Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Look....it is abundantly clear that some Forum members will not accept anybody's expert opinion. They want to put their own finger in the wounds.  If we get a hi-res copy of the Darwin Hangar photo and no rivets are visible to we lowly laypersons AND if Jeff Glickman agrees that there are no rivet lines there THEN we will agree that 2-2-V-1 has been disqualified.  If Glickman sees rivet lines we will spend money on an independent expert if we can raise the money (and it will cost more than a couple hundred bucks).  If the expert agrees with Glickman some Forum members will still not be satisfied.  So be it.

I say again, as I've said all along, I have no problem with 2-2-V-1 being disqualified if it can be legitimately disqualified.

[Mark Appel]

I'll be quietly disappointed, but if 2-2-V-1 is disqualified it only proves the legitimacy of TIGHAR's processes. And, the bonus is that it would create yet another mystery:)

[Ric Gillespie]

I'll be quietly disappointed, but if 2-2-V-1 is disqualified it only proves the legitimacy of TIGHAR's processes. And, the bonus is that it would create yet another mystery:)

Think of it this way. We will never be sure that 2-2-V-1 is from NR16020 unless we find the rest of NR16020 intact and can fit it back in place like a jigsaw puzzle piece - not likely to happen.  We might, however, find something that would let us be sure it is NOT from NR16020 in which case we could stop worrying about the damn thing - except, as you say, it would create another mystery.

[Greg Daspit]

Regarding the Darwin images:
 I don’t see rivet rows in the middle of the patch either, but I also do not see rivets at the lower horizontal stringer that was cut out at the window, but should still exist forward and aft of the window. I see a suggestion of  rivets at what remains of the  upper stringer that was cut, but consider it has a double rivet row, and has a skin edge, so may be easier to see than the lower single rivet row, which has no skin edge. The middle rows in the artifact are single rows and obviously there are no skin edges in the middle of the artifact. Horizontal single rivet rows may just be harder to see at that angle and along that curvature of the fuselage.

In the Darwin Hanger picture, the patch still looks a little brighter (less oxidized), so there may be two different levels of contrast when trying to see rivets in the patch as compared to the rest of the plane.

The Darwin hanger picture appears to show the patch extending back to the rivets at station 320. (There appears to me to be a hint of a rivet row below what looks like the lower left corner of the patch.)

These are admittedly all amateur observations. I hope Bob can make a better image available to both amateur and expert.

[Diego Vásquez]

Ric –  Some of the photos that appear in “The Window, the Patch, & the Artifact” are only about 75 KB file size and are a bit blurry under magnification.  Could you please post the largest file size possible for photos of “23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior.”   Thank you.
 

.... If Lanz has a high-resolution photo of the Darwin Hangar Photo he should make it available to anyone he wants to convince .…
We’re doing all we can to find out as much as possible about the artifact and the patch.  If 2-2-V-1 can be disqualified that’s okay but we’re not going to take Bob Lanz’s word for it.  I invite him to share his photo.  He says it's a 214 MB file.  That's easily transmittable via Dropbox or several other systems.

Ric – I fear that perhaps my request above was inadvertently overlooked, coming as it did just before a rapid fire string of new posts.  For all of the reasons that you cite why Bob should share his hi res photo, I am hoping that you will post your higher resolution (larger file size) photos of "23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior."  I would think that something about a 4 MB size or so (each) could just be posted here on the forum and would probably suffice.  Thank you.

Diego

[Craig Romig]

Please post a link to the darwin photo that is deing discussed. Any size.

[Patrick Dickson]

I have a question regarding the fabrication of the patch and to some folks suggesting that there are no rivets across it.....is it even likely that a aircraft technician would fab this patch without additional stiffeners installed ??

It just doesn't seem logical to have that much un-supported skin on the side of the plane.
 
I know it is possible that it was fabbed that way, but whoever ordered the patch installed and whoever fabbed it, approved it, etc...had to know the importance of it staying in place and being structurally sound was quite important to the continuation and completion of the ATW flight.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Please post a link to the darwin photo that is deing discussed. Any size.

• Here is how to search TIGHAR's website for your self.
• Here is how to provide a link to a web resource (page, video, image, e-mail address, etc.).
• Here is the link you asked for.

[JNev]

Look....it is abundantly clear that some Forum members will not accept anybody's expert opinion. They want to put their own finger in the wounds.  If we get a hi-res copy of the Darwin Hangar photo and no rivets are visible to we lowly laypersons AND if Jeff Glickman agrees that there are no rivet lines there THEN we will agree that 2-2-V-1 has been disqualified.  If Glickman sees rivet lines we will spend money on an independent expert if we can raise the money (and it will cost more than a couple hundred bucks).  If the expert agrees with Glickman some Forum members will still not be satisfied.  So be it.

I say again, as I've said all along, I have no problem with 2-2-V-1 being disqualified if it can be legitimately disqualified.

Who cares about those who refuse to accept abundant proof (either way)?  Some never get it - agreed, but why play games to get them aboard.

I don't see the point of Glickman except for TIGHAR's own satisfaction.  No disrespect, but if you want 2-2-V-1 in the clear (either way), independent is the way to go.  Sorry, but you're too close to Glickman for my comfort - not that it is intentional, but it can be a bit too optimisitic at times in my view.  Just being honest, however brutal.  At the very least some large assertions have been made about 2-2-V-1, and that requires a large amount of proof: unfettered objectivity is required in my view, for what it is worth.

I am well aware that this will cost more than a couple of hundred bucks - don't insult me.  That was 'seed', which frankly I could do without spending at the moment - but will if this happens.  You have a lot of stir here over this thing - if people want real truth, they need to pony up too (as Monty has pointed out time and again about what we do).  Bob would be crazy in my opinion to just turn this thing over to you and Jeff Glickman for the reasons I cite above - I surely wouldn't do it.  Again, that's not to attack you, it's just to put it into the most objective perspective possible - to me that would have to be the standard.

I am not happy about the possible disqualification (or my existing doubts) - this was a very exciting artifact.  But like you, truth counts the most and the 'process' here is either valid or not.  I pray it will be demonstrated fully that the first case stands - valid, above all else (agreeing with Mark Appel in this).

Respectfully -

[JNev]

I'll be quietly disappointed, but if 2-2-V-1 is disqualified it only proves the legitimacy of TIGHAR's processes. And, the bonus is that it would create yet another mystery:)

Think of it this way. We will never be sure that 2-2-V-1 is from NR16020 unless we find the rest of NR16020 intact and can fit it back in place like a jigsaw puzzle piece - not likely to happen.  We might, however, find something that would let us be sure it is NOT from NR16020 in which case we could stop worrying about the damn thing - except, as you say, it would create another mystery.

Whoa...

What are we going out to Niku for if not to find the carcass of NR16020???  If it's there, there should be a fair shot at finding enough of it to validate this 'fit' or not.

I DO agree that finding the wreck is a longshot.

As to finding out if it's not of NR16020 by other means, not crazy about that - but let chips fall where they may: it's our 'process' as we've said.  I don't care about the remaining 'mystery' if it is proven to be not of NR16020 anymore than I care about what B-24 the bookcase came from, nor should anyone else, rationally.  We're not 'random junk' conservators, we're supposed to be 'historic aircraft' finders and conservators, I think.

Respectfully,

[JNev]

I have a question regarding the fabrication of the patch and to some folks suggesting that there are no rivets across it.....is it even likely that a aircraft technician would fab this patch without additional stiffeners installed ??

It just doesn't seem logical to have that much un-supported skin on the side of the plane.
 
I know it is possible that it was fabbed that way, but whoever ordered the patch installed and whoever fabbed it, approved it, etc...had to know the importance of it staying in place and being structurally sound was quite important to the continuation and completion of the ATW flight.

My thought is we have already beat all this to death in this string - and I have stuck my own neck out with conjecture about it.  I "wouldn't" put that cover on without some bracing, but I wasn't there. 

It is entirely possible that it was installed that way (without intermediate bracing) in that it could have been, in my opinion, simply regarded as a weather cover for the opening, a means of simply closing off the window. 

Despite all the conjecture about structural deficiencies due to this 'large window', I don't buy that: the window lies in a fairly neutral plane along the side of the fuselage - the major bending forces are absorbed by compression in the upper skins and tension in the lower in this construction.  We see normal windows with no extraordinary bracing around them along the sides of other L10s.  In Earharts case, one additional skin lap and its accompanying stiffener were interrupted in addition to the mid-window stiffener that is normally interrupted for the other windows, that is all.  It may be considered that the window coaming itself could well offer enough material and stiffening effect to offset that fairly minor loss.  To refer to that cut-out as 'taking out a major stringer' is wrong, in my view.

So you have my further conjecture on the thing, for what it is worth.

End of my conjecture on 2-2-V-1 now, because -

Now we have the 'better picture' we've always said we needed. 

Bob Lanz is a very smart guy with a lot of technical and even medical experience (was a Vietnam war trained combat 'Devil Doc' in USMC), knows how to research and happens to be outstanding with graphics work as well, IMO.  He was in that business for years and has outstanding software and equipment, apparently.  Elgen Long apparently held the golden photo - I guess that was how he got the picture into his book (but obviously not as good a quality - the 'WIX' posted picture is outstanding itself). 

Bob has actually done us a favor, however distasteful the outcome might be.  He probably hates me for butting into this in this forum as it is... but why not reach out to him and cut to the chase?  We can't demand it of him - he can do as he pleases with it.  Maybe he'd consider the third party, maybe not - he's in the driver's seat on this version of the photo, like it or not.  I just think we ought to offer it.  Personally, from the 'middle', I can't see less than a third party (disinterested) effort. 

I hate to admit it, but I'm personally afraid Bob's right, he's no fool about studying this kind of material - and as I look I don't see bracing fasteners.  Nor it happens does my personal expert, but that's my business and holds no sway here, I understand.

[Patrick Dickson]

good points Jeff, I appreciate the response.
 
Basically, the patch was just doing (structurally speaking) the same thing that the window did....just riding around.
No real need to brace it then (at least for now).
 
Hopefully the ramp pic will reveal the answer.
 
Pat

[Ric Gillespie]

For all of the reasons that you cite why Bob should share his hi res photo, I am hoping that you will post your higher resolution (larger file size) photos of "23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior."  I would think that something about a 4 MB size or so (each) could just be posted here on the forum and would probably suffice.  Thank you.

For all of the reasons that you cite why Bob should share his hi res photo, I am hoping that you will post your higher resolution (larger file size) photos of "23_artifactinteriorwall” and “25_artifactexterior."  I would think that something about a 4 MB size or so (each) could just be posted here on the forum and would probably suffice.  Thank you.

I agree, but Forum software won't allow a 4 MB file.  "“25_artifactexterior."” is attached as a 3.3 MB file.

[Ric Gillespie]

"23 artifactinteriorwall" attached as a 2.6 MB file

I hope you find these adequate for your purposes.

[Tim Collins]

I should think that if the carcass of NR16020 is found then 2-2-V-1 would be all but irrelevant. Afterall, IT wasn't what took TIGHAR to Niku in the first place.


I know this may be a stupid question, but what are the chances of the patch having been installed and used (flown with) rivet holes and all, without the stiffeners? What would the effect be of flying with a panel that had un-filled rivet holes?