Print

[Ric Gillespie]

I believe two rectangular pieces were cut out for metallurgical testing.  Must have been excruciating for Ric to consent to that ... but a necessary "evil" in the forensic archaeology process.

That's right.  The NTSB lab cut off part of the "tab."  ALCOA cut out three big "coupons."  The lab that tested for the presence of paint cut out another piece. And, yes, it was excruciating. 

[JNev]

Finally got to view the video - excellent, very candid presentation - felt like it 'put me there', and how I wish I could have been.

I liked the 'null hypothesis' statement.  My take away from that was 'consider the "could be anything" case for this random piece of metal' - which refined a number of thoughts for me as i followed this graphic presentation:

- As random 'junk' goes, 2-2-V-1 just happens to provide a remarkably good 'envelope' fit to a certain piece of field work that is known to have been done on NR16020, considering of course that the original edges are gone

- Further to that, there is logically some risk that it might have actually been larger than 'the patch', but there are also signs that it is sized 'right': the cleaved edges (along aft, upper and upper-forward margins) suggest failures along or near the borders of sister structure

- The stiffener lines do not match original structure, but do remain logical to what a mechanic might do given a short amount of time and sparse resources to cover a hole of that size: rigidity and shape might trump simplicity and one could have gotten creative in the practical solution - I can't speak for Bo McNeeley, but can visualize the solution I see in this piece of work quite well, especially given what I believe are corresponding rivet lines in a couple of Miami photos

- The placement of the upper row and 'the tab' raise wild cards: if 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra then these are deviations from what I would expect, but they are far from 'disqualifying' as I see them; in fact at least one Miami photo suggests an addition of an extra member just below the upper margin of the window, for one

- Speaking of the tab, the 'double row' appears to be a good fit in terms of rivet pitch to the stock Electra - better than I had come to think; that's another positive

- As to the 'tab' and variances, it will be interesting to see what expert analysis of failure mode can reveal, but the fact that it stands as anomalous suggests an interruption of the normal pitch (rivet spacing) at that place for some reason; perhaps the pictures, or others if discovered, can yet answer this for us

But in sum for the moment, consider the null -

- The artifact seems to be field work, not factory (stiffener convergence/divergence, poorly bucked surviving rivet)

- It is large for the typical 'patch' - larger than any of the many examples I got to see at Dayton, for instance, and oddly so if that's what it is because 'damage' requiring a patch of that size would more likely necessitate a skin replacement; 2-2-V-1 is almost certainly an improvised cover, in my view, for a hole that just happens to be about the same size as that of the Earhart window

- A lot of islanders were 'moving stuff around' - but where did they happen to find this piece of metal that just happens to have these particular fingerprints?

2-2-V-1 remains a large candidate for Earhart's window as I see it; she remains rich with secrets to be coaxed out.  I hope the artifact reveals more and I remain excited about where that can lead us.  In fact it makes me more impatient to go scour that island further.  It is not hard for me to see how one can get the Gardner Island fever in the search for Earhart.

Great job, Ric, Aris and Jeff G.

-

[Gus Rubio]

What a great video on the front page; as Jeff said, it's like being there. 

Will TIGHAR be able to re-visit the Wichita Electra, should the need arise?  Along those lines, would there have been anything to be gained by pressing the artifact snugly against the outside of the fuselage?  A sheet of thick clear plastic would prevent damaging that beautiful bird, I'm sure.  Just a thought.

Lastly, is there a way to tell if the artifact rivet holes were punched or drilled?  I'm sure there would be a detectable difference  for freshly-made holes, but on the artifact?  That determination may not mean anything, though, since a field repair would use whatever method at hand was faster or easier.  Another thought.

[Ted G Campbell]

All,

I keep coming back to that one offset rivet on the “tab” that breaks the general rivet pitch pattern along the bottom of 2-2-V-1.

When looking at the “Wichita” pictures you can see where it would be necessary to cut through the vertical rib to fit the window.  The upper rib segment is quite substantial compared to what was remaining at the bottom of the window opening.

Could it be that there was a gusset installed on/around the lower vertical rib to strengthen the rib and help hold it in position?  This factory installation – of a gusset - “may” have called for an interruption in the rivet pitch in order to accommodate the window modification.

We really need to focus on that lower series of rivets, looking for such an interruption in rivet pitch.  Let’s look at all the pictures we have of the window installed after leaving the factory.

Ted Campbell

[Doug Ledlie]

As I think Ted suggests, to understand a patch it is necessary to try to fully understand the thing that is being patched...

Is there any reason to think the interior aspect of the starboard rear window installation was executed in any significantly different way than the other smaller window...other than the height difference of course.  My strictly amateur guess of how it might have looked is photo shopped in the attached.  (Top section of relocated stringer is really the only difference)

[James G. Stoveken]

Is there any reason to think the interior aspect of the starboard rear window installation was executed in any significantly different way than the other smaller window.

I believe there is Doug.  The larger window appears to be recessed a little bit thus requiring the "frame" which itself seems to me to be poorly crafted.  The smaller factory window looks almost flush with the skin and there is no frame.  It looks like a much neater installation.  I've been looking at the Wichita video to try to determine why the "aftermarket" guys couldn't have used the same method as the factory did.  The only idea I've come up with is that maybe they butchered the hole when they cut it and that necessitated a change in plan, thus the recess and frame.  Jeff Neville, your experience might shed a little light here.

[Doug Ledlie]

I wonder if the apparent external difference in the rear window external "trim", if thats a good way to word it, could be connected to the modification mentioned in this excerpt from Elgin Long's book.

[Greg Daspit]

This from skeptic Mark Pilkington, who posted to the Nat Geo article ... this seems to be the main line of attack from the comment threads in all the recent web articles about 2-2-V-1:

"There are other photos such as the Darwin photo that provides adequate rivet line identification, but is apparently not being analysed by Tighar.

But the need to evidence stiffeners, or justify the 4 rows of 3/32" holes , or alternatively find what other aircraft it could be from, or why it is without wartime paint are all largely irrelevant given Tighars own work seems to show the Artefact is too high by @ 2"?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32359.html#msg32359

The window frame is shown to be 18" high, the inner dimensions from rivet to rivet is more like 17" top to bottom, yet the Artefact is known to be 19" high as confirmed by the NTSB report.

The lower 5/32" rivet line bears no resemblance to the staggered 5/32" rivet line seen on the New England Electra on the lower longeron, and the Darwin photo clearly shows the patch finishes flush with that longeron and row of rivets,

ie the tab on the lower edge of the artefact is not protruding lower as is presented in the Tighar bulletin, and once you lift it up, the top edge height of the patch is clearly exceeded.

Does the patch have to line up with the removed coaming edges? Or where we think they were based on previous forum postings? I think the forward edge did and possibly the aft one as well, or they were "close to" it. This is all IMHO at this point in what I understand.  I think the staggered 5/32" rows may have been on each side of one of the horizontal stringers at the top or bottom of the window(bottom one in the orientation where the tab is at the bottom). The theory being the frame was compromized in a hard landing and was reinforced at each side. A stiffener on each side of a stringer could be close to the 1 1/2" between the artifacts dbl row. That extra stiffener below or above the window is a theory for the patch possibly being bigger than the removed coaming.(and I say this with the assumption that it even was).
I was going to post a drawing questioning some of the assumptions in this theory but wanted to wait for Mr. Glickman report first since my questions may be moot after it comes out.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

analyzing hypothesi (I'm sure that's plural for Hypothesis ...

The hypothesis that "hypothesi" is plural for "hypothesis" is testable.

Merriam-Webster disagrees with your treatment of "hypothesis" as if it were from a second-declension Latin masculine noun like "amicus" (singular), "amici" (plural).  Linguists instead believe that it is based on a Greek third declension feminine noun, "thesis," whose plural is "theses."

[Ron Lyons]

analyzing hypothesi (I'm sure that's plural for Hypothesis ...

The hypothesis that "hypothesi" is plural for "hypothesis" is testable.

Merriam-Webster disagrees with your treatment of "hypothesis" as if it were from a second-declension Latin masculine noun like "amicus" (singular), "amici" (plural).  Linguists instead believe that it is based on a Greek third declension feminine noun, "thesis," whose plural is "theses."

Eh.  That does sound very rational and well-researched... but I looked up the IRS records of wiktionary.org and the chief web adminstrator isn't living in poverty so I throw out all of their conclusions.  Hypothesi it is!!!

[Ingo Prangenberg]

Good morning. It might be the wrong place to ask this, but I didn't want to start another thread just for a basic question. In which thread were the discussions on the anomaly that Randy found? I'd like to reread some of that material. Thank you.

[Doug Ledlie]

Probably doesn't matter much but I recall a discussion earlier in the thread (I can't find it at the moment) where it was suggested that 2-2-v-1 was originally a flat piece of sheet made to fit the compound curve section essentially "in place" ie start at one point and force fit from there, rivetting as you go.  At least thats my interpretation of what was posted...

Not saying thats wrong but do we know when the English Wheel came into common use in U.S. aircraft repair circles?  I see the device has been around for a while and would have been perhaps a more elegant way to craft such a patch from sheet stock.  The patch would probably be a very easy fabrication for someone with even basic English Wheel skills and not needing to fight the patch while installing would improve the odds of keeping straight rivet lines for one thing.

http://www.aeroplanefactory.us/Sheet-Metal-Forming.htm

[James G. Stoveken]

The 5/32" rivet holes in 2-2-V-1 imply a double staggered row of rivets.

Can you explain this a little better for me Ric?  I've never understood why a double staggered row is suspected.  If that were the case shouldn't there be another hole or two in the tab?

[Andrew M McKenna]

Good morning. It might be the wrong place to ask this, but I didn't want to start another thread just for a basic question. In which thread were the discussions on the anomaly that Randy found? I'd like to reread some of that material. Thank you.

Ingo - I think you are referring to the sonar anomaly that was pointed out by Richie Conroy, yes?

In that case, the thread starts here

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1140.240.html

Best

Andrew

[Tim Collins]

The 5/32" rivet holes in 2-2-V-1 imply a double staggered row of rivets.

Can you explain this a little better for me Ric?  I've never understood why a double staggered row is suspected.  If that were the case shouldn't there be another hole or two in the tab?

Are there a portions, however small, of the rivet holes along the line of tear?