Print

[Bruce Thomas]

 Job Well Done on the report ...

Press release and report ...

[Ingo Prangenberg]

Very well done, very professional approach, bring in the ROV's!

[Tim Gard]

 Job Well Done on the report ...

Press release and report ...

Agree. Exciting news.

[JNev]

For those who may not have picked up on the 'Report' itself, please check it out.

The link is embedded in the press release that Bruce linked here earlier but I thought it might help to provide the direct link to the new bulletin. 

Ric would have announced this himself, but somehow got himself kicked off of TIGHAR's own site...    I SWEAR I didn't do it...  and hopefully he'll be restored soon.

Surely this will raise some discussion among the many interested parties of all leanings and bents.  We who were able to be a part of the effort certainly found much of interest.  For a 'simple' piece of metal, 2-2-V-1 has become a fascinating study - enjoy!

[Mark A. Cook]

Want to thank every one of you to allow myself on this site with many hours of enjoyable reading. I am down right almost scared to post anything.
I think you are on the right track to solve this.
This just a quick general idea about the patch in question, without going into great detail like most you do & that is very understandable they way others have in the past try to tear each & every thing you say apart.

Only reason for a bigger window I see is so Noonan could take his sun line readings much better, Why not make the already there window  much bigger is a question, Extra fuel tanks in the way?   But in turn 2 windows so close together & different sizes I think this caused more problems structurally plane wise than it helped. This was way before the famous Comet plane structural problems,  Cutting out & reshaping metal support braces so close together even today scares myself as long time fabricator & welder.
 But you always must look back at there time period with there technology that was available to them.
Don't misunderstand me. I think they was a huge amount of small things went wrong on that flight that added up to 1 huge problem not just the structural problems only. This same problem of a lot different small problem's turning into big problems still effects us even today. 
I don't think it even been proven they had aircraft structural problems. But something went wrong from that Ca. to Fla. flight for the patch to be installed. Plus ground loop anything it will cause problems later. Or I feel it will.   

Hope I don't get too big of a chewing out over this post, But this what open discussions are for I feel,  But keep up the wonderful work,  I think you will solve this within next few years, Very good workmanship to all for your huge amount of time & effort into this cause..   

[Todd Attebery]

It may have been eluded to in an earlier page on this topic, but I would guess that the patch is lighter (lower weight) than the window it replaced.   If your mechanic notices that your tailcone has been "tweaked" due to a "hard landing", you start questioning the structural integrity of the original window mod, you are already worried about weight, and your new navigator says he doesn't need the window ... then the patch is an obvious quick fix. 

[Tim Collins]

I know it's early yet, but any response from the usual cast of critics? 

[Ric Gillespie]

I know it's early yet, but any response from the usual cast of critics?

Not yet. Patience.

[Hal Beck]

Sorry if the answer to this question is obvious, but could the structural analysis that was done at Wichita air services have been done with the Electra at the New England air museum, or was the N.E. Electra different from the Wichita Electra in a way that would preclude such an analysis ?

And, for that matter, since the dimensions of the skins, the positions of the circumferentials, etc. were already known (I think), how did doing this analysis with a real plane in-hand enhance the analysis?

[Ric Gillespie]

Sorry if the answer to this question is obvious, but could the structural analysis that was done at Wichita air services have been done with the Electra at the New England air museum, or was the N.E. Electra different from the Wichita Electra in a way that would preclude such an analysis ?

C/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum was restored as a Northwest Airways airliner, including the full lavatory (toilet, sink and water tank on the starboard wall, covering on the walls, etc.).  There is no way to see the underlying structural members.  Fortunately, Wichita Air Services restored the lavatory compartment of c/n 1091 as a luggage compartment.  There was some light carpeting on the wall and some sound proofing which they generously removed for us so that we had access to the bare metal wall. 

We've had the Lockheed engineering drawings of that area for some time but there's no substitute for hands-on examination, measurement, and comparison with the real animal. It was a priceless opportunity for which we are deeply grateful.

[Kent Beuchert]

 Unfortunately, there is nothing about this artifact that is unequivocal : the date of manufacture is unknown nor, apparently, the time period during which it might have been used, nor all the
places or purposes for which such a scrap of metal might have been used, nor how the piece could have become separated from the aircraft, or whether the size of the piece indicates its entirety (i.e. was it from a larger piece that would have been too large for the Earhart patch). One of the arguments posited against the null is to ask where else it could have come from. That is not estimatable - there are no statistics about such material in that part of the world, and since the useful lifespan of the metal apparently cannot be determined, the potential time interval involved could be quite enormous, radically altering any seat of the pants estimates of likelihood. I'm tempted to say that not much of anything can be definitely claimed about this piece of metal. It is obvious, however, that the artifact is very suggestive  if you buy into the Gardner Island hypothesis.
I am also not convinced by the fuzzy enlargements of the photos of the patch that there is the claimed match in terms of rivet lines. I can't see anything and do not trust any procedures that claim to see such rivet lines. At a minimum, such procedures should be tested by submitting similar grainy photos of the aircraft's known rivet lines, which I don't believe was done. If that pans out, then I would accept the procedure's ability to discern the rivet lines, which presumably would be positive evidence, although I'm not sure how distinctive distances between rivet lines are in the universe of patches. If they are all typically spaced pretty much the same distance apart (which seems logical), then there goes that evidence down the drain. Thus the potential weakness of the spacing evidence.
  As I mentioned in the other thread, if this is the patch from Amelia's plane, then to me, the only plausible manner in which it became separated, assuming the sudden apparent disappearance of the plane to be fact, is for Amelia to have removed it herself by kicking it loose from the inside.
I can't conceive of any other  way it could have ended up where it did, and in the condition that it's in. If someone can produce an alternative explanation that is plausible, I will be very, very surprised.  I sure can't think of one, and no one else on this forum can either at this point. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Unfortunately, there is nothing about this artifact that is unequivocal :

That's simply not true.  There is an abundance of materials identification and dimensional information that is absolutely unequivocal.

the date of manufacture is unknown nor, apparently, the time period during which it might have been used, nor all the
places or purposes for which such a scrap of metal might have been used, nor how the piece could have become separated from the aircraft, or whether the size of the piece indicates its entirety (i.e. was it from a larger piece that would have been too large for the Earhart patch).

There is no finished edge.  Of course it is a piece busted out of a larger piece. The busted out edges must have been close to a firmly attached finished edge so we know that the entire piece was only slightly larger than the artifact.  If you disagree, explain how a piece could get busted out of a larger piece if the firmly attached edges weren't near the busted edges. 

One of the arguments posited against the null is to ask where else it could have come from. That is not estimatable - there are no statistics about such material in that part of the world, and since the useful lifespan of the metal apparently cannot be determined, the potential time interval involved could be quite enormous, radically altering any seat of the pants estimates of likelihood.

Again, simply not true. The types airplanes that have been in that part of the world are extraordinarily well documented.

I'm tempted to say that not much of anything can be definitely claimed about this piece of metal.

You just yielded to that temptation.  Your refusal to accept the facts doesn't alter them.

It is obvious, however, that the artifact is very suggestive if you buy into the Gardner Island hypothesis.

Your'e right.  The artifact is very suggestive - but nobody is asking you to buy into anything. 

I am also not convinced by the fuzzy enlargements of the photos of the patch that there is the claimed match in terms of rivet lines. I can't see anything and do not trust any procedures that claim to see such rivet lines.

Okay.  I can see the rivet lines. You can't.  Fair enough.

At a minimum, such procedures should be tested by submitting similar grainy photos of the aircraft's known rivet lines, which I don't believe was done.

You seriously think we wouldn't have confirmed that we can see other rivet lines on the aircraft before saying we can see rivet lines on the patch? What do you take us for?

If that pans out, then I would accept the procedure's ability to discern the rivet lines, which presumably would be positive evidence, although I'm not sure how distinctive distances between rivet lines are in the universe of patches. If they are all typically spaced pretty much the same distance apart (which seems logical), then there goes that evidence down the drain. Thus the potential weakness of the spacing evidence.

The other members of the 2-2-V-1 Commission can assure you that of the many patches we saw on aircraft in at the Air Force Museum, none bore any resemblance to the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1.

  As I mentioned in the other thread, if this is the patch from Amelia's plane, then to me, the only plausible manner in which it became separated, assuming the sudden apparent disappearance of the plane to be fact, is for Amelia to have removed it herself by kicking it loose from the inside.
I can't conceive of any other  way it could have ended up where it did, and in the condition that it's in.

We haven't yet quantified what forces it would take to "kick it loose from the inside" and, unless you have, your opinions are as worthless as ours would be at this point.,

If someone can produce an alternative explanation that is plausible, I will be very, very surprised.  I sure can't think of one, and no one else on this forum can either at this point.

I hope not.  Until we have better information their blusterings would be as meaningless as yours are.

[Jerry Germann]

Though this article is dated April 1936 during the beginnings of the construction phase of Earhart's Electra, it mentions several deviations from standard construction, including the extra tanks, etc.....in addition, it does mention one feature, I found interesting,.....http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19360420&id=amkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hbYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6245,4996792
Sometime later a specific feature would be added....this article states HATCH....though during the course of construction or somewhat later, that item seemingly changed .....more importantly, it does state it's intended purpose. 
I am still having trouble with the thought of the added stringer at the bottom, though,.... if the existent rivets from the coaming were reused top,and sides , I wonder the dramatic change at the bottom double row rivet line. I am working on your reasoning.
Recalling the anecdotal stories as to the frying pan with attached stringers , and later posts concerning what looked like pry marks to remove such ....If the stringer ends were not attached to existent stringers,/ stiffeners,... one could see how this panel may be more easily separated from the main portion ,along  with it's attaching stringers.
Is the photo with the arrows pointing to thought to be rivet lines, the high resolution result? Are any other photos under consideration for this process?

[Monty Fowler]

Kent ... not trying to be rude here (although I'm sure it will come off that way at this time of night), but - boots on the ground, buddy. Skin in the game. Money where your mouth is.

I've crawled over, under and through various and sundry aircraft, on my dime; helped front some of the testing that has given a clearer and clearer picture of what 2-2-V-1 is trying to tell us, on my dime; and have aided a few other endeavors I don't feel like expounding on but which I hope have been helpful to the overall effort.

What have you done to advance this cause?

Talk, especially repititious talk, is very, very cheap. Answers are expensive. Let me know when you feel like helping us find the answers.

LTM, who is saving the quarters for the next check,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Greg Daspit]

Regardng the outer most row of the staggered double row of rivet holes at the artifact's tab. Is there enough evidence of what remains of those holes to confirm their size? It looks like there may be enough of a hole at the bottom of one peak that you can tell the diameter but the way it transitions to the peak it is hard to see from pictures. I'm also wondering if the hole was deformed when the skin tore and if that may mean it looks 5/32" and many not have been so before it failed.  Has it been confirmed that these holes are also 5/32" like the holes adjacent to it?
 
Which row, of the staggered double row of rivets on the plane, would this row match up with?(the upper or lower row)