Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1  (Read 15145 times)

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« on: October 13, 2014, 01:52:43 AM »

The thoughts of Dave Billings
 on 2-2-V-1.  Dave's theory is that the flight turned back, crashed on PNG and the wreckage was found during WW2 by an allied patrol.
Logged

Jeff Lange

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2014, 06:14:23 AM »

Well it certainly seems that Mr. Billings "knows" everything about a piece of aluminum he has never seen up close and in person. I guess, as he states, we must all be wrong, and so we can go back to looking for The White Bird!  :)
Jeff Lange

# 0748CR
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2014, 08:11:13 AM »

Mr. Billings is a thoughtful man, but I believe he was off the point on a few things -

- Yes, we have no bananas - 2-2-V-1 does not fit the stock portions of the Lockheed, quite true; hence, a consideration of the wild card: an impromptu patch in time at Miami - whereby all bets are off as to how to cover over that large window 'hole' (larger than any other window on the L10, and larger than the typical 'patch' one would expect to see).

- What 'makes sense' to Mr. Billings about re-establishing 'stringers' makes sense to me as well - in a normal situation where one would take pains to duplicate the mother structure

- But that is not always possible in a rushed field situation, and I believe it was a relatively rushed job; contrary to other views, in my view 2-2-V-1 definitely has the earmarks of a 'field' situation all over it, NOT factory work, and NOT the optimum pattern we'd see where original patterns were followed.

- The cover also was clearly not flush (adding to said earmarks), but 'scab patch' in nature (the shadows in the pictures make that reasonably clear). 

i think what may have been missed is a key part of the 'Miami Patch Hypothesis', at least as I have viewed it: this is the wild card - one could well start with 'cover it, stupid', and then address the stiffness issue of the resulting typanic membrane as best one could to avoid 'oil canning' in flight, hence the improvised pattern of stiffener fasteners that we see.  That would not necessarily produce a patch I'd be particularly proud of, by the way, but it might be passable for the need. 

Part of that consideration might have come from the fact that the window framing itself was capable of carrying the normal loads for the airplane, and the patch was merely a non-structural covering.  Some will disagree with that possibility, and I won't argue that a more optimum situation would be to do a thoroughly 'proper repair'; I merely conjecture that what we are seeing may not be that, but more of a weather cover installed to last for the round-the-world effort.

- Mr. Billings correctly notes that opening such a large window into the structure is not something that would have likely been done lightly; trouble is, we can't discern, so far, any related beef up of surrounding structure - but it should have been accounted for.  I believe it probably was - no one in the know would leave a structure weakened by unaccounted for material removal. 

This underscores, in my view, why a simplified patch as has been discussed may have been used: I've believed it may have been a relatively light piece of work, intended mainly to give the skin continuity and to keep out wind and elements, and then to have reasonable stiffness restored through an improvised set of stiffeners.  2-2-V-1 strongly suggests that approach, IMO, and that the original aperture may have been accounted for structurely would support that approach.  I well admit that my view is conjectural.

- The point of the Wichita exercise, also in my view (and subject to review of what Messrs. Gillespie, Scarla and Glickman have to say in their joint report, now soon to emerge) is whether the arrangement we see on 2-2-V-1 makes sense in terms of how that effort was undertaken (what I've said above: cover it stupid, then stiffen it...).  It is not to 'match' necessarily to the original airframe, but to show how it makes sense in this scenario.  I recognize that there will always be a great deal of criticism that we do not have an obvious fit to the original airframe, short of dragging the Electra onto the beach to compare it (or a finding of better 'patch' photos).

- The disqualifying double row below?  I've heard and seen a good deal of challenge about this feature - and yes, there is the odd tab that remains; yes, I agree it is trouling to some degree.  But what may be being overlooked is why the odd tab?  Should 2-2-V-1 be 'the patch', this anomaly could easily have been for some reason of variance from the original pattern at that particular station.  I don't know why, but it is not a perfect world and sometimes a need to deviate for reasons of inadvertant damage, etc. emerge.  Yes, that is conjecture - we don't have facts about that need at this time.

I note that it stands as a 'tab', and that the rest of the row is failed in a more uniform manner - which implies a regularity along the rest of the row that the tab, for whatever reason, did not conform to.  That could be as simple as localized damage that had to be worked around, etc.

Point being, that while we may not ever (short of laying hands on the grail itself) fully explain these things, detractors should realize the limits of their own countering hypotheses.  We cannot prove yet, nor can they disprove; we search on, many of them think us misguided.  That is the nature of the greater search for Earhart, somehow - bless 'em all, and bless us too.

As to the pitch of the other fasteners along this row, I also await the report to understand the full picture as the Wichita Commission was able to see things that led them to their exciting conclusion.

- No braziers on external work... David Billings corrected this point very kindly.  I also provided hin some reference material on fasteners that may help in his own research.

The entire skin of the L10 is covered in braziers, it was a common, streamlined (for air passage use) protruding head rivet of the day, and in use up into WWII, as we have learned through Mark Pearce, I believe.

No matter what TIGHAR puts up about 2-2-V-1, it will remain in the public court as to what the public eventually believes - just as is the case for Mr. Billings' own hypothesis.   I think all of us who yearn for these answers will be stuck with that reality until someone finally lays hands on the Electra one day.  More than hoping I am 'right', I simply hope it is actually found in my lifetime - and in those of the ones who yearn even more than I do to find her.

So many things seem so very possible in this Earhart community... I think the lady would be astonished at all that has gone into and been said about chasing her ghost.

I admit that I struggle with the premise that would get the Electra back to that jungle in East New Britain, but I wish David Billings well in his efforts.  I believe he is most sincere, and whatever lies there, I'm sure it is interesting.  It is also a large and strange world full of strange things... who knows?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 10:05:15 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2014, 11:03:47 AM »


- No braziers on external work?  Since when?  The entire skin of the L10 is covered in braziers
I knew they were looking for Earhart's plane, but that they seem to think it had flush external rivets can't be helping their search.
3971R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2014, 11:14:01 AM »


- No braziers on external work?  Since when?  The entire skin of the L10 is covered in braziers
I knew they were looking for Earhart's plane, but that they seem to think it had flush external rivets can't be helping their search.

Spot on, my man. :P 

Seriously, I know I'm hopelessly sarcastic in these moments, but East New Britain???  And no better grasp of elementary details about the bird than Billings has shown here???  We've all much to learn, but come now...
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2014, 03:22:10 PM »

Suffice it to say that I managed to ruffle Dave Billings feathers with my critique here.  This is known as "having got one's goat", apparently, as he was quite personal in his reply - I still believe, actually, far more personal than myself - and I won't yield to that kind of nonsense. 

That said, if I am to be a decent fellow, I should do better than to respond to personal attack and let it go.  I've even preached the same thing in this place a time or two, I'm sure. 

I chalk Mr. Billings' very 'personal' reply to me, which some of you have seen, off to a 'bad day'.  A day of which I was apparently a great part of.  He and I both should move on from that, *IMO*  ;)

I notice that Billings has, in fact, very kindly corrected his view as-stated previously on some details of his own critique, and I am glad to see a bit of what is, *IMO*, the better side of the man there.  I would prefer to reflect that same spirit myself and have struck his personal reply to me from this post.  He even bothered to cite my name there without rancor, which would have been an easy blow for a lesser fellow.

To be sure, I don't see how I could ever agree with Dave Billings hypothesis about Earhart's airplane being lost in East New Britain.  I see far too many technical challenges including winds, fuel and range and the clearly established presence of Earhart somewhere along the line of position on that morning in 1937.  But if Mr. Billings holds that vision and wishes to pursue it, *IMO* he's as welcome to it as TIGHAR and Ric Gillespie should be to pursue Niku, or others to their own dreams. 

To the extent Mr. Billings can find it in himself to be gracious in his pursuit, and in criticism, I can certainly afford the same in return.  I would suggest it is vital for those who lead these efforts to take even harsh criticism well, for it will certainly come.  That is the nature of this 'industry', more clearly so now than ever *IMO*...

As to "*IMO*" - I never said I could stop the irascibility, I know not from whence it visits; nor will I ever concede the right to express *MHO*, often and with great bloviation... but with reasonable affections for my fellow creatures where able, one hopes. ;D
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 06:20:33 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Nathan Leaf

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • #4538R
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2014, 04:09:37 PM »

So ... you struck a nerve??   :o
TIGHAR No. 4538R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2014, 04:11:01 PM »

Quote
found me fascinating enough to have followed me for years, as he says.

Mr Jeff,

you are an Earhart Star and I should imagine you are talked about by the pro and anti Niku people with awe and vitriol apiece.  IMO you are a gentleman :)

Chris, I stand humbled (as usual...)  :)
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2014, 04:13:21 PM »

So ... you struck a nerve??   :o

It is to his credit that he bothers to read his critics.  David Billings is an interesting man with some very interesting ideas.  I still don't see the navigational / operational basis for his theory as viable, but I'm not a professional navigator or over-water flier, either.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 09:39:39 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2014, 06:45:53 PM »

Regarding Mr. Billings statement "It's a very big assumption that AE and FN headed SSE for the Pheonix Group"
From the documented radio messages, AE said they were on a LOP that did extend SSE. No assumption there. Billings inserts "headed for the Phoenix group" into his assumptions of what the Niku hypothesis is.
 
Now regarding Mr. Billings hypothesis, AE did say they were on that LOP position and flying North South. Not West.
How does the LOP radio message fit at all with the Billings hypothesis that they flew West? The LOP logic is that FN thought it crossed Howland so does come into play when looking at fuel calculations to head back West. Flying west also does not fit with what AE said at the time. What AE said at the time fits with the Navy's hypothesis to search Gardner then and it fits with TIGHAR's reason to search Niku now.

Regarding Billings statements about the double rows of rivets, the tab, the orientation and alignment of the artifact. I'll just suggest it would have been better to wait for the report.
3971R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2014, 07:14:07 PM »

Regarding Mr. Billings statement "It's a very big assumption that AE and FN headed SSE for the Pheonix Group"
From the documented radio messages, AE said they were on a LOP that did extend SSE. No assumption there. Billings inserts "headed for the Phoenix group" into his assumptions of what the Niku hypothesis is.
 
Now regarding Mr. Billings hypothesis, AE did say they were on that LOP position and flying North South. Not West.
How does the LOP radio message fit at all with the Billings hypothesis that they flew West? The LOP logic is that FN thought it crossed Howland so does come into play when looking at fuel calculations to head back West. Flying west also does not fit with what AE said at the time. What AE said at the time fits with the Navy's hypothesis to search Gardner then and it fits with TIGHAR's reason to search Niku now.

Regarding Billings statements about the double rows of rivets, the tab, the orientation and alignment of the artifact. I'll just suggest it would have been better to wait for the report.

Very insightful, Greg - thanks for that.  Those are all great points.

I can see where those who believe in other hypotheses would differ, but we have the fact of at least what AE believed Fred seems to have believed about the LOP and direction(s) of flight thereon.  I had cited contacts with Itasca as evidence that the flight reached the Howland 'vicinity', but your reminder puts much more precision into that understanding.

As to the 2-2-V-1 report forthcoming, agree - best to see what it actually says that to try to pre-empt it with guess work.  This one certainly has brought on some anxious anticipation, it seems.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: David Billings musings on 2-2-V-1
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2014, 06:35:15 AM »

As to "*IMO*" - I never said I could stop the irascibility, I know not from whence it visits; nor will I ever concede the right to express *MHO*, often and with great bloviation... but with reasonable affections for my fellow creatures where able, one hopes. ;D

You were an FBI hostage negotiator in a previous life, right!

LTM, who tries to emulate the Master of Being Nice,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP