Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Since we are discussing an era when pretty nearly anyone with the means could build an airplane and fly it, do you think that maybe the air racers or homebuilders of the day may have kept records?

Why would they keep records of how the aluminum they bought was labeled?  There was only one source - ALCOA.

[Brad Beeching]

I was just thinking that maybe folks that dabbled in home aircraft construction or air racers may have kept records of when they bought materials, and in a fit of pride, may have taken photo's. I realize that its prob'ly a long shot to end all long shots, but who would have thought a cropped photo would lead to where it lead to? Howard built several air racers, "Mike" and "Ike", "Mr Mulligan" among them. "Mr. Mulligan" won the 1935 Thompson Trophy. "Mr Mulligan" was destroyed but I saw somewhere that 'Mike" and "Ike" still exist. Maybe looking at those aircraft or simular could lead to another example of the lettering found on 2-2-V-1, and just possibly, the records of WHEN it was purchased. IF that happened, you would have an example of the material, a time frame and maybe a supplier.

[Dave Thaker]

I think it would be very helpful if the professionally scaled overlay could be re-posted with the upper and lower borders indicated.

Yes, that would be nice to have, but as I think I explained earlier, there is insufficient resolution in the patch photo to see precisely where the borders of the patch are.  All we can do is make assumptions about what underlying structures the borders were riveted to.

I guess my point is that the resolution of the Darwin Patch photo looks to be better than the Miami photo, so assumptions may not be necessary.  Ric thinks, based on the Miami photo, that there was no gap between the aft edge of the patch and the skin border at Sta. 320 (see:http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.210.html); but I think I see a gap in that photo, and in the Darwin photo I think that gap is easier to see.  In the post I cited, Ric estimates that, if there was a gap between the border of the pathc and Sta 320, then the patch was 24 and 3/8th inches, fore-to-aft :

"The distance between Stations 293 5/8 and 320 is 26 3/8" but it seems clear from the photo that the window frame is not riveted to the circumferential bulkhead at Station 293 5/8 but rather to another, specially added, internal structure about an inch aft of that bulkhead.  If we have the same situation at Station 320 the width of the window framing is about two inches less than the distance between the stations -in other words - 24 3/8."

The Darwin photo indicates that the same situation appears to exist on the aft side of the patch.  I think what Ric says above is a good summary of why the 'width' of the Patch is 24 and 23/8ths inches 'wide', and since 2-2-v-1 is 24 and 3/8ths inches wide, the Darwin photo appears to be telling us that 2-2-v-1 isn't the Patch, because the 'parent' that 2-2-v-1 was separated from have been a wider piece of aluminum.

I'd be curious whether other forum members think about this, and I definitely think we need photo experts like Jeff Glickman to interpret the dimensions of the patch to be based on this photo.  Various skin boundaries and rivet lines are quite clear in the Darwin photo, so it seems to be an underutilized piece of evidence regarding the dimensions of the Patch and its location on the Electra.

[Mark Pearce]

Various skin boundaries and rivet lines are quite clear in the Darwin photo, so it seems to be an underutilized piece of evidence regarding the dimensions of the Patch and its location on the Electra.

A high resolution scan of the Darwin photo may be available from Purdue.

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/spcol/digital-reproduction-requests

[Ric Gillespie]

The Darwin photo indicates that the same situation appears to exist on the aft side of the patch.  I think what Ric says above is a good summary of why the 'width' of the Patch is 24 and 23/8ths inches 'wide', and since 2-2-v-1 is 24 and 3/8ths inches wide, the Darwin photo appears to be telling us that 2-2-v-1 isn't the Patch, because the 'parent' that 2-2-v-1 was separated from have been a wider piece of aluminum.

I think we'll know more after we've had a chance to compare 2-2-V-1 to the interior structure of an actual Lockheed 10.  That will happen Tuesday.

[JNev]

The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me - which means it would be "shy" of the adjacent principal stations 293 5/8 and 320 5/8; MHO, of course.  That footprint also makes sense to me - I wouldn't see a reason to reach beyond the coaming to tie a simple cover (which is what I still believe "the patch" was) to the formers at those stations - too complex for a quick field fix to go into all that framing for little to no gain.

The Purdue picture in better resolution might be a great thing.  Perhaps they still have the negatives, or original print to work with?

Also remain interested in what will be found in Wichita; it will be good to see the artifact 'tried on' against real L10 structure.  IMO it might be good to also develop and have on hand a Mylar of the window coaming arrangement along as a guide to fit up to the actual L10 to get a frame (pun not intended) of reference.  Maybe that's been done or considered - if not, great timing to think of it now, I realize...

[Ric Gillespie]

The Purdue picture in better resolution might be a great thing.  Perhaps they still have the negatives, or original print to work with?

I'll go over this with Jeff Glickman on Tuesday. 

Also remain interested in what will be found in Wichita; it will be good to see the artifact 'tried on' against real L10 structure.  IMO it might be good to also develop and have on hand a Mylar of the window coaming arrangement along as a guide to fit up to the actual L10 to get a frame (pun not intended) of reference.
[/quote]

I don't see how we could do that accurately without having the window coaming to trace.

[JNev]

My thought was to scale it from some of the pictures we have of the coaming, which are in some cases much better than any we have so far of the patch itself.  Not talking about a 'rubbing', which is impossible without the coaming (which was likely scrapped in Miami 77 years ago), but a well-drafted lofting of what we can take from the photos.  Not easy, obviously, and then only with a limited degree of confidence as to fit.

I went back to the Purdue picture of the Darwin photo, and try as I might I cannot seem to copy it with the same degree of integrity as I can view it.  But copy I did, after zooming in (but not to max) on the original Purdue picture, and I have put a few notes and pointers to things I see in the actual Purdue-sourced blow-up that are unfortunately not so clear in my copy, attached.  If interested, one might enjoy studying my pointers against the Purdue source to see if you can see what I see, with my untrained eye: a pair of faint rivet lines are strongly 'suggested'.  One will need to play with zooming levels a bit to see it most clearly.  These two lines do not appear as anomalies on the film, etc. to me - there are flaws there like fingerprints and lint, clearly as such; the suggested rivet lines appear faintly, but very similar to other faint rivet lines under similar lighting on the side of the plane in adjacent areas (also pointed out).  What I see seems to coincide with what was pointed out after Jeff Glickman's work with Ric on the Miami photo.

I also have pointed out where the patch fore and aft edges are in relation to the 293 5/8 and 320 5/8 stations - the Patch did not overlie those two stations that I can see, but lay within the two.

Eye of the beholder - as I said, I'm no expert, and of course I'd love to see 2-2-V-1 pan out as "the Patch"; but I suggest a look with comparison to the Purdue source for those who want to sleuth this a bit - enjoy.

[Ric Gillespie]

That's good Jeff.  I generally agree with your layout but I think the aft edge of the patch is tighter to the 320 5/8 line (green).  You have the rivet line at 320 5/8 and the patch edge on almost the same line at the top left corner of the patch but further apart at the bottom.  That doesn't seem likely. The edge of the patch should be the same distance from 320 5/8 all the way down.
The rivet line at Sta. 307 is visible above the patch.

[Greg Daspit]

The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me

On 2-2-V-1, the distance between the staggered 5/32" rows is about 1 1/2". In the Miami photo, the distance between the lower rows appears much closer. If 2-2-V-1 was just this simple cover, why would the distance increase? Could the distance between the lower staggered rows have increased because a stiffener was added? Possibly required due to the hard landing?

If just a simple overlay of the previous coaming, wouldn't the same holes be re used so as not to add any additional holes in the stringers and weaken them? And if that was the case, couldn't we compare the visible rivet spacing on the Miami photo(at least more visible in that photo than others) with the remaining 5/32" rivet row on 2-2-V-1?

[JNev]

That's good Jeff.  I generally agree with your layout but I think the aft edge of the patch is tighter to the 320 5/8 line (green).  You have the rivet line at 320 5/8 and the patch edge on almost the same line at the top left corner of the patch but further apart at the bottom.  That doesn't seem likely. The edge of the patch should be the same distance from 320 5/8 all the way down.
The rivet line at Sta. 307 is visible above the patch.

I think we had the same view of it, I just didn't get my 'art' done too well in that corner it seems. 

What was really significant to me was that I can now see what I believe to be lines of rivets on the Patch.  I can't know that and defer to more professional eyes and techniques, but the picture appears to yield some information that I had not seen before.  Perhaps because I was working with copies I'd made from the Purdue pictures - which are noticeably better quality when viewed on their site - at least with my limited graphics capabilities.

[JNev]

The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me

On 2-2-V-1, the distance between the staggered 5/32" rows is about 1 1/2". In the Miami photo, the distance between the lower rows appears much closer. If 2-2-V-1 was just this simple cover, why would the distance increase? Could the distance between the lower staggered rows have increased because a stiffener was added? Possibly required due to the hard landing?

If just a simple overlay of the previous coaming, wouldn't the same holes be re used so as not to add any additional holes in the stringers and weaken them? And if that was the case, couldn't we compare the visible rivet spacing on the Miami photo(at least more visible in that photo than others) with the remaining 5/32" rivet row on 2-2-V-1?

I have questioned the 'hard landing' and whether it had any impact on what was done with the patch, but maybe my thoughts have been way off base.

Normally I'd expect to see a 'simple cover' (which I've personally taken 2-2-V-1 to be) re-use existing holes, yes; but there can easily be an argument for an altered / beefed-up structure where the rivet pitch (distance between fasteners) is reduced for strength (more rivets x inch, etc.).  I cannot say 'it is the case', but can say 'it well could be the case'.

As to the hard landing, my tendency has been to take the simple view - and I recall something about simply covering the window to limit access to the interior of the plane more effectively.  I still cannot lay my hands on what it was that gave me that notion, so I cannot show it true.  Even if that had been recorded somewhere as to 'why the patch', it might mean nothing: this was Earhart, after all, to whom the public image was all - if Fred had some problem delaying things, the report might be 'delay due to personnel issues', so I've read; had she a hard landing (I believe the source on that) and any form of a structural issue or question arising from it requiring such a 'repair', she would not have been eager to advertise it.  With NR1020 sitting in front of photographers with some shiny new metal on the side, what sounds better? 

"We pranged it coming in and found some popped rivet heads and bending around the window and thought it would be good to beef it up before I drop it in somewhere else with a heavy load of fuel or something...", or -

"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."

Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to... and no way Earhart was going to make the confession in the first statement above.

So, another mystery perhaps.  I don't know about changing rivet pitch, but it wouldn't be a disqualifier to me at this point - just something to try to resolve, if that is what we have.

[Jay Burkett]

Jeff,

My take on this is that this might have been a recurring problem.  "Gee, that darn window broke again ..." type of event.  I don't recall this being recorded in the available records, but, it would not suprise me if someone eventually runs across something like that.  This would have been consistent with weakness in the aft fuselage in a section taken through the window opening.  The resulting "patch" does not look "structural" to me, but, rather an aluminum replacement for a formed piece of Plexiglas ® that was unavaialble once the trip began.  They may not have equated the broken window to weakness in the fuselage or the result of a hard landing.  I, too, believe that any mechanic worth his salt would have tried to pick up existing fasterner locations.   

[Monty Fowler]

or -

"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."

Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to...

I would respectfully disagree with that statement. This was pre-9/11 and Earhart was all about the spectacle and theater of the whole trip. A number of photos at different stops show all manner of people around the Electra, and even the Lae takeoff movie shows a considerable number of spectator types.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[JNev]

or -

"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."

Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to...

I would respectfully disagree with that statement. This was pre-9/11 and Earhart was all about the spectacle and theater of the whole trip. A number of photos at different stops show all manner of people around the Electra, and even the Lae takeoff movie shows a considerable number of spectator types.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Not sure I follow - the whole shebang, or the last part about 'not everybody could walk up to', and if so, do you feel it WAS more about security?

My point was I'm now seeing a bit better the logic of the patch due to some wacky event like a hard landing.  Maybe, as Jay points out, it was a mere nuisance level thing; maybe it was more serious.  I don't know that we'll ever find anything recorded about it.

But your point about access / media event does underscore another point I was making - she was all about 'appearances', and if there were structural concerns after the Miami landing that led to this, she would have downplayed the 'repair' and might easily have used the 'security' angle as an answer to any curiosity (rather like 'peronnel issues' might have been used).

Better die than look bad... and damned if she didn't.