Gilbert Islanders were not ready for the machine age."
----------------------

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html

"The crash on Sydney Island is of special interest to us because the Gilbertese settlers there were said to have used the wartime wreck as a source of aluminum. In the years after the war some of the Sydney residents came to live on Nikumaroro and it seems likely that they may have brought pieces of wreckage with them as raw material. Understanding just what happened on Sydney might help us better understand what we’ve found on “Niku” and either eliminate or further substantiate the artifacts suspected of being from the Earhart aircraft."

[Andrew M McKenna]

It might seem so, but that aircraft was significantly destroyed in a post crash fire which is not evident in 2-2-V-1.  In addition, as a late 1943 constructed aircraft headed to the Pacific, the Sydney C-47 should have had the zinc chromate anti corrosion treatment that is not evident on the artifact.  No, I don't know for a fact that all C-47s built in 1943 had zinc chromate, so that is a question yet to be answered definitively.

My understanding is that despite trying, matching 2-2-V-1 to a C-47 has proven as elusive as matching it to any other aircraft.  Ric could expound further, but I don't think there are many (any?) areas on a C-47 that used the #3 rivets on the 0.032" aluminum.  The only un-burnt parts of the Sydney C-47 seem to be the wings outboard of the engines.  Was there 0.32" skin used in the wings outboard of the engines?

Then there is the matter of the Alcoa guys indicating that 2-2-V-1 came from repair stock, not new construction stock.  Did the wing repair to 43-30739 on Canton use that thickness skin?  Was there any 0.032" aluminum used in the wing structure?  If not, it becomes hard to get 0.032" repair stock aluminum on an aircraft that was only 2 months and 12 days old at the time of the crash.

K.I.S.S begins to point in other directions when you consider the Sydney crash details.

Andrew

[Diego Vásquez]

Then there is the matter of the Alcoa guys indicating that 2-2-V-1 came from repair stock, not new construction stock.  Did the wing repair to 43-30739 on Canton use that thickness skin?  Was there any 0.032" aluminum used in the wing structure?  If not, it becomes hard to get 0.032" repair stock aluminum on an aircraft that was only 2 months and 12 days old at the time of the crash.

A minor point, but offered for consideration, from"The Riddle of 2-2-V-1", Findings #2, (05/02/2014)

"In 1993, .... Matching the lettering style to labeling found on three aircraft – two Lockheed Electras and a C-47 – we concluded that the letters were probably part of a sequence that originally read 'ALCOA R. T. .032″ ALCLAD 24S-T3 AN-A-13.'  In 1996, .... The “13,” they [ALCOA engineers] said, signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction. No documentation was offered to support their explanation.
"Recent research by members of the on-line TIGHAR Forum suggests that the Alcoa engineers may have been mistaken in some respects. The AN-A-13 specification appears to have been introduced some time between 1941 and 1943 and has to do with the physical properties of the sheet rather than 'reserve stock.'  The actual specification has not been found, nor do we know whether AN-A-13 was ever on the artifact or when Alcoa started using the lettering style seen on 2-2-V-1." [emphasis added]

To me this suggests that there is no reason to think that 2-2-V-1 came from reserve stock, but I welcome interpretation from others.  It is also interesting to see that the actual lettering style that was found on 2-2-V-1 was matched to a C-47 as well as an Electra.


Diego

[JNev]

We have thoroughly K.I.S.S.ed the C-47 and found nothing close, despite promising looking areas.

One might argue that a war time C-47 could have had non-standard repairs here and there, but if I have the right C-47, it was new, having had one repair of record where a wing was dinged in transit.  That might be a possibility except one encounters the same problem with fitment to any known structure on the C-47 that we did with the belly and other areas of the L10.  Which is largely how we came to focus on the lavatory custom window cover as a possibility (there would be no underlying structure to govern what may have been an improvised installation).

Lots of things are still possible and 2-2-V-1 could go either way - toward or away from, NR16020 as a source at some point.

But rest assured - K.I.S.S. was alive and well when the C-47 and many other possible sources were examined; 2-2-V-1 could be a wild card yet from another type, but what a number of 'coincidental' ties it suggests with NR16020.  Kind of neat, we'll see in time.

ADDED: As to the mysterious 'font' scheme -

I recognize that the font style question could be a disqualifier, but as yet I don't see it as such: no one has provided a definitive history of font style usage in the aluminum industry that would rule out what we think we see on 2-2-V-1 as era-correct.  The examples on the C-47 and L10 could have come from anywhere, anytime - that is realized.  I believe we already debunked the 'reserve stock' as an erroneous statement given by the aluminum maker; it is merely a 'different font' - origin and time unknown, except we of course find latter-day examples (duh).  Was aluminum stocked in Miami marked differently than that stocked in Burbank?  How many plants did Alcoa have, how many runs, how many methods of marking, when did they change / were multiple methods in use / different locations?  Who ordered what / when?  Have we seen examples of fonts from the Pan Am flying boats?  They were a big customer in the Miami area, in all likelihood.  No doubt there were others with stock there.

We have had examples provided that suggest that sans-serif is a later device, but those are not conclusively proving - and we have seen a surprising number of variables from various eras.  We also seem to think that what we see on 2-2-V-1 is an italicized sans-serif, but have some reason to question that as well: what is left of the image is not so clear, and bears some suggestion of serif presence to some eyes.

We continue to have an arguable fit for 2-2-V-1, as well - still being investigated; to the degree 'a fit' is not proven, it remains that a 'non-fit' is also not proven.  How likely is it?  I'm a big fan - but have always held it to be a long-shot.  Now we're closer than ever to finding out - I must know, and that means sticking it out beyond the fluff of too much argument: press on for the hard-headed answer as best we can get it, up or down.

Want to believe? 

Then you have to take a chance and examine sans-bias the best that you can; but you have to have some bias toward believing that a given prospect has a good degree of success, or you merely question, question, question while others dig, dig, dig.  Grab a shovel and believe in the prospect, if you'd like to take the chance. 

If you don't want to take the chance, well, most people don't I guess.  And oddly, many of those can't seem to stand others of us laboring that way and would dissuade  .  For me that's that world Earhart herself didn't care for - the one where nothing ever happens.  She was flawed, but she did a lot - how wise may be questionable - the object of our search screams that loud and clear.  But we still care and look, don't we?  "Something happened".  Something can yet happen as well.

[Mark Pearce]

Then there is the matter of the Alcoa guys indicating that 2-2-V-1 came from repair stock, not new construction stock.  Did the wing repair to 43-30739 on Canton use that thickness skin?  Was there any 0.032" aluminum used in the wing structure?  If not, it becomes hard to get 0.032" repair stock aluminum on an aircraft that was only 2 months and 12 days old at the time of the crash.

A minor point, but offered for consideration, from"The Riddle of 2-2-V-1", Findings #2, (05/02/2014)

"In 1993, .... Matching the lettering style to labeling found on three aircraft – two Lockheed Electras and a C-47 – we concluded that the letters were probably part of a sequence that originally read 'ALCOA R. T. .032″ ALCLAD 24S-T3 AN-A-13.'  In 1996, .... The “13,” they [ALCOA engineers] said, signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction. No documentation was offered to support their explanation.
"Recent research by members of the on-line TIGHAR Forum suggests that the Alcoa engineers may have been mistaken in some respects. The AN-A-13 specification appears to have been introduced some time between 1941 and 1943 and has to do with the physical properties of the sheet rather than 'reserve stock.'  The actual specification has not been found, nor do we know whether AN-A-13 was ever on the artifact or when Alcoa started using the lettering style seen on 2-2-V-1." [emphasis added]

To me this suggests that there is no reason to think that 2-2-V-1 came from reserve stock, but I welcome interpretation from others.  It is also interesting to see that the actual lettering style that was found on 2-2-V-1 was matched to a C-47 as well as an Electra.


Diego

Diego, here is the "AD" from 2-2-V-1 set near "Labeling on fuselage modifications, Lockheed Electra cn 1015"

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1993Vol_9/Markings.pdf]

[Ric Gillespie]

Thanks for posting that image.  Contrary to our earlier impression, it's clear that the font on the artifact is different from the font used on the AN-A-13 designation.  The font on the artifact is serifed and the shape of the space within the D entirely different.

In earlier discussions you made a compelling case that the AN-A-13 specification appeared circa 1942. If the AD on 2-2-V-1 is part of "ALCAD 24ST T3 AN-A-13" as we once thought, it would disqualify the artifact as dating from 1937.  That has been worrying me, even as the evidence snowballs that 2-2-V-1 is from the Miami Patch. Now we can see that our earlier impression was wrong.   Yes, AN-A-13 came along later and metal marked AN-A-13 ended up on repairs made to a C-47 and a Lockheed 10 but that is all irrelevant.  The fonts are different.  We still don't have a match for the font seen on 2-2-V-1 but at least we know it has nothing to do with AN-A-13.

[Andrew M McKenna]

Ric

Did the hyper spectral imaging of the ALCLAD lettering on 2-2-V-1 reveal any clearer rendition of the fonts?  Not knowing the capabilities and nuances of hyper spectral imaging, I can only imagine that it would enhance the lettering, but that may only be in my mind.

Andrew

[Ric Gillespie]

Did the hyper spectral imaging of the ALCLAD lettering on 2-2-V-1 reveal any clearer rendition of the fonts?  Not knowing the capabilities and nuances of hyper spectral imaging, I can only imagine that it would enhance the lettering, but that may only be in my mind.

We don't know yet whether the hyperspectral data will give us any more information about the lettering.  It's not like taking a photograph. The data have to be processed and then interpreted.  Jeff said it would take several weeks (he has a day job). If there are remnants of lettering there that are outside the visual spectrum, the hyperspectral imaging should pick that up.