Landing near the Norwich

[Ric Gillespie]

Or the alloy?  I have little knowledge relative this industry except I have anti-corrosion stuff on my boat.  And it's on Lake Ontario.

I'm wondering if a military aircraft would be manufactured with a superior alloy - stronger/heavier for pilot protection?

From the early 1930's onward, virtually all American all-metal aircraft - civilian and military - were skinned with the same alloy. Back then it was known as 24ST ALCLAD.  Today it's called 2024 ALCLAD - a sheet of alloy with excellent strength properties sandwiched between thin layers of pure aluminum for corrosion protection. It was a patented ALCOA product until the need to boost aircraft production at the outbreak of WWII prompted the government to allow other manufacturers (Kaiser, Reynolds, etc.) to produce it.  Earhart's Electra, my Dad's B-17, your A-1, and my Beech Debonair were all made of the same stuff.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Here's a good site for anyone interested in aluminium deterioration. It's a joint venture EAA, MATTER and Liverpool university, you can even take a test at the end to see how you got on.

http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=179&pageid=2144416649

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

All good points Jeff. I'm glad you mentioned the 'sand'. Are you referring to the 'sand' in the HD video?
I have been working on one or two theories regarding the 'sand' in the HD video, mainly along the lines of 'sand doesn't do that'.
;)

[Bill Roe]

Personally, at this point, I'd like to see something more like those war wrecks Ric just put up...

Me too.  Have you ever watched something, say a football game, and had a real strong desire to get back into it?  Play it again?  As soon as those airplanes were posted, I felt that I should put it on and fly it out of the water.  They look like they're ready to go.

My personal feeling is that those airplanes should have a priority  over something civilian........someone inept.

[Ric Gillespie]

My personal feeling is that those airplanes should have a priority  over something civilian........someone inept.

We're not gonna go there.

[Dan Swift]

As far as reef landing near the NC.....most logical for several reasons.  And was discussed a long time ago.  Flat, almost dry surface, wide and long enough, near a ship wreck which may offer supplies or shelter (at least a strong landmark).  But what we know about AE is also important, and yes I wasn't there or inside her head for sure, but her history shows she would not be ready to give up on completing this flight.  A airplane in one piece, found quickly, refueled, could then continue on.  Ditching is rather final.  She had a habit of not necessarily ending up where she meant to go.  I CAN imagine the excitement of seeing that reef, dry, wide and long, with both fans still spinning.  I may have been to excited to make a good landing....but I would have certainly tried to keep the hope alive.  Just my 2 cents...about what it is worth to some I am sure. 

[tom howard]

As far as reef landing near the NC.....most logical for several reasons.  And was discussed a long time ago.  Flat, almost dry surface, wide and long enough, near a ship wreck which may offer supplies or shelter (at least a strong landmark).  But what we know about AE is also important, and yes I wasn't there or inside her head for sure, but her history shows she would not be ready to give up on completing this flight.  A airplane in one piece, found quickly, refueled, could then continue on.  Ditching is rather final.  She had a habit of not necessarily ending up where she meant to go.  I CAN imagine the excitement of seeing that reef, dry, wide and long, with both fans still spinning.  I may have been to excited to make a good landing....but I would have certainly tried to keep the hope alive.  Just my 2 cents...about what it is worth to some I am sure.

I would disagree with the NC spot being the "most logical". I know Ric doesn't like speculation, but where she landed involves a deal of speculation, no way around it, we don't have pictures of her touching down. She would have no idea how flat or smooth the surface was as she was landing besides a low flyover. At the Norwich, she also would have the shortest "runway" to stop the plane, and there is obvious debris all over around the Norwich. What if she ran across the anchor chain that would not be visible while flying over?
Let's see,
Choice 1, no debris, 4 mile stretch of dry reef that looks straight,flat, dry,  dunes to the left, water to the right.
Choice two. Put it down next to a huge beached freighter with lord knows what junk is half buried in a hole, or chains waiting to flip the electra end over end, and high trees off to one side, a 5000 ton freigher off to the other, and the shortest stretch of reef on the entire atoll to land on.
I really don't think Choice two is the most obvious or logical choice for landing. She could always land on the Northern shore and walk to the wreck for supplies if she wanted. She doesn't have to land right in front of the ship. It would have been very dangerous to do so not knowing what was on the surface among all the steel debris.  She might have anyway. But it doesn't mean that is the most logical.

[Ric Gillespie]

I would disagree with the NC spot being the "most logical".

Whether it's the most logical place to land is irrelevant.  It's where all of the evidence found so far says she DID land.
How logical was it to try to fly around the world in 1937 without knowing morse code or knowing how to work your Radio Direction Finder?

[tom howard]

I would disagree with the NC spot being the "most logical".

Whether it's the most logical place to land is irrelevant.  It's where all of the evidence found so far says she DID land.
How logical was it to try to fly around the world in 1937 without knowing morse code or knowing how to work your Radio Direction Finder?

Not logical at all to do either in my opinion. But what evidence have you found that she landed near the Norwich? I know of reports of planes by people decades later, but if you discount Gilbert islanders recollections, I would give no more weight to young gardner islanders remembering a plane or hearing of the their parents speak of a plane. That is not hard evidence you can hold in your hand. Site 7 is a long way down the beach as you know well.
So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?

[Ric Gillespie]

So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?

Lots, but the best evidence is the Bevington Photo. 

[Tim Mellon]

So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?

Not to mention the pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object...

[tom howard]

So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?

Not to mention the pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object...

Haha, very good one, but I do believe you have to actually see the plane to put it in the evidence column.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Depends what you are expecting to see, or hoping to see I guess. A fairly intact aircraft or one in little bits? A fairly intact one would stick out like a sore thumb, the other version?

[Tom Swearengen]

Tim--what "pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object..."?
Did you guys raise any of these 'parts' and positively identify them as being from an Electra? If you did, THAT would be newsworthy. And if so, WHAT PARTS WERE THEY?
I'd be REALLY interested in knowing that, and I'm sure that our members would be too. Perhaps THATS the reason the KOK came home early.
Tom

[Tim Mellon]

Tim--what "pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object..."?
Did you guys raise any of these 'parts' and positively identify them as being from an Electra? If you did, THAT would be newsworthy. And if so, WHAT PARTS WERE THEY?
I'd be REALLY interested in knowing that, and I'm sure that our members would be too. Perhaps THATS the reason the KOK came home early.
Tom

Tom, viewing the full-length Niku VI HD video released just yesterday, my eyes see literally countless pieces of metal, some of them with very recognizable airplane shapes (wing with aileron, rudder, landing gear, tail wheel (courtesy Richie), painted identification number digits) and others with sheared, jagged edges. I look for straight edges, right angles, circular shapes, and non-circular holes such as a square punch-outs.

This pile of rubble exists in a fairly small area, maybe the size of a basketball court, and is distinct in character from the Norwich City wreckage to the South. Ric has identified the specific area in which the Niku VI footage was obtained. I don't think it is necessary to actually recover a physical part so long as it can be properly identified and be shown to come from the specific aircraft NR16020. That would in itself answer the key question "where did the Earhart flight terminate."

The KOK returned exactly as scheduled, without finding anything related to an Electra in real time. Subsequent video, still under review, may disclose parts from the Electra, and if so, would duplicate IMHO those found in the VI video.