Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 734827 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #675 on: March 21, 2014, 02:47:54 PM »

Matt, comparing the 1941 edition of the Alcoa Co. handbook, "Aluminum in Aircraft" with the 1943 edition reveals when the AN-A-13 designation came into use.

Apparently not. Go ask Mavis.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #676 on: March 21, 2014, 04:19:24 PM »

Earlier you wrote, "The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943.  So how did a piece of sheet labeled AN-A-13 end up on a pre-war Japanese flying boat?"

How could it appear on a piece of aluminum from 1937?  ...and how can you be sure that 'Mavis' is pre-war?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30572.html#msg30572
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • member #4155
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #677 on: March 21, 2014, 04:21:01 PM »



I believe it's safe to say that all 'machine rolled' ink stamps are parallel to the grain.  I've never seen an example of the distinctive font found on 2-2-V-1 in a 'hand-stamped' label.  As Ric reported in 1992, "An exhaustive search of aircraft of World War Two and earlier vintage produced only three examples of aluminum bearing these exact markings:...In all three cases, the entire sequence of labeling reads:
ALCOA T. M. .032" ALCLAD 24 S – T 3 AN – A – 13."


The Alcoa engineer Ric spoke with in 1996 was wrong about the meaning of AN-A-13.  I believe he was wrong about the hand-stamping concept too.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30572.html#msg30572


Mark, Ric just to be clear did the hand stamping information come from the same source as the original meaning of the AN-A-13 designation?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #678 on: March 21, 2014, 05:07:35 PM »

Mark, Ric just to be clear did the hand stamping information come from the same source as the original meaning of the AN-A-13 designation?

Yes, and it is therefore suspect.
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • member #4155
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #679 on: March 21, 2014, 05:15:48 PM »

" After January 1940, when the commercial treaty lapsed, the United States was free to employ economic sanctions against Japan. Congress, in June of that year, passed the National Defense Act which made it possible for the President to prohibit exports to Japan and on 2 July President Franklin D. Roosevelt put the export license system into effect by restricting the shipment of arms and ammunition, certain strategic materials such as aluminum, and airplane parts."

From http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Strategy/Strategy-2.html

The aluminum for the Mavis should predate July 1940 if it came directly from the US.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:20:16 PM by Matt Revington »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #680 on: March 21, 2014, 05:24:42 PM »

Earlier you wrote, "The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943.  So how did a piece of sheet labeled AN-A-13 end up on a pre-war Japanese flying boat?"

Yes, I did write that.  Maybe I was wrong about when the AN-A-13 designation first appeared.

How could it appear on a piece of aluminum from 1937?

AN-A-13 may have been around longer than we concluded from what was written in Aluminum in Aircraft.

  ...and how can you be sure that 'Mavis' is pre-war?

The Kawanishi H6K "Mavis"was developed in 1938 and replaced by the H8K "Emily" in February 1942. But it doesn't matter when the H6K that has AN-A-13 aluminum was built or repaired.  If AN-A-13 metal was not developed until 1942 there's no way it should be on any Japanese aircraft - period.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #681 on: March 21, 2014, 05:32:25 PM »

The aluminum for the Mavis should predate July 1940 if it came directly from the US.

Right.  So, assuming that the AN-A-13 metal on the H6K was a 1942 or later repair (they weren't building Mavis's in 1942), who might have been buying aircraft aluminum in the U.S. and secretly selling it to Japan?  Just trying to help Mark.
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #682 on: March 21, 2014, 05:36:11 PM »

The rows of rivets appear to taper but does that necessarily mean the underlying structure had to taper, given a poorly aligned rivet job?

Applied an over lay showing one possible fit for 1" parallel stringers on 4" or 4.25" centers.

Or we could be seeing a deviation where damaged stringers were straightened and new skin reattached.  Problem is, 3/4" (original L10 spacing more on order of 3.5" I believe) is significant.  It is not, however, impossible - and your illustration makes a good point of this.

ADDED:

Further to this point, what IS the actual width - outside and inside of flanges - of the stiffeners in the L10?  Reasoning: the keel line makes sense, as does the first line of rivets (3.5" offset, as per L10 original), but the others are fairly uniformly displaced 3/4" - implying a sister member laid in for the next three stiffeners.  Consider that the area we are talking about was subject to 'straighten or replace' on the work description, so a fair question is whether straightening might have happened, with some additional bracing added to keep contours and stiffeness in good order afterward.  This is far from unheard of in repair world and kind of a battleship tough approach. 

It would have surely beat having to rip out a full length of stringer just because a couple of bays were bent up, and faster and perhaps stronger than splicing in a short section as well (more original stiffness retained) - straighten them as best one can, then lay in a sister member next to the original.



Jeff,
If the repair procedure was done in such a manner, I wonder the rivet placements....the inner most stringer to the keel, I believe you say stays put and is reused as is , if so, the rivet pattern seems strange ....upon installing the new panel,...why would the pitch go from 1.5 inches to 1.0 on a good stringer....doing so one makes use of only some of the good rivet holes, drilling of new holes between the existing 1.5 holes would have to be done to accomplish the 1.0 inch pitch ....( that is if 1.5 is the original pitch in this area ) ...photos of an existing electra seems to show this. It has been suggested that the keel 3/32nds rivets were replaced due to an elongated condition, however we see 3/32nds in use on the outer rows of 2-2-V-1, would this indicate that the 3/32nds holes in the stringers were in good condition to use? I understand that possibly the outer rows ( if sister stringers were installed) , maybe one might go to a closer pitch on those , (if thought neccesary),...but wouldn't that look kind of unusual?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:38:28 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #683 on: March 21, 2014, 05:48:21 PM »

Matt, comparing the 1941 edition of the Alcoa Co. handbook, "Aluminum in Aircraft" with the 1943 edition reveals when the AN-A-13 designation came into use.

Apparently not. Go ask Mavis.

Instead of asking Mavis, I asked Pacific Wrecks about the 'Mavis' photo. My question was:

Hello,

I am wondering if you can tell me anything about the wreck west of Port Moresby shown in photos here:

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/mavis.html

Are you sure it is a Mavis? I see parts marked Alclad (US-made aluminum) in one of the photos. Is the photo showing the Alclad the same wreck as the other photos? Are you sure it isn't a US plane?

Thank You,


This was the reply I got:

Mr. Beck,

You are correct, this plane is mis-identified, it is a B-24.  That page needs to be updated since.


Best,

Justin Taylan

Director, Pacific Wrecks
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #684 on: March 21, 2014, 05:52:00 PM »

Well done Hal.  I sent a similar request weeks ago (to the photographer) but got no response.  You must have the touch.

addendum: One of the pleasures of participating in TIGHAR is the way one feels when a bunch of conflicting data gets resolved with a clear, consistent result.  In a group effort, without any real coordination (other than shared interest in these forii and some gentle steering from Ric), a key photo from an unrelated website was discovered to be mis-identified.  In the process, the history of an obscure military specification was nailed down, history of export sanctions dug up from 70 years ago, and a bunch of supporting photos and documents discovered.
We still don't know what was the source of 2-2-V-1, but the unknowns have been dramatically reduced.  Perhaps more importantly, the assumptions have been replaced with data.
This is better than Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 07:59:43 PM by John Ousterhout »
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #685 on: March 21, 2014, 07:06:36 PM »


This was the reply I got:

Mr. Beck,

You are correct, this plane is mis-identified, it is a B-24.  That page needs to be updated since.
Best,

Justin Taylan


Many thanks Hal for clearing this up for us so quickly.  And thanks to John O. too, he has looked into the ID of this wreck also.  Seems we all had doubts about the 'Mavis' from the very start.  This really helps to clear away the fog.
 

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #686 on: March 21, 2014, 09:03:18 PM »

Good work Hal.  So now the question would seem to be whether the particular font we see on 2-2-V-1 is unique to AN-A-13 labeling.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #687 on: March 21, 2014, 10:44:22 PM »

B-24D-85-CO "Pride of the Corn-huskers" Serial Number 42-40682


Built by Consolidated for $297,627.00. Assigned to the 5th Air Force, 43rd Bombardment Group, 403rd Bombardment Squadron. Nicknamed "Pride of the Cornhuskers".

Mission History
Took off from 7 Mile Drome near Port Moresby on a reconnaissance mission. Soon after take off, this B-24 crashed at 4:25am, impacting into a truck convoy loaded with Australian soldiers on the eastern end of the runway.
In the crash, 59 were killed and 92 injured from the Australian Army 2/33rd Infantry Battalion, D Company. These soldiers were in trucks awaiting orders to board C-47 Dakotas to be flown northward to Nadzab Airfield via Tsili Tsili Airfield.


Initial production of the B-24D was at Consolidated’s home factory at San Diego but in early 1941 a second assembly plant at Fort Worth, Texas came on line.  There followed a third plant operated by Douglas Aircraft at Tulsa, Oklahoma.  The aircraft manufactured by Consolidated at Fort Worth carried the designation CF, those built by Consolidated at San Diego were designated CO, whereas those manufactured at Tulsa carried the designation DT.  Initially the plants at Fort Worth and Tulsa assembled finished B24D’s from what were referred to as knock-down (KD) assemblies supplied by San Diego. 

http://medalsgonemissing.com/military-medal-blog/military-medals/u-s-b-24-liberator-crash-site-pride-of-the-cornhuskers-located-tragic-reminders-of-the-233rd-infantry-battalion-aif-in-new-guinea/

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-24/42-40682.html

http://www.doug-and-dusty.id.au/production.htm

Coincidentally, from this wreck appeared a glass jar, now opaque but once transparent...




 

This must be the place
 
Logged

Jeff Lange

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #688 on: March 22, 2014, 08:12:53 AM »

Thanks for the links Jeff. That last one had much useful information about the B-24 series and its' production. Being from the Ann Arbor, MI. area and driving past Willow Run apart weekly, its' history in the production of the B-24 has always been interesting. Had one or two uncles who actually worked at the plant in production during the war! Again, I thank you for the info.
Jeff Lange

# 0748CR
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #689 on: March 23, 2014, 04:58:33 PM »

The rows of rivets appear to taper but does that necessarily mean the underlying structure had to taper, given a poorly aligned rivet job?

Applied an over lay showing one possible fit for 1" parallel stringers on 4" or 4.25" centers.

Or we could be seeing a deviation where damaged stringers were straightened and new skin reattached.  Problem is, 3/4" (original L10 spacing more on order of 3.5" I believe) is significant.  It is not, however, impossible - and your illustration makes a good point of this.

ADDED:

Further to this point, what IS the actual width - outside and inside of flanges - of the stiffeners in the L10?  Reasoning: the keel line makes sense, as does the first line of rivets (3.5" offset, as per L10 original), but the others are fairly uniformly displaced 3/4" - implying a sister member laid in for the next three stiffeners.  Consider that the area we are talking about was subject to 'straighten or replace' on the work description, so a fair question is whether straightening might have happened, with some additional bracing added to keep contours and stiffeness in good order afterward.  This is far from unheard of in repair world and kind of a battleship tough approach. 

It would have surely beat having to rip out a full length of stringer just because a couple of bays were bent up, and faster and perhaps stronger than splicing in a short section as well (more original stiffness retained) - straighten them as best one can, then lay in a sister member next to the original.



Jeff,
If the repair procedure was done in such a manner, I wonder the rivet placements....the inner most stringer to the keel, I believe you say stays put and is reused as is , if so, the rivet pattern seems strange ....upon installing the new panel,...why would the pitch go from 1.5 inches to 1.0 on a good stringer....doing so one makes use of only some of the good rivet holes, drilling of new holes between the existing 1.5 holes would have to be done to accomplish the 1.0 inch pitch ....( that is if 1.5 is the original pitch in this area ) ...photos of an existing electra seems to show this. It has been suggested that the keel 3/32nds rivets were replaced due to an elongated condition, however we see 3/32nds in use on the outer rows of 2-2-V-1, would this indicate that the 3/32nds holes in the stringers were in good condition to use? I understand that possibly the outer rows ( if sister stringers were installed) , maybe one might go to a closer pitch on those , (if thought neccesary),...but wouldn't that look kind of unusual?

don't know.  It's worth a close study, grant you that.  Many things are possible and yes, some of what is discussed would 'look' kind of unusual, but sometimes localized repairs do look unusual - they are not always as clean as the ideal we'd prefer.

And I don't know what they looked like up close on Earhart's bird... always a problem.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP