Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023091 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #405 on: March 04, 2014, 11:35:52 AM »

We have a B-17G at the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force in Pooler (near Savannah), GA.  Also useful to inspect and undergoing restoration by some excellent local talent.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #406 on: March 04, 2014, 11:44:47 AM »

Wanna do it or want to assign this task?  I can take a crack at the spread sheet if you like.

Go for it.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Thanks.

Draft sent - please check email / review.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #407 on: March 04, 2014, 12:06:16 PM »

How many surviving examples of any given type do we need to inspect?  If we inspect three B-17s at the Air Force Museum, do we need to travel 40 miles to inspect a fourth?
 
Most surviving WWII aircraft have been "restored" (meaning "rebuilt").  Rebuilders usually try to replicate original construction but expedient variations are not uncommon.  For example, the cowling on the San Diego Air & Space Museum's Grumman F3F is from a DC-3 and the replica of Earhart's Electra recently acquired by Seattle's Museum of Flight has North American T-6 cowlings.  You won't find a Lockheed 10 in any museum that has the blue corrosion inhibitor used by Lockheed.  Bottom line: In inspecting "restored" aircraft we need to make sure that we're looking at original construction or that the rebuild was done to original specs.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #408 on: March 04, 2014, 12:19:43 PM »

Wanna do it or want to assign this task?  I can take a crack at the spread sheet if you like.

Go for it.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Thanks.

Draft sent - please check email / review.

Jeff's template looks good.  If Forum members would nominate candidates I'll add them to the spreadsheet. Remember, the aircraft has to be documented as having served in or transited through the Central Pacific.  We need:
•  The manufacturer
•  The manufacturer's type number (example: the B-24 was Consolidated Model 32)
•  The various military designations (example: Army B-24, Navy PB4Y)
•  Surviving example(s) and their locations.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #409 on: March 04, 2014, 12:27:31 PM »


I believe part of the interest in the upcoming USAF Museum visit is to review as many of the types that visited Canton as possible for this very reason - we're not overlooking the possibility of a 'mother ship' for 2-2-V-1 among those types.

The B-17 construction methods you pointed out earlier are appreciated as well, for sure...
 
No mistake - these other possibilities have to be reviewed.  But 2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Canton, etc.


This official history, written in the 1950's I believe, makes it clear Canton Island was extremely important as a repair station/depot during the war. 
['Canton' turns up 25 times in the text.]
 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html

"Army Air Forces in World War II- Vol. IV the Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan; August 1942 to July 1944"

Chapter 9: The Gilberts and Marshalls

"...The field at Baker, built by the 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion of the Seventh Air Force, had one 5,500-foot runway covered with steel mat, together with hardstands and parking mat to accommodate twenty-five fighters and twenty-four heavy bombers... In planning to base air units on these outlying islands, as much in some instances as 2,000 miles from the Hawaiian Air Depot, the Seventh Air Force faced difficult problems of service and maintenance. The individual bomber and fighter squadrons could supply first and second echelon maintenance within their organization, for the ground crews would accompany the flight echelons, but they hardly could be expected to perform third and minor fourth echelon service. In the forward area, anything approaching standard service facilities could be expected only at Canton, where the 422d Sub-Depot and a detachment of the 17th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron were located after July 1943.
Page 294
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #410 on: March 04, 2014, 01:43:02 PM »


I believe part of the interest in the upcoming USAF Museum visit is to review as many of the types that visited Canton as possible for this very reason - we're not overlooking the possibility of a 'mother ship' for 2-2-V-1 among those types.

The B-17 construction methods you pointed out earlier are appreciated as well, for sure...
 
No mistake - these other possibilities have to be reviewed.  But 2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Canton, etc.


This official history, written in the 1950's I believe, makes it clear Canton Island was extremely important as a repair station/depot during the war. 
['Canton' turns up 25 times in the text.]
 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html

"Army Air Forces in World War II- Vol. IV the Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan; August 1942 to July 1944"

Chapter 9: The Gilberts and Marshalls

"...The field at Baker, built by the 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion of the Seventh Air Force, had one 5,500-foot runway covered with steel mat, together with hardstands and parking mat to accommodate twenty-five fighters and twenty-four heavy bombers... In planning to base air units on these outlying islands, as much in some instances as 2,000 miles from the Hawaiian Air Depot, the Seventh Air Force faced difficult problems of service and maintenance. The individual bomber and fighter squadrons could supply first and second echelon maintenance within their organization, for the ground crews would accompany the flight echelons, but they hardly could be expected to perform third and minor fourth echelon service. In the forward area, anything approaching standard service facilities could be expected only at Canton, where the 422d Sub-Depot and a detachment of the 17th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron were located after July 1943.
Page 294


Mark, I read the article with particular attention to the references to Canton, and other than the rather general statement you cited above didn't find anything that set me on fire about Canton being a heavy maintenance depot.  What I get from all this was that Canton was better off than most other outposts - grant you that.

Nonetheless, in addition to the types we already knew of, it appears to me that we ought to add the P-40 and A-24 ("SBD Dauntless" in fact) for review as potential hosts to 2-2-V-1.  Those were mentioned as transiting / guarding from Canton at one time or another.

That's not to demean the excellent research in your finding and sharing these things - just that we have to focus on the meaningful details and not just point to the general condition of a fairly busy but remote island / airfield. 

A fitment problem and other hosts being possible is realized; however, just as critical, a fitment to an alternate type must be shown reasonable or Cinderella should get her shoe back after the dance.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 01:47:13 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #411 on: March 04, 2014, 02:24:58 PM »

For a bit more enlightenment on the character of the swingin' Canton base during the war, read Jeff Victor Hayden's post #13 from "Japanese Aircraft" in this same panel -

The 333rd was dumped on Canton in September, 1942. Things hadn't improved much. If the US sent prisoners to such a place today, they would sue the government. The 333rd  settled in. The first thing you did there was trade your  helmet for one that was painted white to match the coral background. There were 4 P-39s: the other 15 came in big crates. Each had to be wrestled ashore and assembled. Planes were refueled by hand and facilities were very primitive. There were still millions of rats. There was a rat killing contest, no firearms allowed, with a bottle of scotch as a prize and a Sergeant named Warburton killed over 500 in a week on his spare time. There was dysentery and the bad diet did nothing to help it.  For fun, one could periodically forage on the wreck of the transport SS President Taylor, which had grounded months earlier, losing 80% of it's needed supplies in the process. (On the other hand, working in the flooded holds under equatorial sun attempting supply salvage was no fun at all.)  A 10 foot high seawall had been bulldozed around much of the island so enemy submarines couldn't see anything to shoot at. Drums of water and gasoline were stored in it. Until some industrious 333rd soul borrowed a bulldozer and successfully dug a well, everyone was bathing in sea water. The well was a big improvement. It wasn't drinkable, but at least it wasn't salty. Porcelain fixtures and mirrors from the President Taylor went into the first permanent shower and latrine. The planes went on alert or on patrol around the clock.
Pacific airfields were mostly named for the first man killed on them. When the night patrol returned at dawn, they were under orders to buzz the field at 3 feet off the deck. 2nd Lt. John H. Topham died buzzing it in a spectacular two plane crash: it became Topham Field.  The enemy had a uncanny knack for approaching Canton and turning away at just the point where a P-39 couldn't intercept them. It was wonderful training and over water flying practice, but the 333rd got no kills.  In mid deployment, they moved from 18th Group to the 318th Group, and the original "Coral Cobra" patch was created by pilot Bob Rieser during that time. One highlight (low light?) came when Canton got in on the search for Eddie Rickenbacker. Somebody sent America's  leading World War 1 ace around the atoll circuit for either a morale boosting tour or fact finding tour depending on your source. His  B-17 went missing. Many years afterwards, MSGT. Harry  Double recalled . . .

“... so they sent Eddie Rickenbacker out to help boost our morale. Hell, our morale was fine; there was nothing wrong with our morale on Canton. But then his plane went missing, and as if we didn't have enough on our plate already with what little we had to work with, we had to screw around searching for Eddie Rickenbaker”.

By now, the main focus of the fighting was in the Guadalcanal area; about 2,000 miles away from Canton. Still, Canton knew they were in a war. Canton was a key link in the supply line. The enemy kept Canton under surveillance with long range flying boats out of the Gilbert Islands to the west. Around January 1943, enemy submarines put a blockade on, and food and supplies got scarce. Everyone's shoes wore out. Coral is a living thing, so you couldn't just walk about with holed shoes as coral would grow in any cut on your foot. Or anywhere else with moisture including the ear canal. Chunks of old inner tubes were used as shoe liners. The food situation went from bad to worse; the once discarded bread with grubs became part of the diet. Everyone's clothing was falling apart and there was barely gas for the planes to fly patrols. The Navy finally broke the blockade, but things got tight before they did.
On January 30, 1943, a Japanese sub surfaced before dawn and shelled the island for 30 minutes. It did no damage, but 333rd  planes that scrambled with depth charges didn't sink it either. There were night raids by Japanese patrol bombers on March 19th, 22nd, and 26th, 1943. The 333rd scrambled planes, but the enemy came in at high altitude  in ones or twos and, without radar, interception was a long shot. Only the last raid caused any real damage including 3 destroyed barracks, a Navy PBY Catalina, and holes in the water tank the 333rd had built. (Contrary to one published account, the mess hall was not hit.)  But everyone got a good laugh as Tokyo Rose claimed great damage, including 2 hits that "sunk" the rusting derelict  SS President Taylor.

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.Canton.html
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #412 on: March 04, 2014, 07:25:15 PM »

One thing that puzzles me is that if this piece was salvaged and brought to Niku from Canton or somewhere else how come it was never re-purposed.

Have any other comparable pieces of aircraft metal been found on Niku that weren't turned into combs or decorative items or something useful?   Given how resource starved the colonists were it seems uncharacteristic to haul this back from wherever and never use it (I assume it shows no signs of a secondary use).

That's a darn good question.  In fact, the way 2-2-V-1 was found could suggest that it was never harvested at all, but swept up into the brush by natural action long ago.


And that is probably the strongest reason that hints that 2-2-V-1 wasn't harvested from a wreck/repair shop in order to make primitive combs/fishing tackle. It was found washed up on the Western shore on October 18th 1991 but wasn't there 2 years earlier...

"The aircraft skin was lying amid the debris of beachfront vegetation torn out and washed up by huge waves which had hit the island’s western shoreline sometime between our visit in 1989 and our return two years later. The corrugated metal visible in the upper right of the photo is the collapsed roof of a wooden frame building with “Gardner Co-Op Store 1940” painted over
what was once the doorway. In 1989 the building stood intact, surrounded by a jungle of coconut and pandanus
trees which extended westward (toward the bottom of the photo) about 50 feet. Beyond, open beach continued
another 100 feet to the high tide line. The seaward side wall of the structure was pushed inward by the storm surge and most of the vegetation between the building and the beach was obliterated by the same force. On the first expedition we had thoroughly searched the old store (empty except for a bed frame, some rats, and a very dead cat) as well as the area around it. There was certainly no big chunk of airplane skin lying about at that time."

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf
This must be the place
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #413 on: March 04, 2014, 08:23:58 PM »

I don't pretend to know the answer to whether 2-2-V-1 was ever used by the locals.  There are marks that strongly suggest that a few surviving rivets, presumably holding tattered remnants of stringers, were pried off.  A portion of the piece has lost some of its ductility due to exposure to heat.  We have an anecdotal account of a piece of aluminum that sounds a lot like 2-2-V-1 being used to cook fish.

BUT, it is certainly the case that the location and the circumstances under which it was found strongly suggest that it came from the sea with the post-1989 storm.  It is also the case that there are patches of discoloration on the surface of the artifact that test positive for calcium carbonate (coral).  This artifact spent a considerable amount of time underwater in relatively shallow water.  It is also a fact that the edges of the artifact are worn smooth.  As any aviation accident investigator can tell you, aluminum aircraft wreckage - even old wreckage - is dangerously sharp.  Not 2-2-V-1.  You couldn't cut yourself if you tried, except where ALCOA cut out "coupons" for testing in 1996.  How did the edges get worn smooth?  It had to be from years of abrasion against sand and coral.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #414 on: March 05, 2014, 06:12:43 AM »

As you see with pebbles on the beach, the sharp edges are worn smooth. Which drew my attention to the reef analysis photos analysed by Photek.

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf


1953 photographs of four pieces of what appears to be light coloured metal roughly four feet square

Roughly the size of 2-2-V-1?
This must be the place
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #415 on: March 05, 2014, 06:44:20 AM »

I had not realized the smooth edged qualities of the sheet.  It takes quite a bit of natural exposure to do what is described.  Given where this piece was found and its character that it well may have been in the wild (surf areas) and banged around in the sands for a long time.

Do any of the other found sheet metal artifacts bear this kind of character (worn smooth edges, etc.)?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #416 on: March 05, 2014, 07:52:52 AM »

It is also the case that there are patches of discoloration on the surface of the artifact that test positive for calcium carbonate (coral).  This artifact spent a considerable amount of time underwater in relatively shallow water.  It is also a fact that the edges of the artifact are worn smooth.  As any aviation accident investigator can tell you, aluminum aircraft wreckage - even old wreckage - is dangerously sharp.  Not 2-2-V-1.  You couldn't cut yourself if you tried, except where ALCOA cut out "coupons" for testing in 1996.  How did the edges get worn smooth?  It had to be from years of abrasion against sand and coral.

In the alternate case that 2-2-V-I came from Canton, I suppose it could have been naturally 'polished' on a Canton beach, then beachcombed by a Niku worker on Canton who then brought it home with him.


Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #417 on: March 05, 2014, 09:41:32 AM »

Or simply lost to the sands of Niku for decades.  There's no way to know for certain - many things are possible. 

But at least one of those possible things includes that we're seeing something that was deposited by an event other-than migration by canoe and later coughed-up by mother nature.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #418 on: March 05, 2014, 10:15:51 AM »

1953 photographs of four pieces of what appears to be light coloured metal roughly four feet square

Roughly the size of 2-2-V-1?

Four feet square is much larger than 2-2-V-1.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #419 on: March 05, 2014, 10:30:58 AM »

1953 photographs of four pieces of what appears to be light coloured metal roughly four feet square
Roughly the size of 2-2-V-1?

Four feet square is much larger than 2-2-V-1.

2ft X 2ft = 4sq ft.

(24 inch X 24 inch)

The sheet was a comparatively large piece (23 inch x 19 inch)

 5 sq inches out, close?

This must be the place
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP