Print

[Greg Daspit]

Question for Jeff regarding forming a flat piece of metal over the compound curvature. Would you start at the bottom where it was flatter and work up or start at the more curved top and work down?

[Jerry Germann]

Regarding the stiffener added to the forward edge during the window installation( near 293 5/8 bulkhead)....what is the assumed original appearance? flat or U channel....I assume U channel as other verticals seem to be,.....when patching over , if left in place, it may be hard to attach new stringers too , so was it removed and new flat piece / or heavy circumferential portion ,installed and new stringers laid on and all three pieces ( skin/ stringer/ stiffener),.... riveted together? The edge of artifact that had the samples cut out for study , leaves me wondering ....as that edge is somewhat straight along the way,...if force knocked that attached side out , isn't it near enough to the heavy circumferential  at 320 ,...that it may leave on the artifact what we see on the bottom edge ( the shark tooth style rips) as, if the rivets were installed into the coaming  rivet holes they would be fairly close together , I don't understand a straight edge there without at least subtle ripples and tearing away from rivets as we see on the bottom, in the event of pull away.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

[Tim Collins]

Is Glickman's report on the rivet lines available yet?

[Paul March]

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

Monty made me smile..... and donate

[Ric Gillespie]

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.

The airplane was delivered without a "hatch" and also without the "de-icing equipment" mentioned in the article.

 
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.

My reasoning is simple.  The rivets had to be attached to something.  Do you have a better idea?

Recalling the anecdotal stories as to the frying pan with attached stringers ,

There is no anecdotal story about a frying pan with attached stringers. We recently had the recordings of interviews with former Niku residents living in in the Solomons transcribed.  I'll post what was actually said in a separate thread when I get a chance.

Is the photo with the arrows pointing to thought to be rivet lines, the high resolution result?

No. Anything you view online is limited by file-size. We're confident that the rivet lines are as represented in the report.

Are any other photos under consideration for this process?

We're looking at all of the other photos that show the patch. 

[Monty Fowler]

How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

Oskar, my answers, and my opinions, in order:

1) TIGHAR is trying to find the correct, qualified experts to answer that. The failures along the edges show definite patterns and have left definite traces. We just have to ask the right questions to the right people.

2) In my opinion, yes. Desperate people do amazing things during desperate time. If The Patch was kicked out from the inside, that, to me, indicates a level of desperation. Your mileage may vary.

3) In my opinion, yes. Amelia may have been a female but I hesitate to call her a lightweight, because she could probably kick my butt in a fair fight.

4) In my opinion, yes. Someone could build a mockup of the 10-E's restroom area, using the same materials and construction materials. Someone approximating Eahart's age, size and weight could be told to get in there and kick The Patch out any way she could. But at the end of the day, it would be a very, very expensive way to prove nothing. We weren't there. The only two people who were there are dead. Anything TIGHAR could attempt to replicate would have to consider so many different variables that the end result would be meaningless. Besides, it could have been Fred that kicked The Patch out. If it was kicked out at all. Or so it seems to me.

LTM, who will go back to Pondering The Patch now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Ric Gillespie]

Regarding the stiffener added to the forward edge during the window installation( near 293 5/8 bulkhead)....what is the assumed original appearance? flat or U channel....I assume U channel as other verticals seem to be,.....when patching over , if left in place, it may be hard to attach new stringers too , so was it removed and new flat piece / or heavy circumferential portion ,installed and new stringers laid on and all three pieces ( skin/ stringer/ stiffener),.... riveted together? The edge of artifact that had the samples cut out for study , leaves me wondering ....as that edge is somewhat straight along the way,...if force knocked that attached side out , isn't it near enough to the heavy circumferential  at 320 ,...that it may leave on the artifact what we see on the bottom edge ( the shark tooth style rips) as, if the rivets were installed into the coaming  rivet holes they would be fairly close together , I don't understand a straight edge there without at least subtle ripples and tearing away from rivets as we see on the bottom, in the event of pull away.

Let's let people who know what they're talking about speculate on repair techniques.

[Ric Gillespie]

Is Glickman's report on the rivet lines available yet?

If his report was available I would post it.  Jeff Glickman asked me if we wanted separate reports on the photogrammetry analysis and the hyperspectral imaging. I asked him to give us a single report after the hyperspectral data have been interpreted.  Something may turn up in the hyperspectral data that impacts the photogrammetry and further photogrammetric analysis of other photos showing the patch may reveal more detail than we have now.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

Oskar, my answers, and my opinions, in order:

1) TIGHAR is trying to find the correct, qualified experts to answer that. The failures along the edges show definite patterns and have left definite traces. We just have to ask the right questions to the right people.

2) In my opinion, yes. Desperate people do amazing things during desperate time. If The Patch was kicked out from the inside, that, to me, indicates a level of desperation. Your mileage may vary.

3) In my opinion, yes. Amelia may have been a female but I hesitate to call her a lightweight, because she could probably kick my butt in a fair fight.

4) In my opinion, yes. Someone could build a mockup of the 10-E's restroom area, using the same materials and construction materials. Someone approximating Eahart's age, size and weight could be told to get in there and kick The Patch out any way she could. But at the end of the day, it would be a very, very expensive way to prove nothing. We weren't there. The only two people who were there are dead. Anything TIGHAR could attempt to replicate would have to consider so many different variables that the end result would be meaningless. Besides, it could have been Fred that kicked The Patch out. If it was kicked out at all. Or so it seems to me.

LTM, who will go back to Pondering The Patch now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Monty
thank you for your posting. Yes, maybe it was Fred who kicked off the patch, but I cannot imagine any other way the patch came off the Electra. It was (if TIGHAR is right) washed over the shore and sank down. Why should it be seperated from the plane in this process? Could it be seperated deep down and came up again? I would believe 2-2-V-1, a piece of aluminium, would'nt do so.
Oskar. #4421

[Greg Daspit]

Although I have some questions, mostly the same questions referred to in the report, based on what I do understand it is hard to see how 2-2-V-1 is not from the Earhart’s plane. The line of rivets close to the edge at the top on the photo of Earhart’s plane, which I have no trouble seeing, seems to be oddly spaced from the edge, yet it fits artifact. Something that is odd and still fits is very compelling to me.  The evidence of the thin vertical stiffener seemed very odd to me as well but the vertical stiffeners on Earhart’s plane at that location were thin. The Null Hypothesis is a good point to consider when looking at all of the odd “fingerprint” matches.

 My compliments on a very good report. I liked the exhibits and how it had a balance of simple explanations and “in the weeds” logic.
Also, the Harney model is incredible. I did not know it opened up like that. I loved how it was used in some of the illustrations

[Ric Gillespie]

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?

That's really hard to say.

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.

It's just as hard to see in real life. I can't tell if we have the edges of rivet holes at the base of the peaks or not.  A microscopic examination by someone with the necessary expertise in metallurgical failure analysis may be able to tell.
 

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?

The intact holes in the tab and the partial holes on either side are definitely 5/32"

Which row, of the staggered double row of rivets on the plane, would this row match up with?(the upper or lower row)

Hard to say for sure but I think it has to be the upper row. 
We have one other example of a tear like this and it happens to be on a Lockheed Electra.  Union Airways ZK-AFE hit Mt. Richmond in New Zealand in 1943. The airplane hit the rocky mountainside head-on at cruise speed.  TIGHAR researcher, the late Howard Alldred, visited the site in 2004 and took extensive photos of the devastated but amazingly intact wreckage.

The tear is strikingly similar to what we see on 2-2-V-1.  The torn section is on the top of the left wing.  Apparently the airplane (or the separated wing) rolled inverted and glanced off a rock causing the skin to tear along a double rivet line. In this case there was no tab because there is no gap in the rivet pitch.  If nothing else, this is an indication of the kind of force necessary to cause this kind of damage.


The attached photos are self-explanatory.

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

How did the patch come off at Niku? I think this question grows more and more important every day. Would it be easy for A.E. to "kick it off" from the inside of the plane? Would a woman be able to do so? Is there a way to find it out?
Oskar 4421A

I had raised a similar question about the feasibility of someone of Earharts stature  being able to kick out the patch or using an improvised tool to rip it out and what the motivation might have been for it. My early speculation is that she might have wanted it or needed it for something... a tool, a cooking surface, water collection, crab shield, signaling mirror etc.  As to whether or not it  is possible, I explained a scenario in which desperation and fear moved me to do the "impossible."   I was 14, 5'9' and around 125 lbs...a scrawny beanpole with a build not too far off from Earharts... and pushed 1 1/2 ton flatbed truck up our driveway away from a burning house. We actually tried to see if I could do it again later after all of the bedlam had subsided. I couldnt budge it an inch.  So yes, it is feasible to do something that might not otherwise be possible. Being lost on an island, with hope of rescue dwindling, a dead airplane, no fuel, no food, no water, possibly injured, and your last remaining resource... a gleaming hulk of metal, wood, and fabric.... is teetering on the edge of a reef getting ready to be swallowed up by the Pacific could certainly fuel enough desperation to make her (or Fred or both) attempt to tear the plane apart for anything useful.  Personally, if I found myself in the same situation, Id probably be ripping the Electra apart with my teeth!

Whether or not this is the scenario, however, remains to be proven. If it was indeed kicked/pried/torn out, Im afraid the only person who can tell us why is Amelia. 

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Whether or not this is the scenario, however, remains to be proven. If it was indeed kicked/pried/torn out, Im afraid the only person who can tell us why is Amelia.

Possible scenario?  Waves too high to leave the rear door open, but wanted to get some air circulating?

OK, not a great thought.  It would probably be a lot easier to take a hatchet to the plexiglass windows in the rear of the plane.

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

Whether or not this is the scenario, however, remains to be proven. If it was indeed kicked/pried/torn out, Im afraid the only person who can tell us why is Amelia.

Possible scenario?  Waves too high to leave the rear door open, but wanted to get some air circulating?

OK, not a great thought.  It would probably be a lot easier to take a hatchet to the plexiglass windows in the rear of the plane.

If the water is too high to open the rear cabin door wouldnt the back end of the cabin be flooded anyway? The door on the Electra doesnt look all that water-tight to me. Id be more inclined to sit in the cockpit with the hatch open. Better chance to be able to see a ship or circling airplane as well.