Print

[Ric Gillespie]

TIGHAR member Larry Inman has come up with a photo of NR16020 taken during repairs in the Lockheed shop following the Luke Field crash. (Credit:  Remember Amelia, The Larry C. Inman collection)
 I have no idea what the guys are testing but it's quite apparent that there is no glass or plexiglas in the lav window.  Why? Has the glass been removed or was the window openable by sliding the glass toward the tail. Is that the edge of of the slid-back glass we see?

Larry also found a photo of the plane on its belly at Luke Field where the lav window has the same appearance and yet in the photo of the plane being unloaded in California the glass or plexi is obviously in place.  (Credit for all three photos is:  Remember Amelia, The Larry C. Inman collection)

[Bill Mangus]

That's very interesting!  If, in fact, the lav window could be opened by sliding it to the rear, what does that say about any interior bracing, window tracks etc. that may have been there.  May have to re-think the lower line of double rivet holes in 2-2-V-1 to account for some kind of support for a sliding window. 

[Monty Fowler]

If that was a non-standard modification to Amelia's 10-E, there would have to be some kind of drawing with the specifications, materials, etc., correct?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[Jerry Germann]

Interesting;.....Am wondering though if what we see is a relection off the glass. I drew an arrow to what looks like a concave image, refecting what may be the inner convex side of the window coaming, off the glass, ( note gap between).The images seem to compliment each other in form. The green lines I drew at the tops/ bottoms of shapes, almost appear like mirror images of each other,....angles going opposite each other as a mirror reflection may do. Just my opinion at the moment....but subject to change.

[Jerry Germann]

No light/ object reflection seems apparent on the top of the window, following what seems to be the the line of light intensity( yellow). Can that be explained away, due to the lavatory window placed seemingly inset from standard location, evidenced by the window coaming design?

[Jerry Germann]

It appears the same two gentlemen who are captured in Larry's photos, are also in the one below in the attached image,...whereby, it mentions that the pair are taking X-ray's of the entire ship. The equipment they are using seems identical as well.

[Randy Conrad]

Jerry...thought your recent photos were an excellent find! Ric, after seeing these pictures I was browsing through the net and ran across something that may find our readers and our members very interesting. It may give us insight as to why a window was removed or it may not...but gives a little insight as to what might have  happened.  Also, back in the 30'a did Lockheed Martin put in escape hatches in the windows? Anyway, see the link and let me know what you think...thanks!!!

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/slideshow/Troubled-airliners-through-the-years-56904/photo-4202355.php

[Ric Gillespie]

If that was a non-standard modification to Amelia's 10-E, there would have to be some kind of drawing with the specifications, materials, etc., correct?

In theory, yes, but no drawings for the door window or lav widow seem to exist.  Let me know if you find them.

[Ric Gillespie]

No light/ object reflection seems apparent on the top of the window, following what seems to be the the line of light intensity( yellow). Can that be explained away, due to the lavatory window placed seemingly inset from standard location, evidenced by the window coaming design?

I think the lack of a reflection is strong evidence that there is no reflective material (glass or plexiglas) present.

[Ric Gillespie]

In this photo, taken in the hangar at Wheeler on March 18, we have another example of reflection visible in the standard cabin window but not in the lav window.

[Ric Gillespie]

In this very early photo of the accident scene (it's still dark out) it looks there is a light-colored structure on both the front and rear edges of the lav window.  The resolution isn't good enough to make out any detail. We can see the lavatory door through the standard window.

[Jerry Germann]

If the patch went from station 293 5/8ths to station 320, a distance of some 27-28 inches, the window size a bit smaller, would there be room to fully open a sliding window, lest it bump up against the storage wall aft of the lavatory? Unless the window were designed to pull away and out from the coaming, would scratching along the length of the plexi be a problem while using?Also a heavy circumferintial ( station 320), just aft of the window may have to be considered and left undisturbed in the design.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html

[Ric Gillespie]

If the patch went from station 293 5/8ths to station 320, a distance of some 27-28 inches, the window size a bit smaller, would there be room to fully open a sliding window, lest it bump up against the storage wall aft of the lavatory? Unless the window were designed to pull away and out from the coaming, would scratching along the length of the plexi be a problem while using?Also a heavy circumferintial ( station 320), just aft of the window may have to be considered and left undisturbed in the design.

Good points Jerry.  I don't see how a sliding window would work.  You certainly wouldn't want to cut that heavy circumferential.
So what's the deal?  Was the glass simply removable?

[Andrew M McKenna]

[/quote]

I think the lack of a reflection is strong evidence that there is no reflective material (glass or plexiglas) present.
[/quote]

Ric  Is it possible that what we are seeing here is the the forward standard window is a curved unit, and the rear window is actually a flat plate?  It would give them different reflective qualities.

Given that the rear window was built for a navigation station, would they have used a flat glass to achieve an optically better sighting window?

amck

[Jerry Germann]

If the patch went from station 293 5/8ths to station 320, a distance of some 27-28 inches, the window size a bit smaller, would there be room to fully open a sliding window, lest it bump up against the storage wall aft of the lavatory? Unless the window were designed to pull away and out from the coaming, would scratching along the length of the plexi be a problem while using?Also a heavy circumferintial ( station 320), just aft of the window may have to be considered and left undisturbed in the design.

Good points Jerry.  I don't see how a sliding window would work.  You certainly wouldn't want to cut that heavy circumferential.
So what's the deal?  Was the glass simply removable?

My best guess at the moment,is the glass is still in place, and the reason we don't see any object or light reflection near the top of the window, is because the window is inset enough so as to not capture any from the light angle. My best guess as to why we see an image similar to the coaming frame on port side of that frame ,is because it is the reflection of same,..this produced by the camera flash.