Print

[JNev]

It probably bugs Ric that this bugs me a bit, but I just see it as one signature detail whose importance is not yet known for certain; it also bugs me that others who are really bugged by this aren't bugged enough to dig deeper for more definitive evidence about that if what we're doing bugs them so badly. 

It bugs me too.  It's a fly in an otherwise perfect ointment.  We're not ignoring it and we haven't dismissed it as unimportant. We have not said that 2-2-V-1 is definitely from the Miami Patch, nor will we.  We'll publish our research so far (it now looks like it will be Monday) and we'll continue to learn as much as we can about the artifact.  If we find something that legitimately disqualifies it as being from the Miami Patch we'll say so, but right now there is so much hard evidence that says it IS from the patch that it seems most likely that there is a reasonable explanation for the AD.  Meanwhile we're not going to provide a stage for troll dances that contain nothing but opinion.

It isn't a perfect world. 

You've just articulated very well why this is all worthwhile to many of us, despite the odds.

There is a big difference in topical skepticism and concerned research.  I dislike wiping up other's spaghetti on the wall.  I don't mind cooking, but if they throw it, they need to clean it up - otherwise they weren't examing my cooking, they just didn't like the meal. 

Disraeli had something to say about this kind of thing - and we all deal in probabiliteis here, all the time.  I've gone and looked at more fonts in person than I've seen posted here, so I know we're not getting a full picture and that 'A L C L A D' has not been pegged in time yet as to when it truly emerged; I also know what the 'A D' on 2-2-V-1 looks like, but am still not fully resolved that we have a clear, full picture of what we have for certain.  Maybe I'm just dumb.  I do note, however, that one reader recently pointed out what he thought was a subtle serif - and after the variations I've seen in Dayton I'm not sure that's not the case.

In any case, immature statistics can be the worst of veils.  What we're trying very hard to do with 2-2-V-1 is to work through that as well as can be done - lots yet to do.  Time...

[JNev]

Let's see, 2-V-1-1 has  been subjected to the following information-gathering methods:

- Mark 1 eyeball.
- Hyperspectral imaging.
- Multispectrum paint analysis.
- Materials composition analysis.

To be exact:
- Materials analysis by NTSB Lab
- Materials analysis by ALCOA
- Failures opinion by retired FAA expert
- Two forensic attempts by Winterthur Lab to find paint, one on exterior, one on interior - both unsuccessful.
- Aircraft-of-origin research by USAF Museum and TIGHAR Commission
- Forensic imaging analysis
- Hyperspectral imaging (results pending)
- Structures comparison/analysis with two Lockheed Model 10s, c/n 1052 and 1091

Are there any other tests of a scientific nature that we can perform on this piece of aluminum to pry additional secrets from it?

Yes.  We haven't really begun to do an in-depth analysis of the damage (edge failures, dents, gouges, etc.).  For that we'll need forensic metallurgical  expertise.  We're working on that.

Really interested in the expert failure analysis - *IMO* 2-2-V-1 is very complex in this regard (if not obviously so in other regards).

[Tim Collins]

Really interested in the expert failure analysis - *IMO* 2-2-V-1 is very complex in this regard (if not obviously so in other regards).

Are you referring to the Korsgaard "opinion"?

[Ric Gillespie]

Really interested in the expert failure analysis - *IMO* 2-2-V-1 is very complex in this regard (if not obviously so in other regards).

Are you referring to the Korsgaard "opinion"?

Yes. His opinion that the piece was blown out by a fuel/air explosion now seems unlikely in the light of what we've learned since then.  Ditto for some of what we were told by the engineers at ALCOA.  "Expert" opinions are good to have but they are not infallible.

[James G. Stoveken]

Let's see, 2-V-1-1 has  been subjected to the following...

Monty, 
2-V-1-1 or not 2-V-1-1.  THAT is the question.  And the answer is not 2-V-1-1 but alas, it is 2-2-V-1.

With apologies to Willie S.

[Ric Gillespie]

In the hope of reducing confusion, allow me to decode the mysterious TIGHAR artifact numbering system.

The first digit is the chronological TIGHAR project number. TIGHAR's first major project was Project Midnight Ghost (the search for l'Oiseau Blanc). Artifacts associated with that project have numbers beginning with 1.  Our second major project was the Earhart Project so all Earhart Project artifacts have numbers beginning with 2.

The second digit is the chronological number of the expedition within that project on which the artifact was found. Artifacts found during the 1989 Earhart expedition begin with 2-1.  Artifacts from the second trip (1991) begin with 2-2.  And so forth.

The letter in the third position denotes the general location wher the artifact was found.  Artifacts found at the Seven Site have an S.  Artifacts found in the village have a V. The shoe parts found at the baby grave site have a G. Objects recovered from the Loran station have an L.  Objects recovered from Nutiran have an N.

The last digit is simply the chronological number of the artifact cataloging for that expedition at that site (not necessarily the order in which artifacts were found).

So ..... 2-2-V-1 is an Earhart Project artifact (2), found on the second Earhart Project expedition (2), in the Village (V), and it was the first artifact we cataloged (1).

[Monty Fowler]

*pats self on back* They don't call me the Transposition Champ for nothin'!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[JNev]

That which we call a rose...

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

In the hope of reducing confusion, allow me to decode the mysterious TIGHAR artifact numbering system.

You left out the "slash numbers" for artifacts that have several pieces.   

There is a category in the Ameliapedia that has some articles on some of the artifacts.

[Randy Conrad]

What could they possibly have been anticipating to carry, of all things, spare sheet metal?

With the discussion at hand....Ric....Was the interior structure of the Electra made from the same material as the outter shell of the plane? What I'm driving at here is whose to say that this piece of metal didn't come from something inside the plane? Or was it a piece of the damaged section when she crashed the first time? Just curious!!!!

[Tim Collins]

What could they possibly have been anticipating to carry, of all things, spare sheet metal?

With the discussion at hand....Ric....Was the interior structure of the Electra made from the same material as the outter shell of the plane? What I'm driving at here is whose to say that this piece of metal didn't come from something inside the plane? Or was it a piece of the damaged section when she crashed the first time? Just curious!!!!

Interesting possibility though but there's still the question of what size were these "2pcs. Sheet metal Alcoa". Perhaps the idea that they were large enough for the Alcoa imprint to be a notable feature can give some idea?

Ok, so you brought some sheet metal with you, how are you going to manipulate it? The Luke field inventory sure doesn't suggest there was much to work with if you had to fabricate something. Take something apart (a good amount of PWA [Pratt and Whitney Aircraft] maintenance tools), yes, but make something out of sheet metal? No, in my opinion.  Though there "cold solder" is an outlier in this regard.

But who can say exactly what from the Luke Field inventory made it back on the plane for the 2nd attempt? I guess this is pretty much an academic exercise.     

[Ric Gillespie]

Was the interior structure of the Electra made from the same material as the outter shell of the plane?

In a stressed skin monocoque aluminum airplane like the Electra the interior structure IS the outer shell.

[Randy Conrad]

Ric and Tim....I should have been more clear on what I was trying to say. In the interior part of the plane...like the flooring and bookcase or whatever...was the metal different? Also, during my research the other night I noticed something about this picture from the Miami Herald...that shows Amelia right next to the plane. As you guys noted the one window wasnt even there as could be seen (one with the so called patch), but the window behind the right wing was. In this window I noticed something very odd, and please help me out on this...but why would you have a cross brace across an open window and the interior of the window blocked off? Was this the way the windows were installed. When you visited Newton several weeks ago...was this notable on the Electra there? Let me know...thanks!!!!

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric and Tim....I should have been more clear on what I was trying to say. In the interior part of the plane...like the flooring and bookcase or whatever...was the metal different?

The floor was wood.  The navigator's table was wood.  There was no bookcase as far as we know. The fuselage fuel tanks were thin aluminum but we don't know what kind.

Also, during my research the other night I noticed something about this picture from the Miami Herald...that shows Amelia right next to the plane. As you guys noted the one window wasnt even there as could be seen (one with the so called patch), but the window behind the right wing was. In this window I noticed something very odd, and please help me out on this...but why would you have a cross brace across an open window and the interior of the window blocked off?

I don't know what you're seeing but there is no cross brace through the standard window in the Miami Herald photo and the window is not blocked off.

[Patrick Dickson]

Ric,
 
Job Well Done on the report.....dogged determination, preserverance, patience, scientific methodology, and just plain hard-headed hard work are paying off. Proud to be a part of the quest.