I’m always interested to read Tigars latest extrapolations from nothing to something, and in this case we at least have something that seems likely to be from an aircraft.

Tigar has examined military aircraft at the NMUSAF and concluded the Artifact 2-2-V-1 is not from any of the military types known to have been lost in the area, but of course flotsam in the Pacific Ocean can travel quite a distance.

Tigar has also examined a Lockheed 10 under restoration and focused on a field patching of a custom window that the Earhart aircraft had fitted in its toilet compartment that was later covered over in Miami.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html

Overlaid against the structures added to Earhart�s aircraft to accommodate the window and later the patch, the rivet lines on the artifact match the rivet lines on the patch. The tear in the artifact at top center coincides with the heavy circumferential structure at Sta. 307.

The bottom right edge of the artifact failed from metal fatigue after cycling back and forth against a straight rigid underlying structure. If the artifact is positioned longitudinally so that the bottom right edge abuts the underlying structure evidenced in photos of the patch, the tear in the metal on the top edge of the artifact aligns with where the patch was riveted to the stub of the heavy circumferential stiffener at Sta. 307. The bottom edge of the artifact tore along a double staggered row of rivets. The matching row of rivets on the Model 10 is a double staggered row

.

Yet that claim that the tear on the bottom edge of the artefact is along a double staggered row of rivets does NOT seem evidenced from the artefact itself? there is no double staggered holes?

The rivet lines in Artifact 2-2-V-1 do not line up with the original stringer lines in that area of the fuselage and obviously may reflect the custom construction of the patch repair, but they also don’t seem to line up with the “taped” rivet lines in the Tigar “re-construction” photo above as there are implied vertical lines with holes to mount stiffeners?, that are not apparently existant on the Artifact?

I cant see ANY evidence of vertical stiffeners or related vertical rivet holes to suggest there were “3” rows of vertical stiffeners, – there isn’t even evidence of one to line up with the original vertical frame that existed in that area before the window was fitted?

The Null Hypothesis
Although many questions remain to be answered about Artifact 2-2-V-1, it is instructive to consider the alternative explanation. If the artifact is not the scab patch from NR16020, then it is a random piece of aircraft wreckage from some unknown type involved in an unknown accident that just happens to match the dozens of material and dimensional requirements of the patch. This incredibly specific, but random, piece of debris just happened to end up on Nikumaroro, the atoll where so much other evidence points to Earhart.

I agree that Artifact 2-2-V-1 is small enough to have been a scab patch over the custom window, but I cant see any evidence that the rest of its “material and dimensional requirements” meet that of the patch?

[B]

This incredibly specific, but random, piece of debris just happened to end up on Nikumaroro, the atoll where so much other evidence points to Earhart.

[B]

What other evidence?

1. Various islander interviews that seem so unreliable and inconclusive that they are hardly evidence of any note?
2. A skeleton identified as a short male via autopsy at the time, which they claim was incorrectly identified and is more likely a Caucasian woman?, and that Earhart was a Caucasian woman?
3. A womans shoe and a bottle that looks similar to a freckle cream? and that Earhart wore woman’s shoes and had freckles
4. A bone fragment that turned out to be turtle? – Earharts bones were not turtle
5. A sextant box? – Noonan was a navigator and owned a sextant
6. A cargo ship is wrecked on the beach?, which had crew fatalities (and is therefore unlikely to be the source of the skelton, the shoe, the bottle and the sextant box?)
7. A blurry photo taken by someone in a dingy shows an object sticking out of the water near the wrecked cargo ship, and therefore is most likely the undercarriage and wheel of the Lockheed, (and therefore unlikely to be something from the ship wreck, and clearly un-interesting enough not to cause the person in the dingy to row closer and investigate it at the time?)
8. A piece of aluminium sheeting washes up on the beach after a storm

Of these, the ONLY” evidence that has any credibility is the piece of aluminium is clearly from an aircraft wreck and not the wrecked cargo ship.

Conclusion
TIGHAR finds the hypothesis that Artifact 2-2-V-1 is the patch installed on NR16020 in Miami to be strongly supported. Research will continue to seek answers to remaining questions about this wonderfully complex artifact, including defining and quantifying the type and magnitude of the forces necessary to cause the damage exhibited by the artifact. Those answers may strengthen or weaken the artifact-as-patch hypothesis but they will certainly inform our search for the rest of the aircraft.

Im not sure its “strongly supported”, and certainly isnt the “Smoking Gun” its claimed to be?

But I am pleased they are putting more serious rigor into this only relevant item of evidence they seem to have ever found.

Edit: Having just read the media reports of this situation I do have concerns as to how the media is briefed and encouraged to report such things by Tigar.

Mystery of Amelia Earhart Solved? Fragment From Missing Plane Identified

Researchers at The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) revealed that a piece from Amelia Earhart’s vanished aircraft has been identified in Nikumaroro, an atoll in the southwestern Pacific republic of Kiribati. This is the first time that an artifact from the wreckage has been directly linked to Earhart’s last expedition, in which she was attempting to circumnavigate the Earth at the equator, and sheds new light on the 77-year-old aviation mystery.

The 19-inch-wide by 23-inch-long piece, found by researchers in 1991, is strongly believed to be a metal fragment installed on the window of Earhart’s Lockheed Electra aircraft during her eight-day stay in Miami, which was her fourth stop on the journey. A photograph on TIGHAR’s site from The Miami Herald, dated July 1, 1937, shows the aircraft intact with the metal patch.

Once the patch was identified in the photograph, researchers compared the patch with that of the Lockheed Electra aircraft at Wichita Air Services in Newton, Kansas, according to Discovery News. It matched the plans and the Electra’s structure. According to TIGHAR, the patch was a field modification whose “complex fingerprint of dimensions, proportions, materials and rivet patterns was as unique to Earhart’s Electra as a fingerprint is to an individual.” The sheet’s purpose was for the pilot to be able to take in “celestial observations” from thousands of feet in the sky.

You “could” blame the Media for in-accurate reporting, but the article has a link the Tigar website page I linked above, and its opening lines are:

The Window, the Patch, & the Artifact

Is TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 a piece of wreckage from Amelia Earhart’s aircraft?

Abstract

During Amelia Earhart’s stay in Miami at the beginning of her second world flight attempt, a custom-made, special window on her Lockheed Electra aircraft was removed and replaced with an aluminum patch. The patch was an expedient field modification. Its dimensions, proportions, and pattern of rivets were dictated by the hole to be covered and the structure of the aircraft. The patch was as unique to her particular aircraft as a fingerprint is to an individual. Research has now shown that a section of aircraft aluminum TIGHAR found on Nikumaroro in 1991 matches that fingerprint in many respects.

What respects?
its smaller than the apparent custom sized window, hence it “may” be from that patch?
The rivet lines, and skin thickness doesn’t line up with the original structure at all, and there are no details as to the riveting of the patch?
Its 32 thou’ alclad, with is thicker than the original structure, and there are no details of the patch to confirm its skin thickness?
Claims it lines up with a staggered double row of rivets on the bottom edge doesn’t seem evidenced by the facts?

The only “respect” in which it “matches” is that this sheet of aluminium is smaller than an aluminium patch known to have been fitted to the aircraft.

So is it just the media reading too much into it?

Here is the Tigar Media Release:

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/Oct2014pressrelease.html

Increasing confidence that a piece of aluminum aircraft debris found on a remote, uninhabited South Pacific atoll came from Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra has bolstered speculation that a sonar anomaly detected at a depth of 600 feet off the west end of the island is the lost aircraft.

In June 2015, TIGHAR will return to Nikumaroro to investigate the anomaly with Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) technology supported by Nai’a, the 120-foot Fiji-based vessel that has served five previous TIGHAR explorations. During the twenty-four day expedition, divers will search for other wreckage at shallower depths and an onshore search team will seek to identify objects detected in historical photographs that may be relics of an initial survival camp.

Having “announced” the “find” the Press Release quickly focused on the next trip!

During Amelia Earhart’s stay in Miami at the beginning of her second world flight attempt, a custom-made, special window on her Lockheed Electra aircraft was removed and replaced with an aluminum patch. The patch was an expedient field modification. Its dimensions, proportions, and pattern of rivets were dictated by the hole to be covered and the structure of the aircraft. The patch was as unique to her particular aircraft as a fingerprint is to an individual. Research has now shown that a section of aircraft aluminum TIGHAR found on Nikumaroro in 1991 matches that fingerprint in many respects. For a detailed study of this important new development see The Window, The Patch, and The Artifact, Research Bulletin #73 on the TIGHAR website.

As I said – what are the MANY respects?

The Dimensions don’t MATCH, the artefact is simply smaller that the patch was, which allows the possibility of it being from the patch?
The Proportions? ie height to length?, are meaningless, the artefact is a torn remnant, you cant determine what its original size was, from what is left?
Pattern of rivets? – I cant find anything in their 2 page research, that evidences the pattern of rivets matches original Lockheed structure or the original patch?

The new research on Artifact 2-2-V-1 may reinforce the possibility that the anomaly is the rest of the aircraft. The artifact is not, as previously suspected, a random fragment from an aircraft shredded by the surf, and its removal from the aircraft appears to have been due, at least in part, to human action. That could only happen if the patch was broken out when the aircraft was on the reef surface – but when and by whom? Somehow the patch/artifact ended up on the island, so it must have either washed or been carried ashore.

If Artifact 2-2-V-1 is from the Earhart aircraft, as it appears to be, it seems to have had a different history from the rest of the aircraft. Did the underwater search for scattered wreckage fail because the wreckage is not scattered? Is the wreck of Earhart’s aircraft far more intact than TIGHAR had assumed? Is the anomaly the aircraft? The only way to know is to go look.

I must have missed the evidence of it being removed by human intervention, I assumed it was broken away from its larger structure by wave action as the rivets corroded away?

And of course we move from a random piece of aluminium shredded by the surf, to an artefact which “appears to be from Earhart’s aircraft” and apparently torn off the aircraft by “human action”.

Clearly Noonan and Earhart broke it off the aircraft before the aircraft was washed off the reef, and then used it to cook turtle while they waited to be rescued, and of course that where all those bits of turtle bone comes from!

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Below is the picture linked above that is not showing properly, showing the location of the custom fitted window in the toilet compartment, which is then patched over in Miami.

If it is, there are more important things to consider than ‘just’ the airframe here. There could be two crew members down there as well…

I would agree, but I’m not sure the status of this or any other aircraft wrecks as formally declared “war graves” in foreign waters as this one is, or in the UK?, or indeed anywhere?, above ground, below ground or in the sea?

I can understand the declaration of ship wrecks as “war graves” to stop salvagers recovering some or all of the structure as scrap metal.

In the case of an aircraft wreck being recovered for preservation, the wishes of the immediate surviving family should be sought and considered, but there would seem to be the opportunity to recover remains and bury them, but also for the preserved outcome to be an above water memorial to those lost in the war?

The Dornier recovery still has that uncertainty surrounding its identity and therefore the fate of its crew?

Then there is Coppin’s Desert wreck P40 and the uncertainty surrounding his fate?

Or the RAAF Spitfire wreckage found in the banks of a French River, and now in the RAAF Museum collection at Point Cook.

Equally there are a number of wrecks recovered from PNG and Russia (Hurricane with pilots remains?) that raise the same issue?

Is an aircraft wreck with possible human remains to be left to the elements (above ground or below sea?) or to have the remains recovered and repatriated and then the wreckage dealt with?

With these wrecks in far off places, is there really the opportunity for close family to go and pay their respects?

I’m not in the situation of having a lost family member from wartime aircraft operations, but a person I know in that situation was very keen to locate and resolve the fate of his family member – surely the recovery and return of the remains is the preference? and if the recovery of the wreck achieves that, it would seem a worthwhile activity, let alone preservation of the wreck to further honour the memory of the fallen?

An important issue to consider, my own personal view would be to support a supervised recovery with examination and search for remains for repatriation by the appropriate authorities, such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission or JPAC in the US?

Of course this wreck seems well advanced in its deterioration and its likely not to survive a recovery attempt in anycase, and I do think the days of successful Salt Water recoveries for conservation let alone “restoration” are probably coming to a close.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I would have expected Fadden to sign off on many such documents given they were aimed at large buyers of his products, ie airframe manufacturers, Air Forces, airlines etc, I cant imagine however that they are issuing such documents in volume on a per engine basis like your consumer goods example of Microsoft Windows.

I can easily accept a 1930s Command Management structure where such documents have to be signed off by the Boss before issue, even if the contents ate authored by someone else.

Equally I can accept such documents being given a fast scribble of a signature to clear them off the desk and out the door as against a request to provide a specimen signature for reproduction in a rubber stamp perhaps resulting in a practiced and crafted one being intentionally provided.

I know if I am signing a new Passport, Licence or Credit Card that I take more time and care to sign my name than when I sign off the bill at a restaurant, I am not therefore surprised if Fadden did the same in the 1930s.

However the limitations of reproducing a flowing signature into a rubber stamp would likely have forced a more open and un-natural signature style or design in anycase for the reasons I proposed earlier.

Your search for other ink examples of his signatures should resolve the conjecture and hypothesis.

Regards
Mark Pilkington

Hopefully not too far off topic; I vaguely recall someone mention (maybe it was David Burke) a year or so ago, the existence of a C119 “center section” in one of the UK museums acquired for use in a Lanc project! anymore details?

I recall Davids post as it related to the then holdings of Lincoln and Lancaster parts by the Imperial Aviation Group / David Copley at Sandhurst who had previously had stated ambitions of restoring examples of both types (and I think had reserved a civil registration for one to be airworthy?)

Of course the holdings were well short of that outcome, the Lincoln RF342 was less cockpit, engines or undercarriage, and the Lancaster was a very derelict and damaged fuselage as a hybrid of KB994 and KB976 sections, but with no centre section or wing outers etc.

I never saw any evidence of the C-119 centre section but assume it may have been intended somehow to be used with the Lancaster fuselage?

Regards
Mark Pilkington

A$ 25.000

Just found this ad dated Sept 1, 2014
http://buyaircrafts.com/2014/09/01/1955-de-havilland-dh-114-heron-2/

They painted it new as VH-AHB Butler Air Transport “R.M.A. Warrawee” !
Never was with Butler Air Transport – was as NJI with Heron Airlines Oct 27 1991 – Nov 1995

Martin

This aircraft was acquired along with a DC-3 to be preserved and displayed in a new aviation museum in NSW dedicated to the heritage of Butler Air Transport?

http://www.butlermuseum.com.au

The apparent sale of this item from the collection is not reflected on their website nor any indication provided of any problems?

Regards

Mark Pilkington