Print

[Eddie Rose]

I apologize in advance for the new guy question. This is all new info to me and I've been reading through as much as I can over the last couple of weeks, trying to answer my own questions and exercise some restraint. If this is covered elsewhere please let me know.

This patch, assuming it was "the" patch from the Electra, how did it get on the island? From everything I've read there was a brief window of just a few days that the plane was above water. How/why/when was this riveted patch taken off the plane and transported to land? That seems like a lot of work for someone in a survival situation.

[Ric Gillespie]

Happy to answer your question as soon as you provide your real name.  Forum rules.

[Chris Murphy]

Hello,

I have been reading through the forums for quite some time.  I do have a couple of questions and comments.  Please forgive me if these have been previously addressed.  I have attempted to use the forum's search feature; however, the great amount of information here may have caused me to miss any of this.

1.) In many of the post-patch photos of Earhart's Model 10 Electra, I have noticed an anomaly on the patch that appears as a shaded line following a left-to-right upward slope.  It is sometimes difficult to see, but it is undoubtedly present in quite a few photos taken from multiple angles.  Given the resolution and black and white nature of the images, I suppose that it would be difficult to determine whether this is a physical bend in the metal patch itself or some sort of reflection.  However, the fact that the slope appears in multiple images from multiple angles (indoor and outdoor), it causes me to conclude that this was a physical indention in the patch itself.  It is also found in an image of the patch found on the island.

Consider the following images.  The image on the left are originals and the images on the right are inverted with "curves" adjusted to pick up the slope:









Has anyone looked into the slope on the patch and what causes it? 

2.) When I was an undergraduate engineering student, I interned for NASA at NASA Langley Research Center.  While there, I was able to see some of the amazing technology used by NASA for use with the wind tunnel models at Langley.  During a visit to the "model shop" at Langley, I noticed their use of 3D printers for wind tunnel tests.  Those 3D printers were used by NASA several years before they became well-known in the outside world.  Items can be printed in different types of materials depending on the use. 

Has TIGHAR considered recreating the patch via a 3D printer?  I imagine that there could be some viable uses for the printed patch.  For one, it could prevent further damage to the patch.  A 3D printed copy can also allow a printed "patch" -- created with the exact dimensions -- to be placed next to a Model 10 Electra (which would prevent it from scratching the plane).   

*EDIT - In order to better see the upward slope on the patch, I am adding links to larger versions of each image above:

Image 1: http://i62.tinypic.com/2cr61l5.jpg
Image 2: http://i58.tinypic.com/x6nbtc.jpg
Image 3: http://i60.tinypic.com/15rnjue.jpg
Image 4: http://i62.tinypic.com/2days6c.jpg

[George Lam]

I'm curious if the installer of the original aluminum patch would have used a precise, smooth sheet or one that seems to have a possible bend.  Could it have been recent scrap...or newly manufactured by ALCOA as Ric postulated before?  Maybe the bend (if it exists at all in the photos), was stressed induced after being riveted onto the electra.

3d printing would definitely be the way to go, no question.  Or even just a simple cast for now to archive its present shape.  If found this June, how about 3d printing a few of Earhart's recovered electra and distributing it around the world for museums? Possible some day.

[Tim Collins]

What is the status of the Glickman report on the item?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

What is the status of the Glickman report on the item?

As an offhand guess, I would say that the status is "not finished." 

I'm pretty sure we will be among the first to know when there is something ready for prime time.

"Are we there yet, Daddy?" is kind of a self-answering question, for those who have eyes to see.   

[Ric Gillespie]

What is the status of the Glickman report on the item?

We still need to get a good copy of the Darwin Refueling photo at Purdue.  That means Jeff and I have to coordinate our schedules for a trip to Indiana and TIGHAR has to have the funding to pay for it.  Right now the priority has to be completing the funding for the Niku VIII expedition.

[Nathan Leaf]

I finally finished reviewing Mr. Neville's "Fit Report, 2-2-V-1" after several readings this week.

Jeff, I compliment you on what is, in my view, yeoman's work on this fascinating piece of aviation history ... I commend you on your methodology and explanatory thoroughness. 

Taking any one of the three fitment problems you address individually, one can surmise a possible explanation.  But layering all 3 fitment problems lends about as much certainty to the artifact's lack of provenance to the Miami patch as an archaeological effort can hope to obtain given the circumstances, and I concur with the opinion of your findings.

Excellent work, sir, and thank you for your efforts.

[Jeff Palshook]

Two new research bulletins related to 2-2-V-1 posted on the TIGHAR website:

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/75_Findings2-2-V-1/75_Report_of_Findings_2-2-V-1.html

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html


Both reports have been posted for a while (perhaps 2 weeks?), but I had not seen any mention of them on the forum (other than Nathan Leaf's post above) or any announcement of them on the website.

Jeff P.

[Ric Gillespie]

Yes, I wanted to get the reports up on the website and reference them in an update on 2-2-V-1 but I simply haven't had time to write the update.  I'm preparing for a major fundraising event in Washington on Thursday and that has to take priority.  Whether 2-2-V-1 stands or falls as a probable piece of NR16020 will not change the need for us to get back to the island.

[Mark Appel]

"Whether 2-2-V-1 stands or falls as a probable piece of NR16020 will not change the need for us to get back to the island..."

That, as they say, is a fact.

[JNev]

I finally finished reviewing Mr. Neville's "Fit Report, 2-2-V-1" after several readings this week.

Jeff, I compliment you on what is, in my view, yeoman's work on this fascinating piece of aviation history ... I commend you on your methodology and explanatory thoroughness. 

Taking any one of the three fitment problems you address individually, one can surmise a possible explanation.  But layering all 3 fitment problems lends about as much certainty to the artifact's lack of provenance to the Miami patch as an archaeological effort can hope to obtain given the circumstances, and I concur with the opinion of your findings.

Excellent work, sir, and thank you for your efforts.

Thank you, Nathan. 

It of course only expresses my own opinion based on the observations I've tried to share therein.  The result was not a happy one for me in terms of what I'd have preferred, but it was more important to pursue and speak to the issue as best I could once I realized the concern.

My thanks goes out to Ric and the 'Dayton Commission' for receiving that report, and to Ric and Pat for publishing the report here.  I look forward to TIGHAR's own final report as Ric has mentioned, and applaud that this and the metallurgical report were posted here for review.

I agree that what Ric has just said is very true - the status of a given artifact cannot diminish the importance of Niku as a search venue if we otherwise have confidence in the theory of Earhart's loss there. 

For me personally, the search for Earhart has become a bit like global energy policy - we need every good lead and prospect we can get if we hope to succeed.  Niku's sea mount slopes and surrounding sea floor remain far from completely scoured, IMO.  Maybe the anomaly will be the 'charm' and there won't be further need - or maybe not, but no one can know until it is examined.

[Nathan Leaf]

I agree that what Ric has just said is very true - the status of a given artifact cannot diminish the importance of Niku as a search venue if we otherwise have confidence in the theory of Earhart's loss there. 

For me personally, the search for Earhart has become a bit like global energy policy - we need every good lead and prospect we can get if we hope to succeed.  Niku's sea mount slopes and surrounding sea floor remain far from completely scoured, IMO.  Maybe the anomaly will be the 'charm' and there won't be further need - or maybe not, but no one can know until it is examined.

Well said, and I could not agree more.  Onwards and upwards...!

[Gary Vance]

I just read the laboratory analysis of the patch.  Being an optimist...... all the lab report proves, unfortunately, is that the patch isn't from the original or same run of aluminum used to build the Electra.  It in no way disproves that the patch could have been made from a later manufactured run with the different chemical makeup, right?  I can't think right off the top of my head how to begin a search for planes repaired at the same facility that the patch was installed at to maybe obtain a sample.

[Ric Gillespie]

I just read the laboratory analysis of the patch.  Being an optimist...... all the lab report proves, unfortunately, is that the patch isn't from the original or same run of aluminum used to build the Electra.  It in no way disproves that the patch could have been made from a later manufactured run with the different chemical makeup, right?

Right.