Of course it’s possible.

Affordable? That’s a completely different question.

Moggy

It looks like @50Km as the crow flies between Wellesbourne and Brunty,

(whats the long term tenure of Brunty? to be available for ground running? or is it at risk of housing redevelopment in the future too?)

I am sure it is a very big task to dismantle, relocate and then re-assemble a Vulcan and retain its live running capability?

But is this something that the Heritage Lottery could get involved in? as it would seem consolidating such ground running airframes at one location like Brunty might be the best chance for such ground runners to survive into the longer term.

I know that would be competing with the Vulcan to the Sky project, but Brunty with a Vulcan, Victor and other ground running cold war jets would seem to offer more to the public than XH558 on its lonesome?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Extremists never ‘get it’ sadly. The ‘fly them all brigade’ are no different to the ‘ground them all’ brigade. Fortunately common sense and reality more often than not win the day and we can enjoy both.

Well written Dave M2 ! The voice of common sense and a whole heap better than some of the other offerings you are having to put up with here from others!

(I think some will “never get it”)

We live in a time where its largely possible to punch out a new metal P-40 or Spitfire with little original material required to commence with, (other than an identity for registration purposes) hence there is no need to consume this time capsule into such a process.

Some of your opposing debaters have proposed building metal mosquitos in the past, so I really cant see their argument for consuming an authentic conserved ww2 survivor into a reconstructed / reproduction 21st Century flyer, when its already possible to largely reproduce a new metal P40 airframe.

I personally applaud the efforts of the RAFM to secure and ideally acquire this airframe for their collection, and hope that such an outcome may still be progressing given the claimed movement of the container?

As to the constant derision of the aircraft recovery ahead of the “recovery” of the pilots remains, it seems clear the location of the aircraft become known and visited by souvenir hunters while the location of the pilots remains is still yet to be determined, and Mark12 suggests the recovery team did a search of the crash site for the pilots remains at the time of the aircraft recovery.

The issue seems to be that the recovery was undertaken on behalf of the RAFM, and therefore the Military / UK Government should have taken more efforts to find and recover the pilot?

However the recovery was by a contractor, in a deteriorating political and military situation, and the GPS location of the crash site, and a future more stable political environment doesn’t preclude a more substantial search for the remains, where as it is clear this wreck would not have survived intact very much longer.

The issue of the UK Government searching and recovering WW2 remains is surely larger than this one missing pilot, but that sits as a Government responsibility not a RAFM responsibility, despite the public ownership status of the museum.

It “could” have been recovered by private US or UK interests – who would, I assume, wear little or no obligation to scour the desert for the pilots remains?, and suffer little backlash in this forum had they done so.

I don’t see the recovery of the aircraft or recover of the pilots remains as mutually exclusive, I assume had the remains been found in, with or near the aircraft, that they would have been recovered, and at this time no one can evidence where they are?

There have been dozens of aircraft wrecks recovered from PNG and Russia and elsewhere by private interests that have missing crew members associated with them, (and that apparently remain missing?) I haven’t seen the same arguments made against those recoveries?, that are constantly made here in relation to this P40?

Interestingly, the Halifax NA337 crashed into Lake Mjosa with 5 crew members perishing in the cold water, and one of those was never recovered.

The airframe was recovered in the 1990s and restored over 10 years in Canada to provide a rare additional survivor of this important type. Are there really any serious suggestions the wreck should not have been recovered by the National Air Force Museum of Canada until that missing crew member had been found and returned to his family?, yet that’s the argument put forward by many in relation to this P40?

Why wasn’t that recovery strongly opposed, and the recovering museum subject to ongoing criticism?

The crew members of the recently recovered Do17 seem un-identified and un-accounted for at this stage, – should the airframe been left in place until they were “found”?

I assume the various dive inspections of the wreck confirmed they weren’t still in the airframe – that’s abundantly clear with this P40 as well.

If the remains were in the airframe or located nearby, they should have been secured and recovered with, or ahead of the aircraft recovery, but that plainly wasn’t the case, and therefore the recovery of the airframe is not in my view contingent on the search and recovery of the pilots remains.

As to its fate, I do hope it is conserved “as is” and ideally returned to the UK and displayed in the RAFM.

I hope for the family that the pilots remains can be located and recovered, but at least some closure to his fate has been resolved through the discovery of his aircraft wreck.

I personally do wonder if he suffered some medical issue that caused him to fly off in the wrong direction and ignore the efforts of the accompanying aircraft to change his course?, and that if his body was removed from the aircraft some time after the crash by others (cut harnesses etc)- but those questions may never be answered?

Recovery and conservation/display of his aircraft in the RAFM would provide a very fitting memorial to his sacrifice and service to his nation.

The management and recovery of Commonwealth War dead sits with the CWGC > http://www.cwgc.org/about-us/history-of-cwgc/today,-tomorrow-and-the-future.aspx

The efforts made to search for, and recover war dead remains varies from country to country > http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-recovery-of-war-dead-across-the-world-1571022813

As to the debate as to if its permissible to “debate the rumoured departure of the container” – surely its quite valid to do so, this site debates plenty of rumours and “leaks” heard through the hangar doors, and in anycase Qattara appears to have confirmed it above.

Finally to Moggy, Bruce, Peter and the other Mods, keep up the good work and ignore the detractors unless they are volunteering to take over the roles.

regards

Mark Pilkington

“The folks at WIX received a letter from TIGHAR’s attorney threatening legal action unless they took down the TIGHAR-themed threads.”
http://warbirdinformationexchange.or…557139#p557139

The Phoenix rises from the ashes of the WIX Tighar thread smiles

Scott gave those of us debating about Tighar a fair room to move and to be fair some of the content was “playing the man rather than the ball” a bit too much, and so when legal threats starting arriving it was understandable for Scott to pull the pin.

But all is not lost, the debate and critical review of Tighars operations and activities continues at a new home where the owners are less likely to be intimidated and more resourced to respond to any such legal threats.

Hence there is no need to place WIX or KP at any risks.

For those interested in reading some of the past WIX posts there is a small selection of those recovered from the TECTIC archive smiles, while the debate continues over current Earhart project activities in light of a poorly planned and managed Niku VIII expedition.

As well as critical review of other “current” projects such as the TBD Devastator at Jaluit Lagoon, the P-38 “Maid of Harlech” in Wales and of course the oldest and most successful Tighar aircraft recovery project –“The Agaiambo E” / (The Lady in Waiting).

In fact the only aircraft recovery targeted by Tighar that has actually been recovered! Billed at the time as “the largest and most ambitious aviation archaeological operation in History”!

http://aviationmystery.com//index.php#c1

Again thanks to Scott at WIX for his past support to provide a place to openly discuss and critique the claims and activities of Tighar, The International Group for Historical Aircraft Recovery~!

Smiles

Mark Pilkington

Complaint To IRS

An anonymous source has forwarded this to me.

Complaint to IRS

Ouch. 🙁

Hate to see anyone saddled with that stuff.

To paraphrase one of my fellow countrymen “Now thats what I call a Smoking Gun”!!!!

Not a good week for Tighar – the “curse of the artefact” comes gack from 1992 to visit on their credibility and wolfcrying, – and that “pesky Benefactor” wont stop asking legal questions about where his money went!

Hmmm some serious stuff there – now I know what that you-tube of Rics sabre workout on a water melon was all about smiles.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrdioloWiu0

Certainly looks like Tighars got some trouble down in river city!

(Did Tighar fund a pool table for the Gillespies? Smiles)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VOsfJVVLZyo

Hell knows no fury like a major benefactor/sponsor scorned!

I think Tim Mellons certainly getting his moneys worth from the testimony in the original deposition, there does seem to be some very damning admissions by the founders and the board members over the governance and renumeration.

This should be quite interesting to see how it is disclosed / discussed on the Tighar forum?

Someone pass the popcorn please

Regards

Mark Pilkington

FG-1D FAS 201 Folks:

Good day!

Digging a bit deeper in the pyramids!

How FAS 201 actually looked during May ’57 after the ground loop accident. This L/side view of the R/Elevator & R/H Horizontal stab shows no damage to that particular area. This may also indicate that this was a poss ground damage done afterwards. Photo Via Brian Baker.

The R/H Horizontal stabiliser in this LHS view seems to be evidencing the same damage visible in the earlier RHS view, the R/H stabilizer tip is clearly missing from view and the R/H stabilizer shadow on the ground below it is identical to that of the earlier RHS view (pasted below) and also clearly shows the tip damage is present.

[/URL]

I would propose both views were photographed on the same day.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

If you lift the Artefact upwards to line up the lower tear of the Tab with the staggered rivet lines of the longeron, then the top of the artefact breeches their own patch outline, – their conclusions doesn’t seem to take that into account?

I think if the end of the patch doesn’t extend aft the next frame, then the width between the vertical rivet lines of the patch is at great risk of being compromised by the 23″ known width of the Artefact.

I think however that its now well established that the known 19″ height of the Artefact is greater than the height of the patch and even the height between the horizontal rivet lines of the patch.

ie “If” the Artefact is the internal remanent of the Patch after being ripped away from the mounting rivets, then it has to be smaller in height than the top and bottom rivet lines that mounted it to the window frame, regardless of any overhang on the patch skin beyond the rivet lines, and its clearly too big!

The Battle of the Patch continues – smiles

The interesting thing about the Glickman analysis of the Miami photo is that it is a very blurry image, badly affected by reflections, (the crowd standing opposite the aircraft is claimed to be the cause of the dark patch on the lower half of the patch), yet it is claimed that 4 rivet lines can be determined? – (as against them simply being further reflections?).

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=8318;image

The blurry image yields 3 faint lines on the shiny area, and a 4th hidden in the reflection of the crowd?

Interestingly, to the naked eye, the spacing between the 1st and 2nd “row?” is much closer, than that between the 2nd and 3rd “rows”?

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/21_patchlines.jpg

These “Rivet Lines” are then claimed to be “Confirmed”? and magically line up with the Artefact?

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/rivetmatch.jpg

Yet Glickman’s skills and Imaging Analysis isn’t applied to the Darwin photo that many consider to be of far better quality?

Interestingly, one of the other Tighar posters, Jeff Neville, did his own naked eye analysis of the Darwin image back in early October, and identified 2 possible rivet lines.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=8283

These do not apparently line up with those rivet lines identified by Glickman, but interestingly, appear to line up with the removed top longeron, and also the original stringer that existed between the two longerons, a logical placement of stiffeners to re-produce the original design.

Interestingly, Jeff Neville’s analysis also confirms the rivet line edges of the patch are inboard of the frame positions at 293-5/8 and 320-5/8, and others, including Gillespie, have agreed on the forum that the patch is therefore 24-3/8 wide, yet the Artefact is not intact from edge to edge and it is 24-3/8 wide how can the Artefact be the same width as the patch if the rivet lines on either side of the Artefact, along with the edge itself, are missing?

Gillespie undertook some further measure and tape work to confirm the artefact dimensions.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32371.html#msg32371

He indicates the Artefact is wider than previously reported by the NTSB report, he shows it to be 24-3/8″, up from 23″.

He also confirms the height is 18-5/8″ to the bottom of the tab, 18-3/16″ to the top of the “second” row of 5/32″ rivets, and 17″ to the top of the “first” row of 5/32″ rivets.

If this really does evidence a double row of 5/32″ rivet holes, they are therefore 1-3/16″ apart, which is nothing like the lower window frame/original longeron staggered row of rivets, which are perhaps 1/4″ apart at most?

That still doesn’t resolve how a @19″ high Artefact, apparently missing its top rivet line, can equate to a Patch that is apparently 18″ high edge to edge and possibly 17″ from rivet line to rivet line?

Nor does it explain the 5/32″ rivet line at the bottom edge of the Artefact with its apparent 1-1/2″ spacing to the second row, as compared to the patch and the Lockheed spacing of the staggered double row of 5/32″ rivets on the lower longeron and window coming?

The Artefact fails to match the patch in a number of areas.
1. Height
2. Width
3. Rivet line row spacing implied by Glickman from the Miami photo
4. Rivet line row spacing implied by Neville from the Darwin photo
5..The Tab and the 1-1/2″ spacing of the 5/32″ rivet lines to the longeron

About the only thing in common so far is that they are both aluminium, although the “Alclad” stencil remains to be resolved in terms of the Artefact’s date of manufacture.

Howeve some interesting graphical and measurement work recently has been done by Greg Daspit on the Tighar Forum.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg34984.html#msg34984

This sketch shows how I think 2-2-V-1 fits in the horizontal direction.
I used the most forward row of the double rows at the bulkhead to set sta. 293 5/8 and the single row aft row of rivets to set sta. 320. I set these 26 3/8 apart. The sticky measure tape seen on the Wichita Electra looks close to this dimension.

In the Miami Herald photo, the vertical rivets were previously estimated to have 1” pitch. This photo was scaled so some of the vertical rivets at the bottom were as close to 1” o.c. as possible. Using this photo, I estimated the horizontal rivets to be about 1 ¼” on center. The horizontal rivets were drawn exactly 1 ¼” on center. I estimated their starting location based on the rivets in the window coaming. See the reference rivet and dimensions I estimated on the sketch.

The location of the added vertical frame was estimated from the Miami Herald photo as well. I estimated the gap from sta 293 5/8 at an area close to where I was estimating the other dimensions (at the bottom) I kept the added window frame parallel to sta 293 5/8, even though it appears to get closer at the top which would mean even more room for a fit. Also if they added another stiffener forward(in between the bulkhead and window frame), and riveted to it, there would be even more room.

The outline of the artifact was a tracing of a photo of the artifact I did several months ago. Since it is based on a photo, it is not to scale. For this study, I rescaled the outer edges of the tracing so the width was 24 3/8”wide, which was a previous width estimate for the artifact. I could have just used a 24 3/8” box and accomplished the same thing but what was interesting to me was how close the rivet pattern on the artifact tracing fit the rivet pattern I drew for the coaming, which was drawn before I inserted the tracing.

This is just how I see it fitting based on my understanding to date, which may be wrong. I can see it fitting with other slight variations as well.
The PDF has the better resolution of the files attached.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=8468

His focus is to undertake an horizontal study of the Artefact against the window frame position.

He acknowledges his drawing of the Artefact is not to scale but he has drawn it with the correct width (although it appears fractionally too high).

He correctly identifies the forward vertical rivet line position of the window frame referencing the Miami “selfie” photo.

However he sets the aft position of the patch on the existing frame rivet line at station 320, where-as the Darwin photo seems to evidence that the patch is vertically riveted forward of that position.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=8283

Clearly its a simple matter of then plotting the upper rivet line of the Window Frame into his drawing, along with the rear vertical line of the patch, forward of station 320 to be able to see how well the artefact compares to the internal portion of the patch, (ie internal to its perimeter of horizontal and vertical rivet lines).

IE it doesn’t Fit, – Its TOO BIG.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

(As identified from their own tape-measured photo above, the patch is considered to be 17″ from bottom rivet line to top rivet line, yet the NTSB Report into the Artefact states:”The sheet was a comparatively large piece (23 inch x 19 inch) of 0.032 inch thick aluminium alloy” http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html ie its 2″ too big – due to that tab at the bottom!)

But there does seem to be some errors in their logic for the rivet lines of the window and therefore the patch, which then “accommodates” the artefacts dimensions, however if my own “analysis” drawing lines in MS Paint accounts for the inner spacing of the window frame rivet lines being re-used for the patch, and then also allowing for the lower tag of the Artefact, you end up moving the artefact aft and up to get it into the front and lower rivet lines.

“IF” that assumption is correct, the artefact then compromises the aft and upper rivet lines of the patch?

So here is my Fools Errand! in living colour – done in MS Paint over their photos! of course the same real analysis could be done with a tape measure if you had access to the artefact and the New England Electra at the same time as Tighar did, yet didn’t apparently identify this issue? (or did they??)

Result? the Artefact compromises the rear and upper rivet line boundaries of the Patch?

(ie the 2″ at the top is caused by a 19″ high Artefact fitting against a 17″ high patch?)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Someone on WIX alerted and linked to an interesting article and then comments battle occurring on the National Geographic site over this same issue, which then provides some interesting links back into earlier Tighar forum debates, – which are quite enlightening.

The Scrap War is Spreading to Other Fronts

I see that another battle front has opened up over at National Geographic (scroll down to the “Comments” section):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141104-amelia-earhart-forensic-photo-spectral-imaging-analysis/

Thanks for that Alan, seems that there is quite a few people on there who are going on some type of “fools errand” themselves – smiles

Les Taylors
3 days ago
There are numerous reasons the Nikumaroro artifact is NOT the patch from the Electra, but here are three very simple, easy to understand reasons that Tighar has never been able to refute:
– Markings Are Wrong: The artifact contains remnants of the aluminum marking “ALCLAD” which was NOT used on aluminum in the 1930s as shown in numerous photographs and textbooks. The ALCLAD marking was not used until WWII. [Tighar can produce ZERO photos or documents showing the marking in use in the 1930s]
– Too Big: The window over which the patch was installed was 18″ tall. The artifact is 19″ tall. [Tighar continues not to release detailed dimensions of the artifact or the proposed patch.]
– No Rivets in Other Photos: A much clearer photo of the Electra taken during the round the world flight shows the patch had no rivet lines. See Perdue library collection. [Tighar does not discuss this photo and has not analyzed this photo.]

One additional fact. While continually soliciting donations online, the non-profit Tighar has spent in the last 4 years over $700,000 on officer compensation. [Source Tighar IRS 990 Forms.]

Then when he is challenged he provides this more enlightening post with source links

Les Taylors
23 hours ago
#1: Electra at Darwin [use controls at top of page to zoom in on the image]:
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/17

Note all fuselage rivet lines are visible on this photo as either light lines or dark lines. But, absolutely no rivet lines are visible on the interior of the patch — not even a single one.
How come Tighar has not analyzed this photo? How come this photo is not mentioned at all by Tighar in their reports?

#2: Tighar acknowledged the original window mount was 18″. This post uses known Electra skin diagrams to calculate the height:
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32359.html#msg32359

Mr. Gillespie agreed several messages later:
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32370.html#msg32370
To quote: “The graphic representation is excellent. Thanks Jeff. Using the same assumption that the rivet pitch on the window frame was one inch, I reached the same conclusion.”

#3: If you disagree with the aluminum markings, simple. Find a photo online, in an archive, or in a book that shows ALCLAD on a piece of aluminum anytime prior to 1940. Tighar can’t find a single one. Why not?
This post on Tighar explains why aluminum markings did not change until the government specification was issued in 1941.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg34142.html#msg34142

That’s an interesting detailed analysis by Les Taylors, but an even more interesting analysis by Jeff Carter back in July of this year on the Tighar Forum!

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32359.html#msg32359

Re: 2-2-V-1 – patch?
« Reply #220 on: July 06, 2014, 11:34:20 PM »
Jeff Carter
T2
Using the Model 10 skin diagrams (originally posted at https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30041.html#msg30041), it is fairly straightforward to calculate the width (i.e., height) of the original window frame. As shown in the attached figure, the rivet spacing must almost certainly be 1 inch, which gives a total window frame width (i.e., height) of 18 inches.

Then there is quite an interesting reply and admission by Gillespie back in July, his recent comments and current position on the quest to determine the size of the patch being a “fools errand” seems quite strange given this earlier work and admission?

Re: 2-2-V-1 – patch?
Ric Gillespie
Executive Director
Administrator
« Reply #223 on: July 07, 2014, 06:50:11 AM »
The graphic representation is excellent. Thanks Jeff. Using the same assumption that the rivet pitch on the window frame was one inch, I reached the same conclusion. Next question is nailing down the width. The distance between Stations 293 5/8 and 320 is 26 3/8″ but it seems clear from the photo that the window frame is not riveted to the circumferential bulkhead at Station 293 5/8 but rather to another, specially added, internal structure about an inch aft of that bulkhead. If we have the same situation at Station 320 the width of the window framing is about two inches less than the distance between the stations -in other words – 24 3/8.”
Were the dimensions of the patch exactly the same as the window frame? They couldn’t be less but was there some overlap? In the taxiing-out photo you can clearly see the gap between the forward edge of the patch and skin borders at Sta. 293 5/8 but there does not seem to be a similar gap between the aft edge of the patch and the skin border at Sta. 320. The patch seems to be pretty tight to the skin border.
My best guess at this time is that the patch dimensions were not less and possibly a tad more than 18″ x 25 3/8.” Of course, better information could alter that estimate.

So Tighar agree that the patch from top to bottom is @18″ and therefore the inside edges of the rivet lines must be less than that height, ie @17″, YET the Artefact is confirmed to be 19″ high!

Here is their you-tube video of taping up the New England Electra to compare it to the Artefact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFKCkN6C5JQ&feature=youtu.be&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog

Glickman tapes up the outside the aircraft, but Gillespie points out that the foreword tape isn’t taking into account the photographic evidence that the patch has its own rivet line aft of station 293-5/8″.

Yet their work never seems to take that into account?

If you move the Artefact rearwards, the line up of the tear in the Artefact with the former at 307 is no longer in alignment? – their conclusions doesn’t seem to take that into account?

If you lift the Artefact upwards to line up the lower tear of the Tab with the staggered rivet lines of the longeron, then the top of the artefact breeches their own patch outline, – their conclusions doesn’t seem to take that into account?

I think if the end of the patch doesn’t extend aft the next frame, then the width between the vertical rivet lines of the patch is at great risk of being compromised by the 23″ known width of the Artefact.

I think however that its now well established that the known 19″ height of the Artefact is greater than the height of the patch and even the height between the horizontal rivet lines of the patch.

ie “If” the Artefact is the internal remanent of the Patch after being ripped away from the mounting rivets, then it has to be smaller in height than the top and bottom rivet lines that mounted it to the window frame, regardless of any overhang on the patch skin beyond the rivet lines, and its clearly too big!

– CASE CLOSED!

Regards

Mark Pilkington