Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023108 times)

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #420 on: March 05, 2014, 11:08:56 AM »

A quick but important matter, concerning one of the 'riveting' questions we deal with here-

It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.  The War Department's  "Technical Manual: Aircraft Hardware and Materials, June 11, 1942"  recommends that brazier head rivets be used when making repairs.  For this reason, I don't believe the AN-455 rivet can help date the artifact to the pre war era. 

See pages 34-5 here-

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3241791;view=1up;seq=5

"The brazier head rivet is also used on external surfaces of aircraft, and for patching."
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 #421 on: March 05, 2014, 11:14:20 AM »

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.

I agree.


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

No.
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 #422 on: March 05, 2014, 11:18:17 AM »

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?

The pieces on reef appear to be about 4 feet square (4 feet on each side), not 4 square feet.
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 #423 on: March 05, 2014, 11:19:58 AM »

It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.

Agreed.  It will be interesting to see how many brazier head rivets we find on WWII aircraft in Dayton.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #424 on: March 05, 2014, 12:24:08 PM »



It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.

Agreed.  It will be interesting to see how many brazier head rivets we find on WWII aircraft in Dayton.

They must be there.... somewhere.  Here's evidence they were used on some [or all?] B-17s.  It's a forum post of all things... linked below.

Post by DryMartini » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:57 pm

"I also found something interesting in the Y1B-17 drawings.
The fuselage skin was riveted with "Ice Box" rivets - AN455DDx-x 2024 alloy.
I couldn't believe it! When I get back from my business trip, I'll post a
snippet of the drawing."


http://aerovintage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=647&p=2839&hilit=3%2F32+rivets#p2839

http://www.aerovintage.com/b17news.htm


Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #425 on: March 05, 2014, 12:30:59 PM »

A quick but important matter, concerning one of the 'riveting' questions we deal with here-

It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.  The War Department's  "Technical Manual: Aircraft Hardware and Materials, June 11, 1942"  recommends that brazier head rivets be used when making repairs.  For this reason, I don't believe the AN-455 rivet can help date the artifact to the pre war era. 

See pages 34-5 here-

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3241791;view=1up;seq=5

"The brazier head rivet is also used on external surfaces of aircraft, and for patching."

It had been my impression that braziers were phased out in favor of universal heads earlier than we've found was the case - already stated here.

This manual is a good find, thanks Mark.  It also carries the clear caveat -

Quote
1. Purpose.-a. The purpose of this manual is to provide aircraft maintenance personnel with general information about the principal materials and hardware used in aircraft construction and repair.  The subject matter is not to be construed as supplementing or replacing information contained in specificaions or the Air Corps Standards Book.  Requirement for various aircraft materials and specific items of hardware must conform to existing specification when used in the maintenance and repair of aircraft. (Ref: Section / Paragraph 1)

This is typical of such general guidance material and one needs to use care not to rely on it as overarching other more specific material, such as the maintenance and repair manual for the PBY, recently cited here.

To elaborate on just how general this information really is, consider the entire content of paragraph 32 a. -

Quote
Solid shank rivets (fig. 7(1)) are commonly used for sheet metal fastenings.  Most of the rivets used on aircraft are of this type and are designated according to the various head designs: countersunk head, brazier head, round head, and flat head.
(1) The countersunk head rivet is adaptable for use on external surfaces of the aircraft.
(2) The round head rivet is used inside the aircraft where projecting heads are not objectionable..
(3) The flat head rivet is used in fuel tank construction.
(4) The brazier head rivet is also used on external surfaces of aircraft, and for patching.  An application for this type of rivet is shown in figure 7(3).

Note the rather 'absolute' statement here about flat head rivets being used in fuel tank construction: were we to take that literally we'd not expect to find it elsewhere, and yet these were called out specifically in other structural areas on the PBY.  Meaning: this is 'useful information' - essentially for general training in fact, but it does not even truly rise to hard guidance.

That said, it is useful - and demonstrates that the brazier was certainly around and still in use in 1942 when this was published.  And perhaps to your point, I take from it that the brazier would have been a desireable replacement even on flush skins where dimpling or countersinking to original specs might not have been possible in the field: the brazier is a relatively low-profile / low drag protruding head fastener and requires no special hole preparation as would the flush type rivet.  So lots of things are possible, and as Ric has agreed, it will be interesting to see what turns up on WWII types in Dayton.
- 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 #426 on: March 05, 2014, 12:46:47 PM »


Mark,

I was finally able to view the PBY picture on iPhone, not ideal), but not other PBY link or B-17 details yet (won't open in my current venue), but will.  Interesting.... Thanks for your work on this - good information.

You are welcome Jeff.  I believe the greatest revelation lately is to find the B-17G had 3/32" rivets in the stressed skin wings.

See reply #369 above.

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

Silver clecos - sized for 3/32 rivets - can be seen in many on-line photos of B-17 restoration projects.  By chance, this story about the project in Urbana, Ohio appeared just yesterday.

http://www.timesnews.net/gallery/9073929/photo-gallery-ohio-museum-volunteers-building-vintage-b-17

One picture in the photo gallery [at the bottom of the page] shows silver clecos in an aileron undergoing repair.  This restoration group BTW, has a complete set of plans for the B-17, [supplied by Boeing I believe.]  Maybe someone in Urbana would be willing to look over the plans [and the plane] for areas that match up with 2-2-V-1.

It should be easy enough to learn from the B-17's that we're going to see up close.

As to the silver #3 clecos, I have to take anything pictured under repair or restoration with a grain of salt - new metal is commonly first fitted up by drilling undersized pilot holes before re-drilling full-sized for the actual riveting.  Not to say there aren't #3 rivets in the B-17, just can't judge from silver clecos sticking out hither and yon.
- 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 #427 on: March 05, 2014, 01:01:18 PM »

Need I point out that the Boeing Model 299 (B-17) was contemporary with the Lockheed Model 10.  Both aircraft were designed in 1934.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #428 on: March 05, 2014, 01:26:35 PM »

Need I point out that the Boeing Model 299 (B-17) was contemporary with the Lockheed Model 10.  Both aircraft were designed in 1934.

Good point.  By what I can tell too the B-17 used #3 braziers in limited areas, apparently mostly where thin sheet was backed by corrugated metal if I've read the analysis correctly - which better assures a shear condition and helps prevent tensile loading of the diminutive #3 (rivets in tension are a no-no anyway).

As to when the AN470 Universal showed up in the mix -

I've finally just located the earliest reference found (by me) to-date acknowledging "old types vs. universal head" rivets, e.g. meaning "eureka - the 470 universal head rivet is with us" - it is in the 1949 CAM 18 (click on CAM 18 links and find 1949 version), section 18.20-3(e)(4)(ii) -

Quote
REPLACEMENT OF ALUMINUM ALLOY RIVETS.  All protruding head rivets (round-head, flat-head, and brazier-head) may be replaced by AN-470 Universal-head rivets.  Flush-head rivets should be used to replace flush-head rivets.

Which does not tell us when the AN470 really showed up, it merely tells us that it was in production and regarded as a suitable substitute for the other protruding head types by then.  It did not appear in the 1943 CAM 18, so it apparently showed up sometime between 1943 and 1949.  FAA nor its forebear CAA are known to have rushed to the presses for new things like this, so it could have been around for years before going to print.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #429 on: March 05, 2014, 02:57:19 PM »


There is a fuselage skin 'plating' diagram at the link below- showing the areas of .032 skin on the B-17.  A copy may be helpful to have at hand while at the Air Force Museum. 

The second of the two diagrams can be enlarged. 

http://s197.photobucket.com/user/B17_Dry_Martini/library/?view=recent&page=1
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #430 on: March 05, 2014, 10:10:33 PM »

If I had to chose a plane on Tighar’s list of Canton airplane wrecks as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I’d put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as ‘hit reef on takeoff’ , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:06:06 PM by Steve Lee »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #431 on: March 06, 2014, 06:48:58 AM »

If I had to chose a plane on Tighar’s list of Canton airplane wrecks as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I’d put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as ‘hit reef on takeoff’ , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.

Why not the example of 27 March 1943 - USN  PBY-5A of VP-54 - Destroyed in Japanese bombing attack on Canton -

2-2-V-1 also bears evidence of severe trauma in terms of forced removal from the mother structure and signs of heat damage (loss of ductility) in some areas.  It does not bear the tell-tale pock-marks of explosive damage per one expert who looked at it (upstring - the gent who worked TWA 800 before being retired from NTSB), but perhaps another modus of explosive force, e.g. gasoline creating a rupturing scenario, etc. could have done it (whew - run on...).

Oddly enough, BTW, given the heat damage and suggestion of explosive force, I've found myself wondering a bit lightly whether Hooven might have been right...  8)

That said, the main problem I have with the PBY is that we've already looked at the manual for it and the fastener size and type is wrong, unless somebody put a really light, down-scale patch on something for some reason I cannot imagine: the entire structure uses heavier fasteners than what we see in 2-2-V-1.

But that's not to disclaim it away - if we get to examine one I'd happily clambor all over it to see what can be learned (a bit tongue in cheek... no worries Ric, I realize the museum will have some limits on how much touch is allowed and I won't embarrass the family...  ;D).
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:53:51 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
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 #432 on: March 06, 2014, 07:16:22 AM »

We have the following from Paul Squires of the Ventura Memorial Flight Association .  Apparently a Mr. Beck wrote to him asking about the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a PV-1 Ventura.  The Lockheed Model 18 (Navy PV-1, Army C-60, civilian "Lodestar") was one of several later derivatives of the Model 10 and we have a known PV-1 loss on Canton.  I've look at the C-60 in the NMUSAF collection in Dayton. My recollection is that there are some small non-flush rivets in the fuselage under the horizontal stabilizer but I think they're bigger than #3.  We'll look at the airplane again later this month.

Paul Squires is correct that we have (or at least had) a photo of the wrecked PV-1 on Canton but I'll be darned if I can find it now.  I'll keep looking.

***************
Hi Mr. Beck,

I got your e-mail from Tony Jarvis with the VMFA, as I am familiar with
the Ventura and TIGHAR, indeed I met Ric and Pat in Newfoundland as part
of the search for Nungessor & Coli's missing White Bird, and also took
their Aircraft Archeology course in Dayton.  I also brought the presence
of the Ventura on Canton to Ric's notice, although I may not have been
the first to do so.

I have also met Frank Kesseler, one of the crewmen on board that
Ventura.

Please also note that the Ventura Memorial Flight Association has no
official comment to make on whether the artifact TIGHAR 2-2-V-1 might be
part of a PV-1 aircraft.  The following comments are just mine.

The aircraft written off on Canton Island was USN BuAer 48809, with
VB-146, on a deployment flight from Hawaii to Morotai to cover the
invasion of the Philippines (although the crew did not know about that
at the time).

In brief, here is what we have in our database:

48809 US Navy

12/08/43        accepted
12/08/43        delivered

06/15/44        lost (VB-146), but Squadron records have "flew into     
                        thunderhead and surveyed Canton 9 June 44".
07/12/44        stricken

This is the aircraft Frank Kessler was navigator on.  On transit flight,
at night, flew into thunderstorm.  Was violently thrown about, dived and
climbed at least twice.  Controls locked.  Regained using trim tabs.   
All antenna wiped off, as well as external cover on door with liferaft 
and emergency exit over cockpit.  Wings bent back and up, and tail bent 
15º to one side.  All control surfaces jammed.

Flew approximate course until daylight, then followed C-47 aircraft.   
Passed it several times, and orbited until past, then followed again.

On arrival at Canton Island lined up on runway, dropped flaps and gear 
and landed.  Aircraft written off at Canton.  Crew continued to Morotai 
on other VPB-146 a/c.

TIGHAR has photo of aircraft on Canton as part of search for Amelia 
Earhart.

Oral history of flight from Frank Kessler in VMFA records.

Flight was written up in Colliers Magazine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a later flight to Canton to investigate an aircraft engine TIGHAR
found that the Ventura, and other material, had been pushed into a pit
and buried, prior to the mid 1960's, when the missile range operation
was closed down.

Between it's loss in 1944 and it's scrapping at an unknown date we have
no information on this aircraft or it's condition, except that it was on
the airfield.  Parts were probably removed by many people, for many
purposes.

We have looked for possible matches with 2-2-V-1, but not really
intensively, more just eyeballing.  The reason is that the exterior of
the Ventura is all flush riveted.  The only "exterior" panels that have
non-flush head rivets are the areas of the under surface of the wing
enclosed by the nacelles.  As well the lower parts of the Ventura have
rivets on stringers and formers, forming "box" patterns, with no long
rows of rivets as displayed on 2-2-V-1.  That includes the bomb bay
doors as well as the fuselage skin.  It's a pretty rugged aircraft.

The rivet found on the artifact is described in the discussion page as
an AN455AD3-3 Rivet.  We've created a large database of every part on a
Ventura, including AN/AC rivets and bolts, etc., from the microfilmed
blueprints we obtained from the US Public Archives.  We have only 2
parts that use the AN455AD3 rivet in any form, 10640 CHANNEL-Engine
Control Stand, and 117219, replaced by 118628, STRUCTURE Assembly-Wing
Rear, which lists 10 AN455AD3 rivets.  This is the rear part of the
outer wing panels.

As well, the TIGHAR artifact shows markings that indicate it was
produced pre-1939.  48809 was built in August 1943, and is unlikely to
have pre-war aluminium in the structure, unless it was repaired.  Prior
to the ferry flight VB-146 had put in several months of patrols in
Hawaii, Johnson Island and Midway, after being established at Whidby
Island.  A repair might have been done at these points, but we have no
way of knowing.

So, we do not dismiss that TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1 may have come from a
Ventura, but feel that it is very unlikely.  I personally think that the
work TIGHAR puts in to identifying each of the artifacts found has been
detailed and verifiable, to a very high standard, and open. 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #433 on: March 06, 2014, 07:29:58 AM »

This PV-2's story is compelling - can you imagine landing such a bent-up airplane?

Worth the look of course, and I realize from yesterday's reading of technical material that one use of the brazier head rivet might be for a patch where flush-riveting means were not available (perhaps remote field locations, for example).  But I think that is at best an outside chance - and am wondering if the PV-2 - bigger and heavier than the L10 - would have used such tiny rivets so much.

Looking will tell us much, it will be a good trip.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #434 on: March 06, 2014, 08:21:30 AM »

Wow ... talk about tough! They don't make 'em like that anymore.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 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