A Piece of Amelia Earhart’s Aircraft?

It was way back in March of 2020 that I last posted about TIGHAR’s famous Artifact 2-2-V-1, a piece of aluminum sheet metal found on Nikumaroro in 1991 that TIGHAR has long suggested to be a piece of Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Model 10 Electra. Tom Palshaw at the New England Air Museum (NEAM) had noticed a close match between 2-2-V-1 and a section of a C-47 wing in storage at NEAM and from that observation he built a strong case that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of aluminum sheeting scavenged from wreckage of a C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island in the Phoenix Islands group during World War II.

For a long while there wasn’t anything new to say about 2-2-V-1. Tom Palshaw was satisfied that he had made his case and that it was available for public consideration, yet TIGHAR was not conceding that Tom was right about the origin of 2-2-V-1. But things began to change last summer in August of 2022, when a TIGHAR member named Jeff Glickman visited Tom at NEAM. My understanding from Tom is that Mr. Glickman brought 2-2-V-1 with him so that he could directly compare it to the NEAM C-47 wing. According to Tom, Jeff Glickman left NEAM in agreement that 2-2-V-1 was most likely a piece of the Sydney Island C-47 wreck. I didn’t post about any of this last summer because I thought that TIGHAR would soon make some sort of public statement or issue a report on the Glickman trip that would bring closure to the matter of 2-2-V-1. In the fall of 2022 TIGHAR did edge a little closer to acknowledging that 2-2-V-1 wasn’t what it the group had long suggested it to be. An October issue of the TIGHAR publication TIGHAR Tracks contained an article titled ‘An Alternative Origin?’ That mentioned Jeff Glickman’s work attempting to determine whether a window patch on Earhart’s Electra had a rivet pattern matching that of 2-2-V-1. The article stated

“Meanwhile, after applying state-of-the-art AI (Artificial Intelligence) technology to historical photos, TIGHAR forensic imaging specialist Jeff Glickman succeeded in extracting sufficient detail to see that some features present on the artifact are not present on the patch. In 2017, Tom Palshaw, a volunteer in the New England Air Museum restoration shop, noticed a similarity to the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1 to a place on the upper surface of a Douglas C-47 wing in the museum’s collection. … A C-47 is the most logical alternative source for 2-2-V-1. An aircraft of that type is known to have crashed and burned on Sydney Island in the Phoenix Group in 1943. Surviving bits of the wreckage were salvaged by the locals. After the war, a few families from Sydney relocated to Nikumaroro.

 

With evidence mounting that 2-2-V-1 was from an aircraft other than NR16020, Jeff Glickman decided to re-investigate the C-47 as a possible source. One August 18 and 19, 2022, Jeff visited the New England Air Museum and performed an intensive forensic examination of the C-47.  He is currently evaluating the data and imagery he collected.  We’ll publish his written report when it is completed."

 

This is where things continue to stand, as far as TIGHAR’s public position on the origin of 2-2-V-1, as of the writing of this post. Earlier this summer I contacted Jeff Glickman suggesting that he provide a brief summary of the findings of his NEAM trip or ask Ric Gillespie to do the same. Mr. Glickman eventually replied, noting that his work for TIGHAR was done on a voluntary basis and that the data he collected at NEAM would take years to pore through. Glickman copied Ric Gillespie on the email he sent me, and this led Ric to send me an email mentioning the October 2022 TIGHAR Tracks issue and specifically pointing out the part of the ‘An Alternative Origin?’ article that I’ve quoted above.

 

So that is as far as TIGHAR has gone, at least in public statements, in reconsidering its stance that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of Amelia Earhart’s Electra. For me, any doubt I had that TIGHAR was wrong about 2-2-V-1 was eliminated when I learned of Tom Palshaw’s research.

 

My posts on 2-2-V-1 focused on The NEAM C-47 aspect of the 2-2-V-1 story. What follows is a timeline/opion piece that Monty Fowler, a former TIGHAR member has put together that tells the saga from its earliest days, of TIGHAR’s attempts to establish 2-2-V-1 as a piece of Earhart’s Electra. Monty recently posted it on his website (https://mffowler.net/piece_of_earharts_aircraft.htm), and he asked me to post it here to make it available to readers of this blog.

  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Piece of Amelia Earhart’s Aircraft?

by Monty Fowler

former TIGHAR member no. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016

 

Introduction

This is the 30-plus-year timeline of a piece of aircraft aluminum found by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) on Nikumaroro Island in the Pacific Ocean.  TIGHAR labeled the artifact as 2-2-V-1, and has long stated that 2-2-V-1 is from Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra aircraft when she allegedly crash-landed on that island.

2-2-V-1 became a key component of TIGHAR’s “Nikumaroro Hypothesis” and has been discussed, mentioned or written about hundreds of times on the group’s website, internet discussion forums, social media accounts and newsletters over the ensuing three decades

All TIGHAR research bulletins, articles, forum posts and reports cited are authored by Executive Director Ric Gillespie unless otherwise noted. Yellow highlights denote missed opportunities by TIGHAR to resolve the artifact’s identification (as determined by Fowler).

 

Timeline

July 2, 1937 – Lockheed Electra 10-E aircraft with pilot Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan aboard vanishes somewhere in the central Pacific Ocean during attempted around-the-world flight.

    Source: https://ameliaearhart.com/biography/

Dec. 17, 1943 –US Army Air Force C-47A-60DL, serial number 43-30739, crashes on Sydney Island, Pacific Ocean, killing all aboard the twin-engine transport aircraft. Bodies recovered by US Army Air Force, wreckage left on island. This is the only aircraft crash on record at what is now known as Manra Island. Nikumaroro Island is 225 miles west of Sydney/Manra Island.

    Sources: E-mail communications with Fowler from Craig Fuller, director of Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research.

Circa 1950 – Some residents of Sydney Island are moved to Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro), likely taking pieces scavenged from the C-47A crash with them to use for handicrafts, utensils, tools, etc.  

    Source: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart//Archives/Forum/Highlights1_20/highlights2.html, subject: The Sydney Crash Found

Oct. 18, 1991 – The piece of aircraft aluminum that becomes known as Artifact 2-2-V-1 is found during TIGHAR’s Niku II expedition on now-uninhabited Nikumaroro Island.

     Source: https://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf

March 5, 1992 – TIGHAR Research Document No. 32, summary of characteristics of 2-2-V-1 by the National Transportation Safety Board, documents the aluminum sheet’s thickness (0.032 inches), rivet hole patterns, surviving rivets, and a piece of wire tangled in one corner.

    Source: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html

April 1992 – The Mystery of Amelia Earhart, Life magazine article written by Gillespie, where he states that 2-2-V-1 “is compatible” with a fuselage skin on the bottom of Earhart’s aircraft. “We found a piece of Amelia Earhart’s aircraft. There may be conflicting opinions, but there is no conflicting evidence. I submit that the case is solved.” Experts consulted by Life disagree with Gillespie; experts consulted by TIGHAR agree with Gillespie.

    Source: From Fowler’s copy of magazine.

May 1998 – Back To Square One for 2-2-V-1, TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 14 No. 1, states, “Recently analyzed photographic evidence indicates that the section of aluminum aircraft skin we found on Nikumaroro in 1991 (Artifact 2-2-V-1) does not come from the part of the Earhart aircraft where we had suspected it did. The aluminum sheet … does not seem to fit any known aircraft type, including the Lockheed Electra.”

    Source: http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_1/Back_to_Square_One.html

July 1998 – Gillespie reportedly checks the fit of 2-2-V-1 against a “C-47/DC-3” and disqualifies that aircraft type as a source, saying “Is our mysterious piece of airplane skin from a C-47A? We've tried it on various Gooneys [nickname for the aircraft type] we've come across, but not necessarily on an A -model.”

    Sources: E-mail between Fowler and third party ⁽¹⁾; TIGHAR discussion forums; https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart//Archives/Forum/Highlights1_20/highlights2.html, subject: The Sydney Crash Found

July 26, 1998 - Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 7, The Crash at Sydney Island, has full details of the C-47A crash in 1943.  The summary states in part, “How the aircraft artifacts found on Nikumaroro compare to components of a C-47A is sure to be the subject of much research and discussion on the Earhart Search Forum over the coming weeks.”

    Source: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html

June 2001 – Treasure Map, Artifactual:, TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 17 No. 5, says in part, “Although still of undetermined origin, the section of aluminum airplane skin (Artifact 2-2-V-1) found in 1991 exhibits damage that is consistent with its being torn from an aircraft by powerful surf action.”

    Source: https://www.tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2001Vol_17/1705.pdf

 August 8, 2012 – First discussion in the TIGHAR internet forums, by TIGHAR member Jeff Neville, that 2-2-V-1 may be a patch applied over the right rear navigator’s window of Earhart’s aircraft during the second World Flight attempts Miami stop.

    Source: https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17867.html#msg17867

May 22, 2014 – Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 71, Report of TIGHAR’s Artifact 2-2-V-1 Commission on Research conducted at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio, in March 2014, concludes in part, “The available evidence now suggests that the artifact is probably not from a WWII aircraft and is probably from an aircraft smaller and lighter than wartime types.” None of the top surfaces of any of the museum’s aircraft is examined.

    Source: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html

July 5, 2014 – Scientific Analysis of Fine Art Report No. 1417: Identification of Aluminum Paint on Aluminum Aircraft Fuselage, Jennifer L. Mass, Ph.D., analysis of paint on 2-2-V-1 compared to contemporary Lockheed aircraft components, concludes that 1930s-era alkyd resin paint was not present on 2-2-V-1. Not published on TIGHAR’s website, the report is briefly summarized elsewhere (see entry below).

    Source: E-mail communication to Fowler from Gillespie.

July 8, 2014 – The Earhart Project: A Smoking Gun At Last? A Research Update from Ric Gillespie, summarizes TIGHAR views to date on 2-2-V-1, noting "The possibility that 2-2-V-1 might be the patch started to look less crazy."

    Source: http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/July8/cliffhangers.html

Sept. 9, 2014 – Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 72, A Smoking Gun?, states, “it’s looking more and more like Artifact 2-2-V-1 is the patch that was installed on Earhart’s Electra  … at the beginning of her second world flight attempt.” TIGHAR forensic photo imaging expert Jeff Glickman, who has been involved in the Earhart Project for many years, scaled and removed camera-induced distortions of contemporary photos of the presumed Miami patch to attempt matching rivet lines on the photo with the actual rivet lines on 2-2-V-1. This is the first of a many-years effort by TIGHAR to find and use old photographs and Glickman’s forensic analysis to prove a match between 2-2-V-1 and Earhart’s aircraft.

    Sources: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html ; https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35816.html#msg35816

Oct. 28, 2014 – Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 73, The Window, the Patch, and the Artifact, summarizes, “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.”

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

Nov. 16, 2014 – Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 74, Is TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 from a PBY?, concludes, “There is no ‘perfect match’ of the artifact with a PBY. There is no close match with a PBY.” This is prompted by a detractor of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis emphatically stating that the artifact came from a PBY aircraft, and providing a photograph to support that contention.

    Source: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/74_Is_22V1_From_PBY/74_Is22V1PBY.html

Feb. 19, 2015 – Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 75, Laboratory Report, 2-2-V-1, Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. – Report of Findings. A chemical analysis of various period aircraft aluminum skin pieces to see if suitable “markers” in the metal’s composition could establish when 2-2-V-1 was manufactured. Comparison with samples from contemporary (1930s) Lockheed Electras shows distinct differences in the aluminum alloy composition between them and 2-2-V-1. The lab also measures the artifact’s thickness as 0.030 inches, different from the NTSB report and Gillespie’s own measurements of 0.032 inches.

    Sources: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/75_Findings2-2-V-1/R-48-20TIGHARReport.pdf;    https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35678.html#msg35678 ; https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35674.html#msg35674

Feb. 19, 2015 – Earhart Project Research Bulletin No. 76, Fit Analysis, 2-2-V-1, A Report as to the Purported Fit to Lockheed Electra NR16020, by Jeffrey Neville, TIGHAR Member 3074R, concluded, “The artifact is too wide to be the true navigation window covering on the Electra given fracture failure evidence in the extreme widths where a finished edge would have to appear, to support provenance.”

    Source: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/76_Neville_Report/76_2-2-V-1_Fit_Report_Neville.html

July 16, 2017 – Gillespie and TIGHAR board member Mark Smith visit New England Air Museum (NEAM) in Windsor Locks, Conn., to examine the wing of a C-47B built in 1944, after museum volunteer Tom Palshaw advises that the rivet patterns on an upper right wing panel seem to match those on 2-2-V-1. Gillespie states it was “not even close” and dismisses the C-47 as a possible source.

    Source: https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43099.html#msg43099 ; https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2090.msg43300.html#msg43300

July 22, 2017 – E-mail and photographs from Palshaw to Gillespie, documenting that Palshaw’s template of 2-2-V-1 matches upper right wing panel of NEAM C-47B, noting that “Artifact 2-2-V-1 shows clear evidence of a violent crash” and summarizing, “The deliberate characteristics of the artifact match the design features of the C-47B wing. … It is my feeling that the C-47B wing cannot be eliminated as the source aircraft at this time.”

    Source: E-mail communication forwarded to Fowler.

March 20, 2018 – When asked on the TIGHAR forums if there have been any recent developments on the status of 2-2-V-1, Gillespie responds, “No decent developments. We’ve been busy working on less frustrating avenues of research.”

    Source: https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1895.msg42266.html#msg42266

July 31, 2018 – Gillespie states on TIGHAR’s Facebook page that, “The jury is still out on the aluminum artifact we suspect is the patch put on the airplane in Miami. We’re searching for better photos of the patch so we can see the rivet pattern.”

    Source: Screenshot of relevant post by Fowler.

Feb. 15, 2019 – TIGHARNews, Dispatches from TIGHAR HQ - Breakthrough, discusses TIGHAR’s acquisition of 16mm movie film taken during Earhart’s takeoff from Lae, New Guinea, in 1937. Gillespie solicits funds from TIGHAR members to scan the brittle film to a digital format so forensic imaging expert Jeff Glickman can do a frame-by-frame comparison between the patch depicted on the film and 2-2-V-1.

    Source: E-mail communications forwarded to Fowler.

November 24, 2019 – Is 2-2-V-1 a Piece of the Sydney Island C-47 Wreck?, The Ghost of Gardner Island: An Assessment of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, first of five detailed blog posts (2019-2022) on the topic by John Kada (former TIGHAR member).

    Source: http://gardnerghost.blogspot.com/2019/11/

Circa November 2019 – Is TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 From A DC-3?, website created by Palshaw and Kada to summarize all know facts about the artifact, which Palshaw became involved in starting in 1992. Palshaw says in part, “DC-3 data is provided here so that the reader can review the data and make up their own mind. While I am supportive of TIGHAR's theory that Earhart landed on Gardner Island, I do not believe 2-2-V-1 came from a Lockheed 10.”

    Source: https://istigharartifact2-2-v-1apieceofac-47wing.yolasite.com/

Dec. 7, 2019 – Gillespie visits the Dover, DE, Air Force Base Air Mobility Command Museum to inspect  C-47A, serial number 42-92841 and later states that the “loss of a C-47A at Sydney Island is, without doubt, the most likely suspect” for 2-2-V-1, but said more precise comparisons with contemporary C-47A wings is needed. It is unclear if this was ever done.

    Source: https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43495.html#msg43495

Dec. 17, 2019 – 2-2-V-1 wing panel comparisons, on TIGHAR discussion forums, Gillespie says, “We are comparing 2-2-V-1 to photos of the patch on AE's plane and we're finding remarkable similarities. It is virtually certain that AE's plane was once at Nikumaroro, so it's reasonably possible that part of the plane may have ended up where we found it,” indicating Glickman’s photo analysis to validate the presumed patch as part of Earhart’s aircraft is ongoing.

    Source: https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43500.html#msg43500

April 2020 – 2020 Artifact Research Fund, TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 36 No. 2, contains several articles highlighting or about 2-2-V-1, and ends with a solicitation for more research funds for the wire found entangled with the aluminum sheet, not the sheet itself, noting “Research is expensive and time consuming in the best of times …”

    Source: https://www.tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2020Vol_36/TIGHARTracks36_02_April2020.pdf

Oct. 24, 2020 – TIGHAR volunteer and forensic photo imaging expert Jeff Glickman is contacted by a longtime TIGHAR member and researcher ⁽²⁾, hereinafter “TIGHAR researcher,” to discuss the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a C-47.  Glickman responds he is “happy to do so if there is evidence suggesting a potential match.” Several other messages discuss the specific information needed to do such a comparison.

    Sources: E-mail communications forwarded to Fowler.

Oct. 27, 2020 – The TIGHAR researcher receives correspondence from Gillespie stating that he is not allowed to contact Jeff Glickman directly, and all future correspondence should be sent to Glickman via Gillespie. Glickman was not then and is not currently either an employee or board member of TIGHAR.

    Sources: E-mail communications forwarded to Fowler.

Feb. 20, 2021 – Recent Discoveries End in Disappointment and More Mysteries in Earhart Disappearance, by Larry Holzwarth, History Collection, a summary of various Nikumaroro Hypothesis evidence, includes “No. 6. The aluminum panel found by TIGHAR likely came from another airplane. During World War II, an Army Air Corps C-47B crashed near Gardner Island. Villagers on the island scavenged aluminum from the aircraft …  . In 2017, the New England Air Museum examined the rivet pattern on the piece of aluminum TIGHAR believed to have been the window cover on Amelia’s Electra. They found it to be an exact match for a wing panel on a C-47B.”

    Source: https://historycollection.com/recent-discoveries-end-in-disappointment-and-more-mysteries-in-earhart-disappearance/

June 25, 2021 – The TIGHAR researcher, having years earlier analyzed Palshaw’s published papers and the 2017 YouTube video associated with it, asks the TIGHAR board of directors for permission to make a non-destructive 3-D template (tracing) of 2-2-V-1 and to verify its actual thickness via ultrasonic measurement.  The TIGHAR researcher planned to travel to the New England Air Museum to compare the tracing to the NEAM C-47B wing and other existing C-47 wings. The only publicly-available representations of 2-2-V-1 are on TIGHAR’s website – a series of one-dimensional rubbings, CAD drawings and annotated photographs. All have slightly different measurements. Gillespie agrees; efforts to set a date ensue, with May 2022 finally agreed on.

    Sources: E-mail communications forwarded to Fowler.

June 26, 2021 – 2021 Earhart-Noonan Symposium in Eugene, Oregon. Palshaw, with the assistance of Kada, presented evidence 2-2-2-V-1 was from a C-47. Gillespie attended remotely but did not comment.

    Source: E-mail communication forwarded to Fowler.

March 16, 2022 – Gillespie tells the TIGHAR researcher, “Nothing has been found to disqualify the artifact as part of the patch.”

    Source: E-mail communication forwarded to Fowler

May 2022 – The TIGHAR researcher has to cancel his May 2022 trip to TIGHAR to examine 2-2-V-1 to make a template.  In subsequent correspondence with TIGHAR, an October 2022 visit is penciled in.

    Source: E-mail communication forwarded to Fowler.

August 18, 2022 – With the TIGHAR researcher’s October trip pending, TIGHAR sends Glickman to the New England Air Museum to make a detailed digital photographic analysis of the museum’s C-47B wing, first referenced by Palshaw five years earlier. This is the first time in Glickman’s many different TIGHAR research efforts over many years regarding 2-2-V-1 that he has specifically investigated the C-47 possibility.

    Source: E-mail communication forwarded to Fowler.

August 20, 2022 – Palshaw states that Glickman told him after he analyzed the C-47 wing at the New England Air Museum that 2-2-V-1 is definitely from a C-47.  Glickman subsequently notifies Gillespie of this fact. 

    Sources: E-mail communications forwarded to Fowler.

October 2022 – An Alternative Origin, TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 38 No. 3, Gillespie states, almost exactly 31 years to the day after its discovery on Nikumaroro Island, that “evidence [is] mounting” that 2-2-V-1 may be from another aircraft (specifically a C-47); they are waiting for Glickman’s report before making a formal announcement. A separate article states that stenciled letters and numbers visible on it “suggests the aluminum in 2-2-V-1 was not manufactured earlier than 1943,” which conflicts with earlier statements from Gillespie that the markings indicate it may be pre-WWII.

    Sources: From copy of TIGHAR Tracks forwarded to Fowler; https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30572.html#msg30572

 

Summary of Missed Opportunities

1) 1992 – Consulting with a broader spectrum of aircraft and aircraft structure experts would have yielded much more information to narrow down the possible donor aircraft for 2-2-V-1.

 2) 1998 – Definitive information on the C-47A as a potential donor aircraft for 2-2-V-1 is not pursued in any systematic way. At least 28 of the “A” versions like the one that crashed on Sydney Island currently exist in the US, most of which could have readily and easily been used for comparisons. The C-47A that Gillespie viewed in 2019 has been at that museum in Dover, Del., since 1986. TIGHAR’s then-headquarters in Wilmington, Del., was less than 50 miles away.

    Source: https://amcmuseum.org/at-the-museum/aircraft/c-47a-skytrain/

3) May 2014 – Although the research trip to the National Museum of the US Air Force allowed TIGHAR members to closely inspect 15 WWII aircraft types that operated in the central and south Pacific, none of the top wings or fuselages were inspected (including the museum’s C-47D), a large candidate area for 2-2-V-1 to potentially be located in. This omission is not discussed in the final report, which concludes in part, “At present, of the known losses in the Central South Pacific, only Earhart’s Electra fits all of the requirements. “ ⁽³⁾ 

4) July 2014 – Scientific analysis shows there is no 1930s era paint residue on 2-2-V-1. This should point to donor aircraft from a later time period, but it is not pursued in any systematic way.

5) February 2015 – A metallurgical analysis and comparison between 2-2-V-1, known 1930s Electra aluminum, and WWII aircraft aluminum strongly indicates that 2-2-V-1 is of WWII origin, but it is not pursued in any systematic way.

6) February 2015 – A TIGHAR member who had originally proposed that 2-2-V-1 was a window patch applied to Earhart’s aircraft in the United States during her second world flight attempt changed his mind upon a detailed examination of the measurements and structures that would need to be involved in such a patch. A longtime, very experienced A&P (airframe and power plant) expert, his contention is dismissed by Gillespie.

7) July 2017 – Gillespie examines a C-47B wing at an air museum, dismisses it as close but not exact and discounts submitted photographs of a 2-2-V-1 template placed over the area in question on that same wing, which shows a very close match in the rivet lines and spacing. Gillespie focuses on the aluminum sheets’ thickness, stating that 2-2-V-1’s 0.032-inch thickness disqualifies the area where the museum volunteer thinks 2-2-V-1 fits. He also does not consider that the metallurgical lab’s measured 2-2-V-1’s thickness as 0.030 inches, or the difficulty in getting accurate and consistent skin thickness measurements on a deformed piece of aircraft aluminum using non-digital hand tools. Basic research in the Alcoa Aluminum archives would have found the 1939 Alclad aircraft aluminum specifications, which noted a given thickness could vary widely and still be within tolerances – which gives 2-2-V-1 a potential nominal thickness of 0.030 – 0.034 if its actual thickness is 0.032 inches, and thus many more potential locations on a given aircraft.

    Source: Federal Standard Stock Catalog no. QQ-A-355, dated Dec. 7, 1939: Section IV (Part 5), Federal Specification for Aluminum Alloy (AL-24), (Aluminum-Copper-Magnesium (1.5     percent)-Manganese); Plates, Sheets and Strips. (Naval Publications and Form Center via IHS)

8) 2019 – Gillespie made a direct comparison with a C-47A, the same model as the one that crashed on Sydney Island, and admits that 2-2-V-1 is a very close match to an area on the upper wing, but apparently never does any detailed follow-up utilizing other existing C-47A aircraft to confirm this finding. There are at least 12 airworthy, accessible C-47As at airports and at least 16 accessible C-47As in museums in the United States.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Douglas_C-47_Skytrains#United_States

9) 2022 – It is unclear what prompted Gillespie for the first time to ask photo analyst Glickman to take a detailed look at the C-47 as a possible source for 2-2-V-1 – although the longtime TIGHAR researcher’s insistent requests to make a template of the artifact so he could do independent comparisons occurred at the same time.

 

Conclusion

For more than 30 years after TIGHAR found the artifact it labeled 2-2-V-1, the battered aluminum sheet was frequently held up (often literally) as a piece of Amelia Earhart’s aircraft. It was used numerous times to help promote fundraising efforts for more expeditions to Nikumaroro, and to promote the “Nikumaroro Hypothesis” for global fundraising and public awareness efforts on TIGHAR’s behalf (see representative photos below).

 Any one of the nine missed opportunities listed above could have answered the question of what aircraft 2-2-V-1 actually came from.

Pursuing two or more to conclusion would have answered the question of 2-2-V-1’s origin. For whatever reasons, TIGHAR’s executive director, its board of directors and its membership all repeatedly failed to follow through with the accepted scientific method when new facts should have dictated new lines of inquiry.

The end result is a cautionary tale against being so wedded to one desired outcome that a person becomes blinded to all other possibilities, and ultimately ends up wasting scarce resources and valuable time while moving no closer to solving the issue at hand.

 

Photo Illustrations

Below are illustrations from various articles about TIGHAR, Gillespie and 2-2-V-1 through the years, illustrating how the artifact was used to promote TIGHAR's Nikumaroro Hypothesis. The first two photos are scans of pages from the 1992 Life magazine article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: As per the TIGHAR website, research papers and other documents are “… provided on this web site as a matter of general interest and to aid in research by individuals. No permission to reproduce or transmit them is implied or granted.”

(1) Anonymized by previous agreement.

(2)   Anonymized by previous agreement.

(3) Full disclosure: Fowler participated in the research trip to the National Museum of the US Air Force and in the review of the final report.       

 

 

Is 2-2-V-1 a Piece of the Sydney Island Wreck? Update #5

In my last post I mentioned that I was unable find any measurement data on TIGHAR’s web site corroborating TIGHAR’s often-made claim that 2-2-V-1 is piece of .032 inch thick of 24ST aluminum sheeting. Ric Gillespie recently remarked on TIGHAR’s online forum that three sources had examined 2-2-V-1 and found it to be .032 inches thick [1].  When I checked reports these sources had submitted to TIGHAR [2,3,4], however, I couldn’t verify that what Gillespie said was actually true. Some of the reports do say that 2-2-V-1 is .032 inches thick, but they seem to be restating the thickness value reported by TIGHAR rather than reporting their own measurement results.

A long-time TIGHAR observer who read my post pointed me to a document on the TIGHAR web site that does provide an actual thickness measurement for 2-2-V-1. In 2015, Lehigh Testing Laboratories in New Castle, Delaware performed chemical and mechanical tests on several specimens of aluminum sheet submitted by TIGHAR, including a specimen cut from 2-2-V-1 [5]. A table on page five of the report listing the measured dimensions of each specimen reports that the 2-2-V-1 specimen was found to be .030 inches thick.

This measurement result raises the possibility that 2-2-V-1 is not a piece of .032 inch 24ST aluminum sheet as TIGHAR has long supposed it to be, but instead that it is a piece of .028 inch 24ST aluminum sheet. Note that I’m talking here about nominal thicknesses, not actual thicknesses, of aluminum sheeting. As discussed in my last post, at the time that artifact 2-2-V-1 was produced the thickness tolerances for Alclad 24ST sheet were .0025 inches for both nominal thicknesses, .028 and .032 inches. This means that nominal .028 inch 24ST aluminum sheet manufactured back then might actually be as much as .0305 inches thick, and nominal .032 inch 24ST aluminum sheet might be as little as .0295 inches thick. A thickness of .030 inches falls within the acceptable ranges for both nominal thicknesses and so it isn’t possible to know from this one measurement whether 2-2-V-1 was fabricated from a piece of .028 inch or .032 inch aluminum sheet.

The same person who pointed me to the Lehigh Laboratories thickness measurement pointed me to a thread on TIGHAR’s online discussion forum, excerpted below, in which Ric Gillespie reported his own thickness measurement results for 2-2-V-1 [6].  This part of the discussion was prompted by TIGHAR’s announcement that Lehigh Testing Laboratories would be analyzing specimens from 2-2-V-1.

++++++++++++
TIGHAR announcement quoted by forum member:  Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. was recommended to TIGHAR by Prof. Eager at MIT as the best lab for trying to learn more about 2-2-V-1 (and other aluminum artifacts) through materials analysis.  By pure coincidence, LTL is located in Wilmington Delaware about 45 minutes from TIGHAR HQ. I contacted LTL and dropped Tom Eagar's name.  They responded with enthusiasm and today we set out a program of testing that should give us the answers to a number of important questions.  Those answers could confirm our fondest conclusions about 2-2-V-1 or they could blow them out of the water... I won't try to list the alphabet soup of technologies LTL will be using to do this work.   They're doing this pro bono because such is TIGHAR's reputation in the scientific community that they consider it an honor to be asked to help with our investigation. What they'll be doing represents thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dollars worth of work if hired at commercial rates.  The results we'll get will be scientifically sound, whether or not they're what we want to hear.

Forum Member:  Would it be possible to have LTL confirm the gauge of the aluminum?  I believe the NTSB is the only one that measured it at .032, and I think at least one of their other measurements was slightly off (the convergence of the rivet rows?).  It would be helpful to know for sure what the gauge is.  Just a suggestion.

Gillespie:  Your belief is in error. The thickness of the sheet has been checked many times by many people.  All it takes is a micrometer.

Forum Member:  Alas I have no micrometer at my disposal at the moment nor access to the piece and am therefore dependent upon the written reports of others in this regard.  Could you please direct me to a source(s) that describes and documents any of the many gauge measurements that were made (other than the NTSB report already mentioned), preferably one that includes a description of the tolerance levels involved.  Thank you.

Gillespie:  Okay.  Here's a written report especially for you. I have a micrometer and I have access to the piece and I have measured it numerous times. It's .032".  You can choose not to believe me and wait for the LTL report which will include much more detail.
++++++++++++

Gillespie’s answer may be flippant, but it nevertheless contains some useful information. His belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of .032 inch 24ST aluminum sheet is based at least in part on multiple thickness measurements that he himself made using a micrometer. But remember what Gillespie said in questioning Tom Palshaw's micrometer skin thickness measurements on the NEAM C-47 wing [7]:

“I know from experience that measuring skin thickness with a digital micrometer is difficult and frustrating.  Measure three times and get three different answers. With a little confirmation bias you can get any result you want.”

Tom’s follow-up measurements made using an ultrasonic thickness gauge show that Tom’s original micrometer measurements were correct. I think it’s fair to ask whether Gillespie’s own thickness measurements on 2-2-V-1 might have suffered from confirmation bias. When Gillespie made his measurements, what sheet thicknesses did he think 2-2-V-1 might have been manufactured from? Current aluminum product catalogs like the one reproduced below don't list a sheet thickness between .025 and .032 inches for 2024-T3 Clad aluminum, the modern designation for 24ST Alclad. As discussed in my last post, Alcoa product literature from the early 1940s list .028 inches as an available thickness for Alclad 24ST sheet. Did Gillespie know that when he made his measurements? I wonder if Gillespie arrived at his firmly stated .032 inch thickness for 2-2-V-1 through the following process:

1. Gillespie measures 2-2-V-1’s thickness several times with a micrometer; his measurement results cluster around some value between .032 inches and .025 inches, but closer to the former value;
2. Gillespie knows that Alclad 2024 aluminum sheet is currently produced in nominal thicknesses of .025 and .032 inches but is unaware that decades earlier it was produced in a nominal sheet thickness of .028 inches;
3. Since Gillespie’s micrometer measurement results for 2-2-V-1 are closer to .032 inches than to .025 inches, he concludes that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of 24ST Alclad sheet of .032 inch nominal thickness.

Thyssennkrupp Aluminum Stock Guide [8]

If any readers out there know of TIGHAR data that convincingly settles the matter of whether 2-2-V-1 is a piece of nominal .028 inch of .032 inch aluminum sheet, please let me know where to find it. If there is no such data — and I suspect that there isn’t — TIGHAR needs to arrange to have quality measurements made to try to settle this question.  Tom Palshaw noted in his most recent report update that factors such as corrosion, shape, installed fastener effects, and stress induced changes to original dimensions would need to be carefully considered in making thickness measurements on a beaten up, weathered piece of aluminum sheet like 2-2-V-1, and so this is not a job for an amateur wielding a micrometer, with all due respect to Ric Gillespie.

Why is it important to accurately characterize 2-2-V-1’s thickness? Tom Palshaw has shown that 2-2-V-1’s rivet pattern matches the rivet pattern on the upper wing of a C-47 at the New England Air Museum (NEAM). It is reasonable to think that the rivet pattern match would extend to many other C-47s, including the C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island. Tom has confirmed through ultrasonic thickness gauge measurements that NEAM C-47 wing skin is .032 inches thick at the location of interest, the same thickness that TIGHAR has long reported for 2-2-V-1. C-47 repair manuals indicate that the skin of a C-47 should be .028 inches thick at the location of the rivet pattern match, and so it is not a sure thing that the Sydney Island C-47 would also have a seemingly non-standard .032 inch skin thickness at the matching location. On this basis Ric Gillespie can say that the rivet pattern match to the NEAM C-47 wing is a “crazy coincidence”,  and TIGHAR’s claim that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of Amelia Earhart’s Electra can perhaps limp along, badly wounded but not dead. But the .030 inch thickness value measured by Lehigh Testing Labs suggests that if 2-2-V-1 might really a piece of nominal .028 inch 24ST Alclad.  If careful thickness measurements show this to be true, there would be no reason left to think that 2-2-V-1 wasn’t a piece of the wing of the Sydney C-47 wreck. The match in rivet patterns between 2-2-V-1 and the NEAM C-47 wing makes it reasonable to think that the Sydney C-47 wing matched 2-2-V-1’s rivet pattern at the location of interest. If 2-2-V-1 is nominal .028 inch aluminum sheet then it matches the thickness for a C-47 wing at the matching location given in repair manuals. There would be no physical attribute of 2-2-V-1 that can't be matched to a C-47 wing. The claim that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of Amelia Earhart’s Electra would truly be dead.

Comments, corrections, additional relevant facts, differing viewpoints, etc., are welcome.  Send to gardnersghost@gmail.com
+~+~+~
Footnotes/References
[1] https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43572.html#msg43572
[2] (NTSB) https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html
[3] (MMR) https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Artifact2-2-V-1/MMR%20Project%20No.%20128927%20Report.pdf
[4] Letter from MIT Professor Thomas Eagar to Ric Gillespie https://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1#cite_note-3
[5] The Lehigh Testing Laboratories Report can be downloaded at: https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/75_Findings2-2-V-1/75_Report_of_Findings_2-2-V-1.html
[6] https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg35664.html#msg35664
[7] https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43575.html#msg43575
[8] http://www.tkmna.com/wcm/idc/groups/internet/documents/web_content/mdaw/mdiy/~edisp/d_004646.pdf

Is 2-2-V-1 Piece of the Sydney Island C-47 Wreck? Update #4

Since my last post on the topic of Tom Palshaw’s report, there have been new developments that are worth discussing. In a recent post on TIGHAR’s online discussion forum [1], Ric Gillespie rejected the report’s conclusion that TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 is a piece of the wing of a C-47 transport plane that crashed on Sydney Island. Gillespie writes:

“TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 did not come from a C-47.  The Wing Plating diagram in the C-47 structural repair manual shows the skin thickness in the entire area where the rivet pattern allegedly matches 2-2-V-1 is .028".  The artifact's skin thickness is .032”

Tom Palshaw measured the skin thickness on the C-47B wing at the New England Air Museum as .032 using a micrometer at the edge of the skin.  .004" is an easy error to make. It's a small but important discrepancy.  The NTSB lab, Professor Eager at MIT, and the Massachusetts Materials Research metallurgical lab all measured 2-2-V-1 as .032”.

The C-47 manual dates from September 1942 and was updated in 1945.  There is no indication that the basic structural components of the wing were changed. With this new information, the rivet pattern on the C-47 wing, although remarkably similar to the artifact, becomes another of the crazy coincidences we sometimes encounter.”

In response to this critique, Tom Palshaw has updated his report with new skin thickness measurements on the NEAM C-47 wing at the location of interest. These measurements were made by a level 2 nondestructive testing technician from Bombardier Business Aircraft Service Center using an ultrasonic thickness gauge. I take it that this technique is not prone to sort of errors that Ric Gillespie suggests might have afflicted Tom’s original measurements.  Five ultrasonic thickness gauge measurements yielded skin thicknesses of 0.032, 0.031, 0.032, 0.031, and 0.032 inches. These new measurements confirm that the skin of the NEAM C-47 wing at the location of interest is the same thickness that TIGHAR has reported for 2-2-V-1.

 Wing location matching 2-2-V-1 is marked in yellow (Markup by Palshaw of a DC-3 repair manual; See Ref. 8)

As Ric Gillespie points out, C-47 repair manuals indicate that the skin of the NEAM C-47 wing should be .028 inches thick at the location of interest. It isn’t clear why the NEAM C-47 wing’s skin at the location of interest is thicker than repair manuals indicate it should be. Damaged aircraft skin is often replaced with sheeting in the next higher thickness produced by manufacturers, which in this case would be .032 inches thick. Tom tells me he’s sure that at the location of interest the C-47 wing skin is original factory-installed Alclad 24ST aluminum alloy sheeting, not a later repair. For what it’s worth, I’ll note that .028 inch 24ST aluminum alloy sheeting is not listed as a standard size normally carried in stock in 48 inch widths in the Alcoa's Aluminum in Aircraft published in 1941.  Would sheeting of that width be needed for fabricating the skin at the location of interest on the C-47 wing? If so, perhaps this is a clue that should be pursued in understanding why the NEAM C-47 wing skin is .032 inches thick at the location of interest. Something else that suggests .028 inches is not your typical aluminum alloy sheet thickness: the 1943 version of Aluminum in Aircraft has only one mention of .028 inch aluminum -- in a table of sheer strengths of spot welds for various metal thicknesses

Aircraft sheet metal thickness table, Aluminum in Aircraft, Published by Alcoa in 1941

Spot weld shear strength table, Aluminum in Aircraft, Alcoa 1943

As things now stand, Tom Palshaw has shown that a location on the wing of the NEAM C-47 closely matches 2-2-V-1 in terms of rivet line spacing, rivet pitch, irregularities in pitch of its -5 rivets, and that it has the same .032 inch thickness that TIGHAR has reported for 2-2-V-1. The NEAM C-47 wing and 2-2-V-1 match in every physical attribute determined so far.  From the standpoint of physical dimensions the match between 2-2-V-1 and the NEAM C-47 wing has been better established than the match between 2-2-V-1 and Amelia Earhart’s Electra. As discussed in my last post, past TIGHAR efforts have failed to demonstrate that 2-2-V-1 fits within the boundaries TIGHAR defined for the putative source location on Earhart’s airplane, the window patch installed at Miami in 1937.

The letters ‘AD’ that are faintly visible on the artifact’s surface are another feature that is consistent with the idea that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of the Sydney Island C-47. To help factory workers identify aluminum sheet stock, Alcoa applied material markings to the aluminum sheeting it produced. The Aluminum Markings web site documents a clear trend in how Alcoa’s material markings for Alclad 24ST aluminum sheeting that aircraft skins are made of changed over time.  Photos of aircraft manufactured before 1942, including Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra, consistently show the marking to be  ‘ALC 24ST’.  Photos of aircraft manufactured from 1942 onward predominantly show the marking to be  ‘ALCLAD 24 ST’, though some photos show aluminum aircraft parts marked ‘ALC 24ST’.  So the photographic evidence —a lot of it— indicates that by early 1942,  had Alcoa started to mark 24ST Alclad sheeting it manufactured with a new material marking, ‘ALCLAD 24ST’. This line of evidence therefore tells us that the window patch attached to Earhart’s Electra in Miami in 1937 could not have the letters ‘AD’ seen on 2-2-V-1 because because Alcoa didn’t start using the ‘ALCLAD 24 ST’ material marking for several more years.

Remnant of 'AD' on Artifact 2-2-V-1. See reference [5] for source

B-25 factory photo, circa 1942. Note 'ALCLAD 24S-T' markings to left of female worker

Underside of Earhart's Electra, circa 1937. The material marking reads 'ALC 24ST'. Full photo at upper right

The similarities between the NEAM C-47 wing and 2-2-V-1 are just too great to be dismissed as a ‘crazy coincidence’.  The problem with the assertion that the wing of the Sydney Island C-47’s can’t be the source of 2-2-V-1 because repair manuals indicate that skin at the location of interest shouldn’t be .032 inch thick is that an actual C-47 wing, the one at NEAM, shows that C-47 wings were not always manufactured with the skin thicknesses indicated in repair manuals.

The right thing for TIGHAR to do, given the evidence Tom Palshaw has produced, is gather evidence that might shed further light on the Tom’s conclusion that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of wreckage scavenged from the Sydney C-47. To misrepresent a piece of the Sydney C-47 wreck site as a piece of Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra would be a disservice to those who died in the Sydney C-47 crash and to the crew of the Electra. Surely TIGHAR would want no part of such an abomination.

TIGHAR should carefully document how well the rivet pattern on the NEAM C-47 wing matches 2-2-V-1. Laying 2-2-V-1 over the NEAM wing at the location of interest and documenting the match with photographs would take no more than ten or fifteen minutes to do. While at NEAM to conduct this comparison, TIGHAR can also demonstrate whether or not 2-2-V-1 fits within the boundaries defined for the dimensions of the Miami window patch in a previous TIGHAR study [2]. This too would be a simple exercise that would only take minutes to carry out. These comparisons should be done with the full cooperation of Tom Palshaw. I find it odd that Ric Gillespie visited NEAM only a few weeks ago to conduct measurements on the NEAM Electra but gave Tom Palshaw no advanced notice of his visit.

Another basic piece of information that needs to be better documented is 2-2-V-1's thickness. Although TIGHAR has repeatedly stated that 2-2-V-1 is .032 inches thick, I can find no clear information about how 2-2-V-1’s thickness was determined. A few posts further along the discussion thread in which Ric Gillespie dismisses Sydney Island C-47 as the source of 2-2-V-1, he comments that “The NTSB lab, Professor Eager at MIT, and the Massachusetts Materials Research metallurgical lab all measured 2-2-V-1 as .032” [3]. I’ve reviewed all three of these sources [4,5,6] and as best I can tell, 2-2-V-1’s thickness was not actually measured by NTSB, MIT or the metallurgical lab. Where the thickness of 2-2-V-1 is stated in these sources the authors appear to simply be stating the artifact thickness reported to them by TIGHAR. There certainly is no description in any of these sources of a measurement method or a presentation of actual measurement data.

Surely the 0.32 inch thickness TIGHAR has reported is based on an actual measurement, but how that measurement was made and what the actual measurement result was has never been reported, as far as I know. Did Ric Gillespie make these measurements using a micrometer? If so, then the claim that 2-2-V-1 is .032 inches thick is based on the same measurement technique that Ric Gillespie has said could easily be in error by .004 inches. Gillespie in a later post on the same TIGHAR discussion forum states: “I know from experience that measuring skin thickness with a digital micrometer is difficult and frustrating.  Measure three times and get three different answers. With a little confirmation bias you can get any result you want” [7]. Here it is worth quoting something Tom wrote in his latest update on the NEAM C-47 skin thickness measurements:

“Measuring the thickness of a new sheet of ALCLAD is as simple as using a standard 1" micrometer. The metal is smooth, flat, and clean. Once the metal has been installed, or exposed to the elements, several factors can affect the accuracy of the measurement. These include a paint coating, corrosion, shape, installed fastener effects and stress induced changes to its original dimensions.”

2-2-V-1 is not a fresh new sheet of aluminum alloy, it is a beaten up sheet of aluminum alloy that undoubtedly has been exposed to the elements for many years. The Massachusetts Materials Research Laboratory report on 2-2-V-1 describes it thusly:

“Overall, the artifact presented a grey, oxidized aluminum appearance with isolated regions of buff-colored calcareous deposits and thin, green discolorations. Both the buff and green deposits were reported to have been previously tested and found to be consistent with coral and algal growths”

Note that before making his new measurements on the C-47 wing, Tom gently removed accumulated surface coatings from his measurement locations using a Scotchbrite pad. Were surface deposits accumulated in the years of exposure of 2-2-V-1 to the elements removed before its thickness was measured? Tom points out that at the time artifact 2-2-V-1 was produced, the thickness tolerances for Alclad 24ST sheet was .0025 inches for manufactured sheeting in either the .028 or .032 inch thickness. For all we know, 2-2-V-1’s actual thickness falls within the range falls within the range for nominal .028 inch sheeting, but TIGHAR has erroneously reported it to be .032 inches thick. For example, if 2-2-V-1 was nominal .028 inch sheeting whose actual manufactured thickness was .029 (well within the manufacturing tolerance) with a .001 inch thick coating of weathering/coral/algal residue, and a .001 inch micrometer measurement error was made, the measured thickness would have been .031 inches (.029+.001+.001=.031). The individual making the measurement might have  concluded that 2-2-V-1 was .032 inch thick since this was the closest nominal Alclad 24ST sheet thickness to the measurement result.

Clearly then another thing TIGHAR must do is document what 2-2-V-1’s thickness was when manufactured. Given the .0025 inch manufacturing tolerance, it may not be possible to definitively exclude that 2-2-V-1 was either nominal product thickness, .028 or .032 inches. The determination of 2-2-V-1’s original manufactured thickness is yet another activity that TIGHAR could and should carry out in collaboration with Tom Palshaw. The effects of factors Tom mentions in his update such as shape, installed fastener effects, and stress induced changes to original dimensions would need to be carefully considered.

It would also be useful to accumulate more information about rivet patterns and skin thicknesses of surviving C-47s and DC-3s in museum and private collections. Tom’s update includes ultrasonic measurements of the thickness of the skin of the NEAM DC-3 at the location of interest [8], and there the measurements indicated a skin made of .028 inch nominal sheeting. Accurate skin thickness measurements made on other C-47s and DC-3s might reveal a pattern relevant to the question of whether the Sydney C-47 is the source of 2-2-V-1.

Comments, corrections, additional relevant facts, differing viewpoints, etc., are always welcome.  Send to gardnersghost@gmail.com
+++
Footnotes/References

[1] https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43572.html#msg43572
[2] Earhart Project Research Bulletin #73, The Window, the Patch, and the Artifact.  https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html
[3] See the TIGHAR discussion forum post at reference 1
[4] https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html
[5] https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Artifact2-2-V-1/MMR%20Project%20No.%20128927%20Report.pdf
[6] Links to the MIT emails can be found at https://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1#cite_note-3
[7] [https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43575.html#msg43575]
[8] DC-3s and C-47s are to a great extent the same airplane, the former manufactured for use as a civilian airliner while the latter was made to be a military transport. The wing diagram above comes from a 1940s-vintage DC-3 repair manual

Is 2-2-V-1 Piece of the Sydney Island C-47 Wreck? Update #3

The latest notable response to Tom Palshaw's report is a post on the TIGHAR discussion forum by Ric Gillespie reporting new rivet line spacing measurements for 2-2-V-1 [1]. According to Gillespie:

 “The differences, while not huge (see “Actual v template”.jpg ) are significant when measuring precise alignment with the pattern on the C-47 wing. Palshaw’s template appears to fit the C-47B wing but it does not accurately reflect the artifact.”

The ‘Actual v. template’ figure (see below) is Gillespie’s markup of a photo in the Palshaw report showing a paper template of 2-2-V-1 laid over the New England Air Museum (NEAM)  C-47 wing. The lines on the template were made by Tom Palshaw to indicate 2-2-V-1’s rivet line spacings based on earlier TIGHAR data. The numbers in yellow were added by Ric Gillespie to indicate his new rivet line spacings. I’ve further marked up the photo with the numbers in blue to correct errors in two of Gillespie’s numbers.

Gillespie's new rivet line spacing measurements superimposed on Tom Palshaw's  2-2-V-1 template.

The differences between the new rivet line spacings and those in Tom Palshaw’s template are small, as Gillespie notes. Do these differences matter with regard to the question of whether 2-2-V-1’s rivet lines match those of the NEAM C-47 wing? Tom’s template was a stand-in for 2-2-V-1, which he didn’t have access to when he wrote his report. Rather than concerning ourselves with Tom’s template, let’s consider how well the thing itself, 2-2-V-1, matches the wing. The photo below is a screen shot from the YouTube video of Gillespie and Palshaw comparing 2-2-V-1 to the NEAM C-47 wing in 2017 [2]. At the edge of 2-2-V-1 closest to the camera 2-2-V-1’s rivet hole lines appear align well with those on the underlying C-47 wing. Gillespie’s new measurements don’t appear to disqualify the NEAM C-47 wing as a match for 2-2-V-1, at least at the side closest to the camera. The YouTube video does not provide as good a view of the far end of 2-2-V-1, but neither Gillespie or Palshaw say in the video that the rivet line spacings of the C-47 wing and 2-2-V-1 don’t match.

Direct comparison of 2-2-V-1 to the NEAM C-47 wing

Further along in the same TIGHAR forum post in which Ric Gillespie reports his new rivet line spacing measurements, he writes:

“For the best possible comparison to the C-47A that crashed on Sydney Island, we need to come as close as we can to apples-to-apples. We need to do a detailed examination and measurement of the relevant section on the wing of the closest surviving C-47A by tail number.  We will be doing that later this winter.”

While it would be interesting to see how well 2-2-V-1 matches the wings of other C-47s, surely a careful examination of the NEAM C-47 wing should take precedence over comparisons to other C-47s. All information available so far indicates that the NEAM C-47 wing is a close match to 2-2-V-1. The doubts Gillespie raised in the YouTube video were addressed in the Palshaw report, and since then Tom has found additional matching features, as discussed in my earlier posts. TIGHAR should collaborate with Tom Palshaw to carefully compare 2-2-V-1 to the NEAM C-47 wing to determine just how well they match. Ric Gillespie has written that “TIGHAR is an educational foundation and the Earhart mystery is a perfect vehicle for exploring, demonstrating, and teaching the scientific method of inquiry” [3]. The scientific method of inquiry most definitely is not about ignoring observations that suggest a favored hypothesis is wrong.

If we are to believe that 2-2-V-1 came from the Sydney Island C-47 wreck, it is reasonable to expect proof that 2-2-V-1 matches some part of a C-47.  Likewise, if we are to believe that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra it is reasonable to expect that TIGHAR demonstrate that  2-2-V-1 corresponds to a source location on Earhart’s Electra. According to TIGHAR, that source location is the ‘Miami Patch’, an aluminum alloy sheet that was attached to Earhart’s Electra in Miami to cover a window early on the voyage on which she disappeared. In the photo below taken shortly after it was installed, the shiny new Miami Patch stands out from the more weathered fuselage to which it had been attached.

The newly-installed window patch. Miami, June 1937.

A basic requirement for 2-2-V-1 to be a piece of the Miami Patch is that it must be smaller than the Miami Patch. This is necessarily true because nowhere on 2-2-V-1 is there an original manufactured edge; 2-2-V-1 was clearly torn away from a larger piece of aircraft skin. TIGHAR has stated that 2-2-V-1 fits within the perimeter of the Miami Patch but as far as I know it has never published a photo demonstrating this to be the case. One place where TIGHAR states that 2-2-V-1 fits within perimeter of the Miami Patch is in TIGHAR Research Bulletin #72 [4]. A section titled ‘Do the dimensions of the artifact fit within the dimensions of the patch?’ states:

To answer that question required accurate scaling and the removal of camera-induced distortion from the Miami Herald photo and a photo of 2-2-V-1 pressed down to allow measurement of its full size.  The edges of the patch were straight and riveted, while the borders of the artifact are all failed edges, with one side showing evidence of a line of staggered rivets. If the artifact is a broken-out portion of the patch it must fit within the dimensions of the patch. TIGHAR forensic imaging scientist Jeff Glickman was able to remove the distortion and accurately scale and overlay the photos. The artifact fits nicely within the patch.

The accompanying image of the overlay, see below, does indeed depict 2-2-V-1 as nicely fitting within the boundaries of the Miami Patch. Given 2-2-V-1’s size, the overlay suggests that 2-2-V-1 is several inches smaller than the Miami Patch both vertically and horizontally.

But this overlay must be in error, because actual photos of 2-2-V-1 held close to surviving Lockheed Model 10 Electras show that if 2-2-V-1 fits within the Miami Patch’s boundaries at all, it does so with very little room to spare. TIGHAR Research Bulletin #73 [5] reports the results of an examination of an Electra undergoing restoration in Wichita, Kansas. The report includes the photo below of 2-2-V-1 held close to the exterior of the Wichita Electra’s fuselage, with the perimeter of the Miami Patch outlined somewhat inaccurately with yellow adhesive measuring tape. 2-2-V-1 does not appear to fit within the marked boundaries of the Miami Patch. The ‘Tab’ feature at the bottom edge of 2-2-V-1 extends below the lower boundary of the Miami Patch, which in this photo corresponds to the upper edge of the yellow tape. 2-2-V-1 also overlaps the yellow tape that marks the forward perimeter of the Miami Patch, which in this photo is placed too far forward. As discussed in TIGHAR Research Bulletin #73 itself, the forward edge of the patch had to be tailward of where it appears in the photo [6]. 2-2-V-1 fits within the upper perimeter of the patch, but perhaps only because as 2-2-V-1 is held in this photo it bulges outward, which lessens any vertical mismatch between it and the patch. Remember that since 2-2-V-1 is a remnant of a larger piece of metal, it must not only fit within the perimeter of the patch, it must do so with room to spare. TIGHAR Research Bulletin #73 notes the lack of fit apparent in this photo and explains it as being an effect of perspective, i.e., 2-2-V-1 appears to be larger relative to the fuselage than it really is because it’s slightly closer to the camera. Why this report did not include a photo of 2-2-V-1 pressed against the side of the Wichita Electra to clearly show how well it fits within the required perimeter is a mystery; surely a thin sheet of transparent plastic could have been placed between fuselage and 2-2-V-1 to prevent cosmetic damage to the surface of the airplane if that was a concern.

2-2-V-1 compared to the Miami patch perimeter, Wichita.

If TIGHAR has a photo from the Wichita exercise that properly compares 2-2-V-1 to the Miami Patch’s perimeter, it should publish that photo to support its claim that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of the Miami Patch. If TIGHAR does not have such a photo, it is all the more reason to return to NEAM. NEAM has a Lockheed Model 10 Electra in its collection, so in addition to documenting how well 2-2-V-1 matches the NEAM C-47 wing, TIGHAR can document how well 2-2-V-1 fits within the boundaries of the Miami Patch.

Some time ago Ric Gillespie posted a photo on the TIGHAR Forum similar in composition to the Wichita photo, but using the NEAM Electra's fuselage as the backdrop and the patch perimeter marked with clear adhesive tape.  That photo (see below) shares some of the Wichita photo’s problems, e.g., the forward perimeter is placed too far forward and 2-2-V-1 bulges outward. Additionally, 2-2-V-1 is held at an unlikely angle with respect to the Electra’s fuselage; the lowest rivet line would not span the width of the patch at the angle it makes with the lower boundary of the patch. Gillespie notes some of these problems, but his assessment was nevertheless that "It's not a great photo and the placement is a bit too high and a tad too far forward on the airplane but, as you can see, it all works". But it doesn't all work. 2-2-V-1 extends beyond the upper and lower perimeter of the patch even though its outward bulge reduces the extent of the overlap, and since the forward perimeter is too far forward, it is not clear that 2-2-V-1 is fits horizontally within the Miami Patch's boundaries. Once again I note that 2-2-V-1 must fit with room to spare since it is a fragment of a larger piece of metal.

2-2-V-1 compared to the Miami Patch perimeter, New England Air Museum

TIGHAR claims that 2-2-V-1 is small enough to be a piece of the Miami Patch, but it hasn’t provided clear photographic proof that this is true. It should take less than an hour at NEAM to properly compose a comparison photo that would provide this needed proof. The four borders of the patch perimeter would need to be properly positioned on the fuselage and 2-2-V-1 would need to be pressed against the NEAM Electra's fuselage to minimize bulges and to eliminate effects of perspective.

Comments, corrections, additional relevant facts, differing viewpoints, etc., are always welcome.  Send to gardnersghost@gmail.com
+++
References

[1] https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43506.html#msg43506
[2]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlVLyOfsZ3c&t=101s
[3] https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1999.msg42342.html#msg42342
[4] https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/72_SmokingGun/72_Smoking_Gun.html
[5] https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html
[6] In the Wichita photo, the forwaed perimeter coincides with a row of staggered rivets at what is referred to as 'Station 293 5/8'.  TIGHAR Research Bulletin #73 states: "The frame could not be riveted directly to the underlying structure at Sta. 293 5/8 because of the thick lavatory bulkhead on the interior (no way to buck the rivets), so new underlying structure was added just aft of Sta. 293 5/8 to provide something to rivet the frame to".

Is 2-2-V-1 Piece of the Sydney Island C-47 Wreck? Update #2

Tom Palshaw’s report that TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 matches a section of the upper wing of a C-47 transport plane has elicited some interesting responses at TIGHAR’s discussion forum. A TIGHAR member stated that Tom had made a good case that a C-47 wing was the source of TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1 but suggested that Tom should further document his findings. He also suggested that Tom provide photographic evidence of C-47 wing features, such as the spacing between rows of rivets and the rivet pitch, i.e., the distance between rivets in each row. This led Ric Gillespie to make a post on the forum, the key points of which I’ll quote below:

If 2-2-V-1 is from the wing of a C-47, all aspects of the artifact must match. Beyond row spacing and pitch, the following must also match:

• Rivet size (shaft diameter):
The rivet on 2-2-V-1 has a shaft diameter of 3/32 inch - source NTSB Laboratory.

• Rivet length (shaft length):
The rivet on 2-2-V-1 has a shaft length of 3/16 inch - source NTSB Laboratory.

• Rivet material:
The rivet on 2-2-V-1 has a dimple in the center of the head, signifying it is made of A17ST alloy - source "Aircraft Maintenance and Repair" Northrop Aeronautical Institute, 1955. See attached PDF of rivet coding.

• Rivet head type:
The rivet on 2-2-V-1 is a "brazier" head. A brazier head rivet has a low profile, minimizing drag. There are two kinds of brazier head rivets,  the "full brazier head" and the "modified brazier head".  As early as 1930 and as late as 1941and possibly later, the "modified brazier head" was known as the "mushroom head."  The rivet on 2-2-V-1 is what is now known as a "full brazier head" rivet. Lockheed Electras had dimpled "full brazier head rivets" identical to the rivet on 2-2-V-1.  See photo below.

• Sheet thickness
The 2-2-V-1 sheet has a thickness of 0.032" - Source NTSB Laboratory

Tom saw these comments and in response wrote a detailed explanation of how various measurements he made were done. This additional information now appears in Tom’s report as Appendix II.

In this post, I’ll provide what I hope is a summary of Tom's Appendix II that will be helpful to layman like me out there who are following the 2-2-V-1 story. I’ll also provide additional information on how 2-2-V-1 appears to match the NEAM C-47 wing that Tom only became aware of after his report was published online.

The first bullet item is about rivet shaft diameter.  During Gillespie and Palshaw’s joint examination of the NEAM C-47 wing, Ric Gillespie questioned whether certain rivets were -4 rivets rather than -3 rivets. One of the main points Tom makes in his report is that the rivets in question are indeed -3 rivets. Appendix II of Tom’s report explains how  this was determined. Tom removed a rivet from the C-47 wing and inserted a drill that matched the rivet hole. This was a number 40 drill, the recommended drill size for -3 rivet holes. The matching drill for a -4 rivet hole is a number 30 drill, which does not fit into a -3 rivet hole. Tom provided a table from the Canadair Challenger Structural Repair Manual (1981), 51-42-11, page 6, figure 4, reproduced below, showing the correspondence between drill numbers and rivet hole sizes. Tom verified the -5 rivets on the C-47 wing using this same drill matching method.

Interested readers can check the photo below to see where Tom removed -3 rand -5 rivet removed from the C-47 wing to verify their sizes.

The second bullet item about rivet length states: “The rivet on 2-2-V-1 has a shaft length of 3/16 inch - source NTSB Laboratory.” I checked the NTSB report on TIGHAR’s web site [1] but see nothing there about rivet shaft length, so I will set this bullet item aside.

The third bullet item is about rivet material. Gillespie states:

“The rivet on 2-2-V-1 has a dimple in the center of the head, signifying it is made of A17ST alloy”

The photos included in Tom’s report aren’t sharp enough to show whether the rivet heads have dimples, so I asked Tom about the rivet heads, and he confirmed that they do in fact have dimples. He sent me the photo below of -3 rivets on the C-47 wing that demonstrates this to be the case. The ruler laid alongside the -3 rivets makes clear that the 1 inch pitch of the -3 rivets. Thus, in terms of the material type and rivet pitch the NEAM C-47 wing matches TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1.

The fourth bullet item about rivet head type states that the one -3 rivet still attached to 2-2-V-1 is a brazier head rivet. The Matching Characteristics section of Tom’s report states that the  C-47 wing -3 rivets are also brazier head rivets. Tom confirmed in an email exchange with me that that the C-47 wing -3 rivets are brazier head rivets, not modified brazier head rivets.  The table below indicates that -3 brazier head rivets and -3 modified brazier head rivets have quite different head diameters and so can be readily distinguished from one another based on their size. Readers can check the photo above against the table below to confirm that diameter of the -3 rivet heads on the C-47 wing are correct for -3 brazier head rivets, not modified brazier head rivets.

Gillespie’s fifth bullet item concerns sheet thickness.  The ALCLAD sheet that 2-2-V-1 is made of is 0.032 inches thick. The ‘What on Artifact 2-2-V-1 Matches the Wing of a C-47B?’ section of Tom’s report states that the thickness of the NEAM C-47 wing in the area of interest is also .032 inches. The excerpt below from Appendix II of Tom’s report states:

To determine the grip length it was necessary to first measure the skin thickness. This was done by using a micrometer at the edge of the skin. To measure the grip length a "calibrated" cleco was used to compare a known stack up of aluminum to that of the wing. The result was a skin thickness of 0.032" and a stringer thickness of 0.060". This is similar to the NTSB Report.

Some of this is a little over the head of a layman like me, but what’s clear is that Tom determined the 0.032 inch skin thickness of the NEAM C-47 wing skin in the area of interest by using a micrometer to measure the skin edge.  Note also that in the above excerpt Tom points out another matching point between the C-47 wing and 2-2-V-1: in both cases, the underlying stringer the skin is attached to was 0.060 inches thick.

That is my layman’s summary of Tom Palshaw’s Appendix II.

I also mentioned that after Tom’s report was published he realized that there was yet another way in which the C-47 wing and 2-2-V-1 match. This new information has to do with 2-2-V-1’s ‘Tab’ feature. A line of –5 rivet holes runs along one edge of 2-2-V-1, and a ‘Tab’ of material juts out from that same edge (see photos below).  At the far edge of the ‘Tab’ are what appear to be partial holes of another line of rivets. I sent Tom a close-up photo of the Tab with measuring tape laid over it (see photos below) that indicates a 1 5/16 inch spacing between 2-2-V-1’s line of -5 rivets and the rivet line at the far edge of the Tab. On the NEAM C-47 wing the line of -5 rivets that corresponds to the -5 rivet line on 2-2-v-1 has a line of -6 rivets running adjacent to it, separated by 1 5/16 inches (see photo below). Thus, the spacing between these two rivet lines on the C-47 wing matches the spacing of the rivet lines seen on 2-2-V-1's Tab. Tom thinks the partial rivet holes on the Tab’s edge are for size -6 rivets, but none of the holes is complete, so this is unclear.

2-2-V-1. The Tab is at the lower edge. The line of -5 rivet holes runs across the lower edge of 2-2-V1 and through the Tab

Spacing between rivet hole lines on the Tab

Spacing between -5 and -6 rivet hole lines on the NEAM C-47

Ric Gillespie's remark that the C-47 wing is "not even close" to a match for 2-2-V-1, as he put it, just does not seem to hold up, given what Tom Palshaw has reported.  If clearer documentation of the C-47 wing's features are needed, I think Ric Gillespie knows how to obtain it.

Comments, corrections, additional relevant facts, differing viewpoints, etc., are always welcome.  Send to gardnersghost@gmail.com

+++

References

[1] https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html

Is 2-2-V-1 a Piece of the Sydney Island C-47 Wreck? An Update.

Two days ago I published a short post on Tom Palshaw’s report matching TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1 to the upper section of the wing of a C-47 in storage at the New England Air Museum (NEAM). Ric Gillespie had recently stated on the TIGHAR Forum that he had examined the NEAM C-47 wing and found it to be “not even close” to a match to 2-2-V-1, but he offered no specifics to back up this assessment.  I thought Tom had made a good case for 2-2-V-1 being a scavenged piece of the Sydney C-47 worthy of a more substantive response than Ric Gillespie had given it.

A TIGHAR forum member alerted Ric Gillespie to Tom’s online report, and possibly for this reason Gillespie posted a video of his examination of the NEAM C-47 wing back in 2017 on TIGHAR’s YouTube channel [1]. Tom participated in this examination, and the photo below shows Tom and Ric standing alongside the subject C-47 wing at the start of their joint examination.

The photo below shows 2-2-V-1 laid over the C-47 wing at the location of interest. The spacing between five rivet hole lines on the side of 2-2-V-1 closest to the camera matches the rivet line spacing of the underlying C-47 wing quite well. There isn’t a good view in the video showing how closely the rivet hole lines match at other side of 2-2-V-1, but I think it is pretty clear that the alignment is close on that side as well, because nowhere in the video does Ric or Tom say that 2-2-V-1’s rivet line spacings don’t match those of the C-47 wing. So in terms of spacing of rivet hole lines, 2-2-V-1 seems to match up well with Tom’s candidate C-47 wing.

So in what ways might 2-2-V-1 not match a C-47 wing, if not rivet line spacing? Ric offers three primary objections to Tom’s proposed match, which if I understand them correctly are as follows:

• One line of rivets on the C-47 wing are the wrong sized rivets, i.e., -4 rivets rather than -3 rivets
• The line of -5 rivets of the C-47 lacks the irregular spacing between 2-2-V-1’s row of -5 rivet holes (these are the rivet holes along the right edge of 2-2-V-1 in the above photo
• A straight portion of what is the far edge of 2-2-V-1 in the above photo is thought to represent a fatigue failure caused by repetitive bending against a straight object. Ric argues this straight object must an underlying structural component, but no such structural component exists where Ric argues it would need to be.

In the TIGHAR YouTube video, Tom appears to accept Ric’s three objections. However in the days after Ric’s visit, Tom examined the C-47 wing more closely and found reasons to think that he had been too hasty in accepting Ric’s objections:

• Tom found that the line of rivets Ric thought to be -4 rivets (too big) were actually -3 rivets (matching 2-2-V-1)
• Tom found that there were irregularities in spacing between -5 rivets, just as on 2-2-V-1
• In Tom’s opinion, Ric’s hypothesis for the formation 2-2-V-1 straight-edge failure feature was not the only way the straight edge could have been created. Tom suggested instead that “2-2-V-1 was originally larger when removed from the source aircraft. A piece could then have been removed later by placing the artifact between two straight angles and flexed to failure”

All of these points were made by Tom in an email Tom sent Ric Gillespie a few days after the NEAM visit in 2017. That email differs only in small ways from Tom’s online report. My understanding is that Ric Gillespie has never responded to Tom’s email.

All this makes it very hard for me to understand how Ric Gillespie could have recently said that the C-47 wing he and Tom examined is not even close to a match for 2-2-V-1. I can only conclude from the information available to me that Tom Palshaw has found a plausible candidate source for 2-2-V-1, and not only because of the many ways in which the features match, but also because the people of Gardner Island used scavenged aluminum from the Sydney Island C-47 wreck for making handicrafts [2].

I suspect this  post will be followed by several more update posts.

Comments, corrections, additional relevant facts, differing viewpoints, etc., are always welcome.  Send to gardnersghost@gmail.com
++++
References

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlVLyOfsZ3c

[2] Earhart Research Bulletin #7, 7/26/98. Accessible at:
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html

Is 2-2-V-1 a Piece of the Sydney Island C-47 Wreck?

Since 1992 TIGHAR has argued that piece of aluminum sheet it refers to as artifact 2-2-V-1 found during a TIGHAR expedition to Nikumaroro is a piece of Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Model 10 Electra [1]. TIGHAR's initial case for 2-2-V-1 was that it was a piece of the underbelly of the Electra was quickly debunked. But Ric Gillepsie, TIGHAR's leader, is nothing if not persistent, and so TIGHAR continued over the years to try to find a way to fit 2-2-V-1 onto Earhart's Electra. Many of the key points Gillespie has put forward over the years for 2-2-V-1 being a piece of the Electra have turned out to indicate the opposite but Gillespie simply continues to march forward, steadfastly ignoring or downplaying evidence that goes against his preferred conclusion.

The long history of TIGHAR's claims about 2-2-V-1 is something that I've been wanting to  post about because I think it illustrates problems that arise all too often with TIGHAR's promotion of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis (Gillespie would of course say that he is testing the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, not promoting it, but come on...).  Anyone who scrolls back through my blog posts can see that I'm not exactly a prolific generator of new material. So while my epic blog post series on 2-2-V-1 awaits fruition I'd like to point readers to a report by Tom Palshaw, who works on aircraft restoration projects at the New England Air Museum in Connecticut.  It is pretty clear that 2-2-V-1 isn't from Earhart's Electra, but then what airplane is it from? Tom has suggested a possible answer: he has found that rivet line spacings, rivet types, and aluminum ‘skin’ thickness of artifact 2-2-V-1 match a section of the upper  wing of a C-47 in NEAM's collection.  C-47s were workhorse U.S. military transport planes during World War Two, and significantly, a C-47 crashed on Sydney Island, another island in the Phoenix Island group, during the war [2].  According to TIGHAR, pieces of that  C-47 were brought to Nikumaroro for use by local inhabitants in making items such as combs.

I helped Tom create an online a report of his findings, which can be found here.

I'm certainly no expert on aircraft manufacture but it seems to me that Tom Palshaw has made a good case that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of aluminum recovered from the Sydney Island crash. It also seems to me that the substance of Tom's findings should be better known by TIGHAR's followers than they probably are. Tom informed Ric Gillespie of this putative match back in 2017, but for two years TIGHAR said nothing about Tom's findings on the TIGHAR discussion forum or its Facebook page.  That silence was only broken this summer when Gillespie made the following tersely worded post on TIGHAR forum [3]:

"On July 16, 2017 I inspected the portion of the DC-3/C-47 wing section at the New England Air Museum alleged to resemble Artifact 2-2-V-1. At the time the wing section was out behind the museum, stored outdoors with various other bits and piece of aircraft. There was no way to check the thickness of the skin but, although there were some general similarities in rivet pattern, the rivet type, rivet pitch, and spacing between rivet lines did not match the artifact. Not even close. TIGHAR videographer Mark Smith recorded the investigation."

Gillespie doesn't provide TIGHAR forum members with Tom Palshaw's side of the story although by this time Gillespie had long since received by email from Tom an analysis that is not much different from the online report I've linked to above. Gillespie could simply have quoted from Tom's email or provided a summary of Tom's key points in his post.  Tom sent Ric a photo showing how a template of 2-2-V-1 matches up with the NEAM C-47 wing (see below), and the match looks pretty good to me, certainly close enough to wonder why Gillespie could have made his 'not even close' comment.

Given all the ink that has been spilled about 2-2-V-1 by Ric Gillespie, it strikes me that Tom Palshaw's findings deserve a serious reply from Gillespie. It could be that Gillespie is correct that C-47 wing is 'not even close', but it isn't enough for Gillespie to simply say it, he needs to explain why that is so. 

+++
References
[1] See TIGHAR TRACKS, Vol. 8 No. 1/2, article titled 'WE DID IT'. Accessible at:  https://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/0801_2.pdf
[2] See TIGHAR Earhart Research Bulletin #7, 7/26/98. Accessible at:
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html
[3] See TIGHAR forum thread titled 'RE: 2-2-V-1 Wing Panel Comparisons', post #2. Accessible at:  https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2074.msg43099.html#msg43099

Note: I originally learned about Tom Palshaw's findings from a post made on the Aviation Mysteries forum. I would link to that post here if I could find it. The post was made long ago and is now buried somewhere deep within the discussion threads there.