Print

[Dale O. Beethe]

Was the factory purpose built as an aircraft factory, or was it converted from something else?  I guess electric drills could be a bit of a shock hazard.

[Jerry Germann]

In looking at the photos , I have found several numbers on the unfinished planes ....
Factory jpg #3  shows the electra with the dented skin as number 5 ,.....plane in background has a number 4 on fuselage nose
Factory jpg # 1  shows electra with an 8 on it's fuselage nose
Electra,Beam jpg shows the lowering of a fuselage onto it's main beam with number 88 on it's nose
Earhart sitting in the nose of her electra has number 55 on the starboard side ......
I don't know if these numbers mean the order they were produced , they may refer to something else entirely.

Just speculating again , but what if what we are seeing in Factory jpg #3 is the final electra with the sloping windshield , along with the first few Electras with the modern V windscreen?

[Ric Gillespie]

Earhart sitting in the nose of her electra has number 55 on the starboard side ......
I don't know if these numbers mean the order they were produced , they may refer to something else entirely.

Earhart's airplane was 1055, the 55th Model 10, so the handwritten numbers would appear to be their chronological "constructor's number."

[Joy Diane Forster]

Just got my Tighar Tracks yesterday -- had to read the whole thing as soon as I could.  Great article on 2-2-V-1 -- I had been getting lost in all the details of this thread, so was really excited to see the summary of the visit to Wright Patterson (great museum, BTW... my brother-in-law works at the base). 

Anyway...  As a follow-up to the article, as I am now excited -- is there any update on the aluminum colored paint analysis?   

I do now understand why Monty was interested in dry paint............

[Ric Gillespie]

...is there any update on the aluminum colored paint analysis?   

Not yet.  I'll poke Dr. Mass (figuratively of course). 

[Dianne DeCamp]

This is my first post. I have been reading the archived material about artifact 2-2-V-1 and the May 2014 TIGHAR Tracks. As a biochemist/pharmacist, I am very impressed at the scientific analysis that has been done on the artifact, and, of course, in other areas of TIGHAR's investigative work. I am not an aircraft expert and hopefully this question is not too naive. As far as the lettering on 2-2-V-1, I have noticed that you don't see any of the Alcoa markings on the external surface of vintage aircraft shown in photographs on this site. Is the lettering typically polished off? I assume the external surface of the planes at that time were unpainted aluminum aircraft skin that was polished like American Airlines jets are today. It seems contradictory that 2-2-V-1 would have lettering on it while serving as the external skin of an airplane. Thanks,

Dianne DeCamp
TIGHAR member #4141

[JNev]

This is my first post. I have been reading the archived material about artifact 2-2-V-1 and the May 2014 TIGHAR Tracks. As a biochemist/pharmacist, I am very impressed at the scientific analysis that has been done on the artifact, and, of course, in other areas of TIGHAR's investigative work. I am not an aircraft expert and hopefully this question is not too naive. As far as the lettering on 2-2-V-1, I have noticed that you don't see any of the Alcoa markings on the external surface of vintage aircraft shown in photographs on this site. Is the lettering typically polished off? I assume the external surface of the planes at that time were unpainted aluminum aircraft skin that was polished like American Airlines jets are today. It seems contradictory that 2-2-V-1 would have lettering on it while serving as the external skin of an airplane. Thanks,

Dianne DeCamp
TIGHAR member #4141

Welcome, Dianne, good to have you posting.

The lettering we see on 2-2-V-1 is likely due to weathering where visible ink once was - or more precisely, perhaps to weathering of the surfaces around where the visible lettering was.  It seems that even with the visible ink polished off there may remain enough trace to produce this result.

That is one possibility.  It might take more analysis to prove what I've postulated about having seen on the part.

[Ric Gillespie]

I have noticed that you don't see any of the Alcoa markings on the external surface of vintage aircraft shown in photographs on this site. Is the lettering typically polished off?

Welcome Dianne.  Most manufacturers put the labeling on the interior side but, at least in some instances, Lockheed skinned Electras with the labeling on the outside. The labeling was then presumably removed either with a solvent or by buffing. By exactly what process remnants of the labeling came to be present on 2-2-V-1 is one of the many mysteries surrounding the artifact.

[Monty Fowler]

It seems that even with the visible ink polished off there may remain enough trace to produce this result.

That is one possibility.  It might take more analysis to prove what I've postulated about having seen on the part.

And that's one good reason that dry paint is holding my interest at the moment.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Greg Daspit]

Is the second "D" font found by Michelle Martin in the same orientation as the other two letters?

[John Ousterhout]

Jeff sez: '...The lettering we see on 2-2-V-1 is likely due to weathering where visible ink once was - or more precisely, perhaps to weathering of the surfaces around where the visible lettering was.  It seems that even with the visible ink polished off there may remain enough trace to produce this result."

Jeff has described a process I have some experience with - Lithography, printed-circuit-board fabrication, and sand-blasting all make use of a "resist" coating that only covers the areas that you don't want etched.  The resist is a sort of paint, more resistant to the etchant than the exposed metal.  Removing the resist after etching leaves the desired pattern.  Something similar may have happened to 2-2-V-1, in which the printed label resisted erosion while the exposed metal got etched.  Sand abrasion seems like a likely process, considering the environment it was found in.  This isn't to say there would be any ink or paint left, the printed areas are simply the last to be exposed, leaving a ghost image that is simply a different surface texture that the area next to it.  The resulting ghost image may only be visible under specific lighting conditions, but may also be made visible by wetting the surface.  Visit a print shop that uses offset printing to see how it's done, and what the plates look like before they're inked.

[JNev]

Is the second "D" font found by Michelle Martin in the same orientation as the other two letters?

Memory can be tricky so take this with a grain of salt until an image might be producted - but yes, my impression was that the second "D" fit the pattern of orientation, etc. very much.

It was a privilege to be present when Michelle found that - it was not easy to spot at all, but became very distinct once she was able to show it to the rest of us.  It was difficult to effectively photograph - faint.

[JNev]

Jeff sez: '...The lettering we see on 2-2-V-1 is likely due to weathering where visible ink once was - or more precisely, perhaps to weathering of the surfaces around where the visible lettering was.  It seems that even with the visible ink polished off there may remain enough trace to produce this result."

Jeff has described a process I have some experience with - Lithography, printed-circuit-board fabrication, and sand-blasting all make use of a "resist" coating that only covers the areas that you don't want etched.  The resist is a sort of paint, more resistant to the etchant than the exposed metal.  Removing the resist after etching leaves the desired pattern.  Something similar may have happened to 2-2-V-1, in which the printed label resisted erosion while the exposed metal got etched.  Sand abrasion seems like a likely process, considering the environment it was found in.  This isn't to say there would be any ink or paint left, the printed areas are simply the last to be exposed, leaving a ghost image that is simply a different surface texture that the area next to it.  The resulting ghost image may only be visible under specific lighting conditions, but may also be made visible by wetting the surface.  Visit a print shop that uses offset printing to see how it's done, and what the plates look like before they're inked.

Thanks John. 

You've described in much better detail that which I had an impression of having been the case.

Ric has certainly outlined the big picture circumstances of it very well - we don't really know for certain why we're seeing it, but I think the process you've described so well is a possibility.

[Mark Appel]

Is the second "D" font found by Michelle Martin in the same orientation as the other two letters?

Howdy Greg... Yes, Jeff is correct. The orientation is the same and appears to be on a different "line" that is, one of multiple lines produced by the roller printing methods we have seen in period photographs. (As a designer and creative director, Michelle has spent countless hours press-checking print proofs for sometimes very--even ridiculously--subtle issues

[Greg Daspit]

Is the second "D" font found by Michelle Martin in the same orientation as the other two letters?

The orientation is the same and appears to be on a different "line" that is, one of multiple lines produced by the roller printing methods we have seen in period photographs.

Interesting development. Most of the pictures of large pieces of skin seem to have the rivet lines aligned with the roller printed labels. Possibly to make the most use of the sheet material and waste as little as possible. If these are roller label printed fonts then it could be a clue for where to look for a fit. Possibly the fit is somewhere that has the rest of the donor sheet aligning with the rivet rows.
In other words the original donor sheet may have rivet lines that transition to a different angle towards the edge in which 2-2-V-1 is part of. What is the angle of the font from the rivet lines?