Print

[JNev]

Who is the Master Analyst whose judgment will silence all objections?  Even setting standards for the meaning of "neutral" is something about which people are likely to disagree.

I think we're coming around to the realization that absent an "any idiot photograph" the question of whether 2-2-V-1 is or is not the Miami Patch will not be settled by photographic interpretation.  Whether Elgen Long's Darwin Hangar photo is an "any idiot photo" is, of course, unknown until somebody presents it for inspection by all of us idiots. 

Long is not likely to do that.  Remember, he's the one who kept the CalTech study secret, releasing it only to investors in the for-profit deep water searches. (When it finally became public it was transparently GIGO). Colin Cobb's for-profit Stratus Project is doing the same thing.  He and Gary LaPook have figured out where the airplane is - but they ain't sayin'.

Compare and contrast with TIGHAR and our public release of exactly where we're going to search and why.

I agree with Tim Collins.  If the hi-res Darwin Hangar photo is not publicly available it effectively doesn't exist and we should move on.

Not a bad summary, Ric.  As I said above, if we have faith in the base theory of a landing at Gardner, one shard of aluminum doesn't matter.  It is a shame that a very fine photo  -  and I believe it to be the best we're likely to find - might slip away, but so be it if it is not to be.

Long, Cobb and LaPook, and Gillespie and others all have their ideas.  Each should promote and search with all the professional vigor they can muster and let the chips fall as they will.

[Ric Gillespie]

Long, Cobb and LaPook, and Gillespie and others all have their ideas.

You're making the same mistake that Smithsonian made.

[JNev]

Long, Cobb and LaPook, and Gillespie and others all have their ideas.

You're making the same mistake that Smithsonian made.

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Mark Appel]

Lots of history. Divergent opinions. Difficult conversions conducted civilly. In an open forum. Tough stuff under any circumstances.

[JNev]

Since you've implied a lukewarm endorsement on my part, I will elaborate:

I wish I had time to correct multitude of errors and misimpressions in your indictment of Glickman, but I don't and besides - it would appear defensive.

Please do so. Until you do, your statement amounts to a defensive and unsubstantiated implied indictment of my opinions.

[Greg Daspit]

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

In regards to the possibility that the added opening in the fuselage for the Lav. window is an area of weakness:
Consider the fuselage a beam that spans between the landing gear in a 3 point/ stall landing.
The most deflection in a uniformly loaded beam of consistent depth is L/2(the middle of the beam), If the beam is tapered (like a fuselage) the area of most deflection, would likely move aft where the depth of the beam is less.  We don’t know what structure or reinforcing may have been added but based on these general principles alone, it seems to me the added window was placed where a lot of deflection can be expected in a hard 3 point/ stall landing.

In regards to the added Lav window being compared to the standard window:
It is not only that an additional stringer was cut for the lav. window. Please also consider where the lav. window was located horizontally in fuselage. It is in the area where the depth if the "beam" is less than any of the other windows. As a percentage the hole in the “beam”(fuselage), the Lav window is about 31% of the depth. The nearest standard window only takes up about 20% of the depth.  Also consider where the window was placed vertically in the fuselage. It is closer to the top than the standard windows. In comparison to the standard windows this is not the same proportions and leaves less area to resist compression. This compression is in an area where a lot of deflection might be expected in a hard landing which happend shortly before the work was done.

[Tim Collins]

And the door wouldn't have posed a similar risk to begin with? Or was that compensated for in the original design?

[Greg Daspit]

And the door wouldn't have posed a similar risk to begin with? Or was that compensated for in the original design?

In my opinion yes to both parts of your question. 

[JNev]

In any case I submit that we lack adequate knowledge to criticize the window installation as inadequate.  I further submit that we lack evidence to support that the covering was needed as a reinforcement feature.

All of which means that we may lack a rational reason for supposing much about the nature of bracing, etc. except as to how we believe it reasonable to stiffen such a panel, were we to install it.  We also must realize that we were not there to supervise.  And, as inadvisable as it may be as a practice, we also have to accept that we may have a case of no such bracing having been installed in this instance.

[Greg Daspit]

In any case I submit that we lack adequate knowledge to criticize the window installation as inadequate.  I further submit that we lack evidence to support that the covering was needed as a reinforcement feature.

All of which means that we may lack a rational reason for supposing much about the nature of bracing, etc. except as to how we believe it reasonable to stiffen such a panel, were we to install it.  We also must realize that we were not there to supervise.  And, as inadvisable as it may be as a practice, we also have to accept that we may have a case of no such bracing having been installed in this instance.

I submit we lack adequate knowledge to claim the patch had no bracing. I see evidence of a rivet row in the Miami take off picture. Some see no evidence of rivets in any picture. I offered the contrast between new and existing skin as a possibility that the patch is washing out evidence of rivets. 

Since we don’t know why the patch/cover was done for sure, I think all possibilities should still be considered until we do know. It may help find a better picture or an answer either way. I think all questions are important. When  it was done, where it was done, who did it, why it was done are important because they are avenues for investigation. I think the "when" and "where" are resolved and "who" did it is limited to a strong candidate.

 My previous post referred to the possibility that the window was an area of weakness and pointed out some things you did not mention but to consider when comparing the standard window to the added window. I’m open to it being  a simple cover which I have no problem with. If the stringers are where they are in the artifact, I don’t think they fully fixed the structural  problem I think might have existed anyway. I do think the work done is related to the hard landing based on timing. It might be a gap that caused a leak and needed a special joint at the top, a cracked window that needed to be covered, or something else. Again, I’m considering all possibilities.

[Roger London]

Have we taken in the significance of the sharp, in focus, fingerprints on the Lanz Darwin Ramp.jpg? Are these on the negative (or another secret)?

[JNev]

Have we taken in the significance of the sharp, in focus, fingerprints on the Lanz Darwin Ramp.jpg? Are these on the negative (or another secret)?

My bet is that they are human, and decades old, but no - I've not seen the negative or direct evidence of what I wager on.

Seems everybody's had their thumbs on Earhart for a while sometimes...

[Jerry Germann]

And the door wouldn't have posed a similar risk to begin with? Or was that compensated for in the original design?

Tim,
            Here is a skin thickness diagram,....the skin thicknesses are sited, a bit heavier surrounding and under the cabin door. In some examples, I see a large increase in skin thickness around such openings. 

[Tim Collins]

Interesting, thank you.

[Monty Fowler]

Leon raises some very valid points about the relative value of a particular negative. TIGHAR ran into the same thing with the newly-discovered Miami photos. Turns out the negatives the University of Miami library had were the negatives of the pictures they had taken of the original contact prints. Soooo ... if you start with crap, there's no way you're going to end up with a golden nugget at the end, Jeff Glickman's amazing talents nonwithstanding.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP