Print

[Diego Vásquez]

Ric –

The report entitled "The Window, the Patch and the Artifact" describes how an area was taped off on the outside of the Wichita fuselage as being representative of the size of the Miami patch and its location on AE's plane.  The report describes (and shows with a photo, attached below) how 2-2-V-1 was then held up within that taped off area (or as close to it as you could get given the physical limitations of the piece) as a means of determining if 2-2-V-1 fit within that area.  I know you’re busy with the media storm now, but when you have time I would appreciate it if you could provide answers to just a few questions about this taped off area:

1)  What dimensions (height and width in inches) did you use for the taped off area?

2)  How did you determine what dimensions to use? 

3)  It looks to my eyes like the vertical piece of tape on the right side is slightly longer than the one on the left side (a hand blocks out part of the measuring tape and the rivets so it is difficult to know for sure).  Is this just an illusion (bad eyes?), an unintentional accident, or a deliberate placement for some reason (i.e. to account for slight aftwards convergent slope of the fuselage)? 

As always, thank you for whatever information you can provide. 

Diego

Edited 11/4/2014 to correct spelling.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

I had the impression that the lack of paint on the inside helps to exclude military aircraft and Lockheed as the source of the patch.

I can't point to a single post where that argument is made. 

I think we will learn more when Jeff Glickman completes his reports.

[Ric Gillespie]

Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

Show me where we claimed that it's a smoking gun.
If the artifact is the patch there should be no paint/coatings on either side.
I think you need to tap the brakes until you know what you're talking about.

[Bruce Thomas]

Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

I had the impression that the lack of paint on the inside helps to exclude military aircraft and Lockheed as the source of the patch.

I can't point to a single post where that argument is made. 

I think we will learn more when Jeff Glickman completes his reports.

Very early in this thread, back in June, Ric reported on the negative results in testing 2-2-V-1 for paint.

[Mark Appel]

News organizations like this are reporting it as verified truth that this fragment came from the Electra. 

Not only is the reporting terrible, but so was the press release from TIGHAR in the first place.  This fragment didn't hold up well in the early 1990's to scrutiny and honestly, it doesn't look too much better now.  Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

1) You and everyone on this forum should understand a fundamental truth about public relations--you can't control the press--neither the writers nor headline editors. On any given release, they will get it wrong. Every time, guaranteed. You simply live with that reality and construct the release and follow-up so that over time, the truth will out. TIGHAR was very careful to avoid making anything close to the claim 2-2-V-1 was a "smoking gun."

The inevitable conclusion is that you simply did not read the report.

2) You make some very serious, sweeping accusations but offer no specificity whatsoever. What, exactly are these "many hosts of issues?" And specifically, how do you refute or dispute the technical findings in the report? Note the word "specifically."

Nobody here is afraid of informed criticism. That's how the Scientific Method works. That is, through peer review, critique, and refinement. But your broad rhetoric contributes nothing to that process, and I suspect is really borne of some personal agenda.

[Nathan Leaf]

Among a many hosts of issues, just the missing paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the piece really damage it's claim to be the "smoking gun".

The opposite ... the lack of paint/coatings on the inside/outside of the artifact is supporting evidence of its potential authenticity, for 3 reasons:

1) NR16020 had neither zinc chromate nor paint on its interior and exterior surfaces.

2) The Occam's Razor, or KISS, explanation for the artifact's presence on Nikumaroro prioritizes the inclusion of the Navy PBYs that regularly visited the island as potential donors, but all of these donor aircraft certainly included both zinc chromate interiors and painted exteriors per standard Navy rust/corrrosion prevention and camouflage procedures.

3) Most other aircraft that crashed in the region that could be included on TIGHAR's list of potential donors almost certainly featured zinc chromate interiors, and any USAAF aircraft prior to 1944 and any USN aircraft throughout the war had painted exteriors.  There is one C-87 that crashed at Canton Island that might not have had either and could be a potential donor ... but "might be able to match" conditions on an artifact presumed to originate from Canton are clearly inferior, from my perspective, to "matching" conditions on an artifact found at Nikumaroro when assessing the potential authenticity of the artifact as a supporting piece to the Niku hypothesis.

[Hal Beck]

I have a question about the impression on 22v1 of what might be a vertical stiffener at station 207; this was discussed in 'A Smoking Gun? (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html).

What I am trying to understand is the position of this vertical piece of metal relative to the lateral 'stringers'. In a photo in 'A Smoking Gun' (see attachment), the mark left by the stiffener falls neatly between two rivet holes in the vicinity of the red arrows.  Doesn't that suggest that the 'vertical stiffener' lay between the stringer and 22v1? Would three pieces of metal be riveted together? that doesn't seem right to me, but I'm no expert on airplanes. Yet, if the stiffener lay above the stringer, it would not leave a mark on 22v1, would it, so the stiffener had to be between 22v1 and the stringer, no?...

Also, If I look at the lines of rivet holes directly above and below this row, it looks like the rivet holes in 22v1 would graze the edge of the vertical stiffener if the stiffener lay between 22v1 and the stringers, and that doesn't seem quite right, either.

So, I'm not understanding how the vertical stiffener fits into the picture that is developing here...

[Bob Japundza]

Hello,

Question from a guy who has done a lot of aircraft sheet metal work.  There is something obvious missing from the photos of the "patch" and its the stiffeners.  Typically the process of doing a quick and dirty patch in a case like this is thus: remove the plexiglass, drill and cleco the patch, fit/drill/cleco stiffeners, take everything apart, debur, clean, cleco everything back together, then rivet.  If the stiffeners were not attached to the surrounding structure, then what happened to them?  I see no evidence of fretting or corrosion damage around the rivet holes indicating that the stiffeners remained attached to the sheet for some time but then corrosion disintegrated the rivets and thus the stiffeners became separated from the patch.  Absent is any evidence of filiform corrosion around the rivet holes since the corrosion salts from disintegrating rivets would have increased the likelihood of corrosion on the patch.

Because of the missing stiffeners I think its unlikely that it was actually the patch.  However, lets say the mechanic goofed something up during the fabrication of the patch.  A duplicate can be quickly made using the original as a template.  Then the first patch with holes in it got tossed into the back of the airplane and used for some other purpose???  Since this piece could easily float away and end up on a beach the rest could be history??

Thanks,
Bob Japundza A&P IA

[Bob Japundza]

Something else to add.  Plexiglas was something new and rare in the 1930's and if the window broke, perhaps an alclad patch was fabricated to cover the window?  Sheet metal screws could have been used entirely for the patch and this is common to see happen in crude and austere conditions...for example many aircraft in Alaska and Canada have been patched together with sheet metal screws and patches to get the airplane somewhere they could be repaired.

Thanks,
Bob

[James G. Stoveken]

From the "Potential causes of damage to 2-2-V-1" thread...

The transparent material was held in place by the aluminum frame we see in the "AE & Nilla" photo.  To remove the transparent material it was probably necessary to remove the frame.

How do you know that?  Is that the case with the other windows?  Maybe the frame is just a trim piece.

It would make no sense to reinstall the frame and then put a patch on top of it.

I would agree that it would "seem" to make no sense but we weren't there, we don't know why or even how the patch was installed so we can't know what made sense to the installer.

The patch was probably riveted to the same underlying structures the frame had been riveted to, with the apparent addition of an additional stringer along the bottom edge.

I agree... with or without the frame.


and back to the "2-2-V-1" thread...

Sheet metal screws could have been used entirely for the patch

I agree... almost.  My thought is that the patch was riveted around its edges exactly as the frame had been but where the stiffeners were added sheet metal screws were used.  This would explain the tearing around the perimeter of 2-2-V-1 and also the lack of any distortion around the rivet holes.  The screws could have rusted away or, more likely I think, been removed by someone.

Not knowing the reason for installing the patch I think it's possible the plexiglas remained in place.  Brad Beeching hinted at this earlier this year but it didn't generate much response...

Do you think there is any more information to be gleaned from Artifact 2-3-V-2 and Artifact 2-2-V-1 that might tie the two together? And are there any plans to further scrutinze 2-3-V-2 in the same manner we have investigated 2-2-V-1?

Along with the plexiglas I recall several metal artifacts that could have been parts of stiffeners or stringers.  So, has anyone looked into the possibility of tying any of these items together?

Aside from pop rivets I've never riveted anything in my life.  But I have had occasion to remove a few and whether I've drilled, ground (grinded?), or filed them I've never ended up with holes as pristine as the ones remaining in 2-2-V-1 and, while I do believe the patch is from the Electra, I just have a hard time believing those holes ever held a rivet. 

[Monty Fowler]

1) NR16020 had neither zinc chromate nor paint on its interior and exterior surfaces.

Not exactly. TIGHAR has documentation that standard Lockheed practice of the day was to spray a silver/aluminum-colored paint on all interior metalwork as a corrosion inhibitor. TIGHAR has a piece from the Idaho Lockheed crash of the same time period that exhibits the silver interior paint.

At first the 2-2-V-1 committee, in Dayton, was thinking that an apparent difference in the reflectivity of the "inside" and "outside" of the Putative Patch might mean one side was painted with silver paint. Extensive and detailed testing on both sides found no traces of any paint of any kind.

Which, as you said, supports the hypothesis that 2-2-V-1 is the Miami Patch - it would not have been painted on the inside because it was not original to the aircraft, but from whatever Alclad stock the shop happened to have on hand, and it probably predates WWII and is not service-connected because it doesn't have zinc chromate paint.

More is happening as we speak. The hyperspectral imaging report is coming and I'm holding my breath.

LTM, who doesn't turn blue if he holds his breath,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Bessel P Sybesma]

If metal screws were used to hold the stringers in place, surely some remnants of thread should be visible in the holes?

[Dave Thaker]

I enjoyed reading 'A Smoking Gun' and seeing how Ric, Aris, and Jeff studied the Wichita Electra, but I am still not clear on some aspects of how 22v1 fits the jigsaw puzzle of AE's Electra. Where does the bottom of the tab fit on the Fuselage of the Electra?  It would seem to me that it would have to be below the double staggered rivets on the bottom of the frame of the navigator's window, but on the other hand, I don't see the tab in the Darwin photo, which seems to have sufficient resolution for it to be visible.  Maybe the tab is actually the only surviving bit of the bottom of the patch?--but then what did the other line of 5/8th inch rivet holes seen on 22v1 attach to?--i maybe what is marked as 'additional stringer?' in one of the 'Smoking Gun' illustrations?  Could someone clarify this point?

Also, if the borders of the patch were the frame of the navigator's window, then why in 'Smoking Gun' does the patch appear to extend to Station 320?  The Darwin photo seems to show separation between station 320 and the window frame.

[Nathan Leaf]

1) NR16020 had neither zinc chromate nor paint on its interior and exterior surfaces.

Not exactly. TIGHAR has documentation that standard Lockheed practice of the day was to spray a silver/aluminum-colored paint on all interior metalwork as a corrosion inhibitor.

Apologies, and thank you Monty for sponsoring the clarification ... I sometimes forget how important specificity is in phrase construction (you'd think a journalism major would know better!).   There was a respective intention in my word order, i.e. I meant to write "neither zinc chromate on its interior, nor paint on its exterior, surfaces."  Important, of course, in the context of potential donor aircraft, and I regret the unintended implication of my statement that the Electra's interior surfaces were not painted.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

I enjoyed reading 'A Smoking Gun' and seeing how Ric, Aris, and Jeff studied the Wichita Electra, but I am still not clear on some aspects of how 22v1 fits the jigsaw puzzle of AE's Electra. Where does the bottom of the tab fit on the Fuselage of the Electra?  It would seem to me that it would have to be below the double staggered rivets on the bottom of the frame of the navigator's window, but on the other hand, I don't see the tab in the Darwin photo, which seems to have sufficient resolution for it to be visible.  Maybe the tab is actually the only surviving bit of the bottom of the patch?--but then what did the other line of 5/8th inch rivet holes seen on 22v1 attach to?--i maybe what is marked as 'additional stringer?' in one of the 'Smoking Gun' illustrations?  Could someone clarify this point?

Also, if the borders of the patch were the frame of the navigator's window, then why in 'Smoking Gun' does the patch appear to extend to Station 320?  The Darwin photo seems to show separation between station 320 and the window frame.

It's important to see there's no bulletin 'A smoking gun'. But there's a bulletin 'A smoking gun?', and that makes a great difference. Many newspapers (here in Europe too) don't quote the "?", and that makes it difficult for TIGHAR. Newspapers are careless, we all know, and they write what they want to write, and very often that`s (sorry) bull-s.
Oskar, 4421A