Thoughts on the Bevington Object

[Monty Fowler]

I must have missed the report that was produced nailing down the Bevington Object as the landing gear assembly. Pity, that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[Byron Ake]

I have a little trouble with the oleo strut letting go after some period of time rather than getting forcefully torn apart but there's nothing in scenario you describe that couldn't happen. 

I'll admit that the sudden appearance of the landing gear on the reef during Bevington's stay would be miraculous, but not beyond the realm of possibility. I know almost nothing about oleo struts, but, assuming the tire was still filled, the landing gear was weakened, and the plane settled in a non-upright position, there would be a constant upward force pulling on that joint. Exactly how much force, I am not sure.

[Ric Gillespie]

I must have missed the report that was produced nailing down the Bevington Object as the landing gear assembly. Pity, that.

Monty, I think I said that it not possible to "nail down" the Bevington Object as the landing gear assembly. That's why we call it the Bevington Object.  I actually much prefer "Nessie" but both Glickman and the government guys insisted that we stop calling it that.  They said, "Nessie" is a myth.  This is real."

The report you're looking for is The Object Formerly Known As Nessie

In discussing various hypotheses about how the object ended up where it was in October 1937 we make the assumption that it is what it appears to be. 

[Brian Tannahill]

There is also this video where Jeff Glickman shows how the different areas of the Bevington photo could map to the components of the Electra's landing gear. 

Jeff is appropriately cautious, saying "What I'll stress about this is that: there's an object on the reef; we can't definitely prove from this photograph what it is; however, one interpretation of it is at least consistent with four components that exist on a Lockheed Electra 10E."

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,

This latest interest in the "Bevington Object" has got me to thinking about the following questions/observations:

In Jeff Glickmans's analysis can we infer the "gear" (if that is what it is) is either the left or right gear?  For example if the worm gear was centered on the gear then we can't make a determination of either left or right.  How about the fork? How about the upper attachment points – there would certainly be a difference here.

Have we ever determined if the right engine had ground/water clearance to operate – the right engine had to run in order to provide electrical power to operate the radio – if the left wing was on the ground i.e. left gear failure upon landing/roll out?

Let's think about the possibility of upon landing the left gear hits a hole and causes the plane to abruptly swing to the left and centrifugal force would cause any one in the co pilot seat to lurch toward the window/right side of the cockpit causing potentially serious head injury to FN ( take into account Betty's" notebook, etc.)

Not having been to Niku, but looking at photos/maps of the island I would try a landing in the direction of from the channel toward Norwich City rather then in the opposite direction thus putting the left gear closer to the sea.  Thus adding to the ideas the left gear failed upon landing/or shortly there after, keeps right engine up reef/high tide, FN's head injury, the "patch" up reef allowing break out or blow out with incoming water pressure e.g. surf surge, etc.

Finally, if the aircraft was on its left wing can the main cabin door be opened? If no, how do the occupants remove survival gear etc., through the patch?

I know the above is unprovable but can we describe a similar scenario to account for the many "if this happened" hypotheses?

Ted Campbell

[Monty Fowler]

My apologies. Sometimes my old brain can't keep up with all the minutia. 

That said, it would be interesting, to me, to see The Object Formerly Known as Nessie appended with any e-mails, letters, etc., that went back and forth between TIGHAR, Glickman, and the State Department, so we have a better sense of the full range of all participant's thoughts, responses, etc.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE

[Bob Smith]

I thought somebody established at one point that if either gear was off or bent that much, the propellers would hit the ground and therefor it didn't matter which side it was. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Bob Smith]

In the report you reference above, Ric, "The Object Formerly Known as Nessie" The pictures and drawings show good views of the struts and gear. Was the gear steerable, swiveling around the verticle tube? It appears there may be a dust cap or bearing cover at the top where grease may be inserted during maintenance. Also, the tube appears to be made in at least two pieces, one fitting into the other where it came apart, and could have been locked in place with set screws or locking arrangement of some kind, which may or may not be a poor design, but it seems like a weak point in the assembly.

[Bob Smith]

Also, if the center of gravity vertical centerline went through  the cabin between the wings, the ground loop produced by skidding on the right wheel would have turned the plane to the right, unless some other force was at hand. Did she hit the left brake in order to compensate, thus creating a turning moment about the left wheel?

[Ric Gillespie]

Also, the tube appears to be made in at least two pieces, one fitting into the other where it came apart, and could have been locked in place with set screws or locking arrangement of some kind, which may or may not be a poor design, but it seems like a weak point in the assembly.

It's called an "oleo strut."  It's a standard type of shock-absorbing device used for aircraft landing gear. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleo_strut

[Bob Smith]

I know it's an Oleo Strut. The Wikipedia version in your post, Ric, is more sturdy looking, however, than Amelia's with more support to the lower half to keep it from twisting.

[Greg Daspit]

I know it's an Oleo Strut. The Wikipedia version in your post, Ric, is more sturdy looking, however, than Amelia's with more support to the lower half to keep it from twisting.

I think grooves were meant to resist twisting? See this example.

[Bob Smith]

I would much rather land or takeoff in a plane with the knuckled strut of wiki's oleo than NC14935 shown, but the picture is not of a complete strut, I realize.

[Bob Smith]

http://www.spaceshuttleguide.com/system/img117.jpg This is only one of many designs for landing gear.

[Monty Fowler]

Ignoring the previous two posts about "possibilities," when the final report about the Bevington Object is produced by Jeff Glickman, I think it would boost its credibility immeasurably if all of the background and supporting documentation were included as an appendice(s):
- E-mails between Ric and Jeff discussing the various possibilities and ways the photo could be parsed;
- E-mails between TIGHAR and the State Department about the identification;
- Any other communications with other parties regarding the photo, the analysis, etc.
- Photos of comparison objects used as part of the identification process, annotated as to how they were utilized.

I think you can see where I'm going with this. While no identification of a 70-odd year old photo can be said to be absolutely conclusive (except in rare instances), having this supporting documentation will allow disinterested third parties and Earhart mystery followers to do their own analysis and draw their own conclusions. Putting ALL of the available information out there for public review and discussion is a cornerstone of the scientific method. If someone else can't take your stuff and replicate the results, than those results will remain questionable until more information to confirm it becomes available. Picking and choosing what to present invalidates the entire process.

Or so it seems to me.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC