Still from ROV video

[John Balderston]

John, why would only one cylinder stick out to you without the corresponding cylinders to the right and left in a cylindrical pattern as the P&W's were.  Do you think that the whole engine came apart and just one cylinder jug shows up?  Doubtful I am sure.  Jeff N. would know better, he is an A&E guy from way back when.

Bob, I think it's pretty typical to find air-cooled aircraft engines broken into pieces at crash sites.  As one quick example I could find on the internet, here is a link to the underwater wreckage of an F4U Corsair found off the coast of California in 2010.  It's reasonable to accept that wave action pounding the Electra against the reef could approximate a crash site - force equals mass times acceleration, sea water weighs eight and a half pounds per gallon, deep water swells travel at 20-30 miles per hour; maybe three times faster in a storm.   Enough force to break off cylinders, crack open the crank case, tear the engine from wing and mounts, and leave the engine scattered in pieces on the reef face. 

On the other hand, what we observe can tell us what is possible.  :)

[Bob Lanz]

John, I think you are comparing apples to oranges there.  I don't think that proves anything, but I will defer to Jeff Nevill for his assessment of what he sees there.

[Tom Swearengen]

The best way to end the never-ending discussion of what it could be, or how this happened , would be to go get the parts. That said, if you're going , might as well make it worthwhile, because it certainly will not be easy raising the money a second time around. Jeff's thoughts on a full scale expedition has alot of merit. Go. Stay a while. Set up a base of operations. Surely the Kiribatis Govt wont mind. They have already given salvage rights to Tighar.  So---if you are going ---make it count. And if you are going, go GET these objects that several of you see, and lets analyze them.

Tom

[Tim Mellon]

First---congrats to Tim for being able to go on the expedition. 2nd-for being able to see first hand the operation in real time. That brings up and interesting question: in viewing it real time, did you see anything THEN that got your attention? I'm assuming NOT, because if there was, then a more detailed search would have been called for at that location. That was why TIGHAR went out to Niku, to gather real data.

Tom, what got my attention on the VII trip was the wing-like object I saw on the sonar scans. One of the SSI technicians was able to measure it, approximately 26-28 feet long, and the width appropriately proportional. It showed the correct number of ribs, and the correct spacing between them, as compared to the 10E drawings that we had available.

But when the ROV found the object, it was obviously no wing. Rather, it appeared to be a section of ship bulkhead or hatch cover. That was not too surprising, however, since it lay only meters away from a huge pile of Norwich City wreckage.

[Ric Gillespie]

But when the ROV found the object, it was obviously no wing. Rather, it appeared to be a section of ship bulkhead or hatch cover. That was not too surprising, however, since it lay only meters away from a huge pile of Norwich City wreckage.

FWIW, we're taking a hard look at the event to be sure the structure we inspected was the same one we saw in the side-scan imagery.  Stay tuned.

[Tim Mellon]

Ric, I think it would be extremely helpful if you could put the two sections of the Niku VI HD video into a larger context, for example a video starting at 13:35:00 and ending, say, at 13:46:00. This would place the two sections in context, as follows:

(1) 13:35:00 to 13:37:15 (2 minutes 15 seconds) of lead-in before the "Rope" section;

(2) 13:37:16 to 13:38:58 (1 minute 42 seconds) showing the "Rope" and the components John Balderston thinks are engine and landing gear parts;

(3) 13:38:59 to 13:43:10 (4 minutes 11 seconds) of the ROV moving from the "Rope" area to the "Wire" area;

(4) 13:43:11 to 13:43:44 (33 seconds) being the portion containing what appears to be wing and rudder sections with seemingly identifiable numerals and a Lockheed logo; and finally

(5) 13:43:45 to 13:46:00 (2 minutes 15 seconds) of trailing footage that might show additional components beneath the wire loop and exposed lightening holes.

Now that we know what to look for, in terms of scale and mass, the additional context might prove especially rewarding. And I firmly believe that the more eyes that view this additional footage, the more we will find.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, I think it would be extremely helpful if you could put the two sections of the Niku VI HD video into a larger context, for example a video starting at 13:35:00 and ending, say, at 13:46:00. This would place the two sections in context, as follows:

(1) 13:35:00 to 13:37:15 (2 minutes 15 seconds) of lead-in before the "Rope" section;

(2) 13:37:16 to 13:38:58 (1 minute 42 seconds) showing the "Rope" and the components John Balderston thinks are engine and landing gear parts;

(3) 13:38:59 to 13:43:10 (4 minutes 11 seconds) of the ROV moving from the "Rope" area to the "Wire" area;

(4) 13:43:11 to 13:43:44 (33 seconds) being the portion containing what appears to be wing and rudder sections with seemingly identifiable numerals and a Lockheed logo; and finally

(5) 13:43:45 to 13:46:00 (2 minutes 15 seconds) of trailing footage that might show additional components beneath the wire loop and exposed lightening holes.

Now that we know what to look for, in terms of scale and mass, the additional context might prove especially rewarding. And I firmly believe that the more eyes that view this additional footage, the more we will find.

[Michael Elliot]

A tangent. On p. 3 of this thread are a link to MM's Auckland NZ museum pictures, and below it is a pic. of EA and a mechanic under the nacelle of N16020. Each shows a landing gear. It seems that they are not the same. Perhaps someone caught it, but I've not found it. So, I have a question:
Is the Auckland picture of S/N 1128 or 1095?
Both of these aircraft have carried the reg. no. ZK-AFD, so that is not a useful ID.
Thanks.

[Ric Gillespie]

Each shows a landing gear. It seems that they are not the same.

Sharp eyes.  They are not the same.  Lockheed changed the retraction system on the Model 10 starting with c/n 1056.  They got rid of that heavy worm gear and went to a much more efficient articulated system that had been developed for the Model 12 Electra Junior.  NR16020 was the last Electra built with the old system.  There will be a full explanation with photos in the Bevington Photo research paper.

[Bob Lanz]

Each shows a landing gear. It seems that they are not the same.

Sharp eyes.  They are not the same.  Lockheed changed the retraction system on the Model 10 starting with c/n 1056.  They got rid of that heavy worm gear and went to a much more efficient articulated system that had been developed for the Model 12 Electra Junior.  NR16020 was the last Electra built with the old system.  There will be a full explanation with photos in the Bevington Photo research paper.

This looks to me like Amelia looking at her articulated system and not the old system in Lea and what is left of the gear after the crash on Luke.  I don't believe that there was a worm and ring gear on NR16020. 

Thanks again to C.W. (Woody) Herndon for these pics.

[Jeff Palshook]

Bob,

In your Reply #1671 above, I suspect the caption for the 1st photo (Earhart & mechanic posing next to landing gear) is incorrect.  I doubt this photo was taken in Lae.  The leather jacket Earhart is wearing in the photo is out of place for Lae.  That leather jacket shows up in numerous photos of Earhart with pretty reliable dates of February to March 1937, during the run up to the 1st world flight attempt.  I can't recall seeing any photos of Earhart taken during the 2nd world flight attempt in which she is wearing that leather jacket.  Wearing a leather jacket (which presumably was lined for warmth) also seems out of place for tropical, hot Lae.

None of this affects your conclusion about the design of the landing gear, of course.

Also, could you point the specifics in the various photos you have referenced which support your hypothesis that the landing gear on Earhart's Electra did not have have the worm gear design?  I think I see it, but I don't know much about the details of landing gear.  I'd like to hear your explanation of the details.  The photo of the wrecked landing gear at Luke Field obviously doesn't show any sign of the worm gear.  Are there other specific details you can point to in these photos which cast doubt on the conclusion that Earhart's Electra at the time of the two world flight attempts had the worm gear design?

Thanks,

Jeff P.

[richie conroy]

Hi All

These images are from the new full length wire & rope video.

The object with white line pointing to it, Resembles a tail wheel to my untrained eye.

Would like other peoples input please

Thanks Richie   

[Ric Gillespie]

Thanks again to C.W. (Woody) Herndon for these pics.

That's a great photo of the separated right main at Luke Field. I'd love to know where Woody found it.  (The worm gear is there, behind the strut.)
The way the gear assembly came apart in the Luke Field accident is key to understanding the Bevington Photo.

[Tim Mellon]

Richie, I concur.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

The real time unedited version of the full 2010 ROV footage if nothing else confirms that the locations of 'objects' identified are consistent with the remains of an aircraft in a nose down position hung up on the reef. Just an observation and, one hell of a coincidence  ;)