Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1022809 times)

Jeff Palshook

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #510 on: March 12, 2014, 02:38:56 PM »

Jeff Neville,

The photo you posted above (in Reply #502) is available for viewing in the Purdue e-archives:

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=509&CISOBOX=1&REC=3

It looks like the Purdue archives photo is a bit clearer than the one you posted.

The photo was taken in Karachi (India in 1937, now Pakistan) during the 2nd world flight attempt.

When I zoom in to the area in question in this photo in the Purdue archives, I don't see anything abnormal in the skin of the aircraft.  Perhaps what you see in the version you posted is just shadows or some other effect of the lighting in this area.

Jeff P.
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 #511 on: March 12, 2014, 06:25:19 PM »

Many replies up-string cover the AN-A–13 designation [reply #218 through #231, and others].  The "ALCLAD 24S–T3  AN-A–13" stamping appears in original WW2 construction also.  Here are three examples, found at crash sites.

How do you know those are original construction and not repairs or modifications? (You better have a good answer.)
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #512 on: March 12, 2014, 07:09:39 PM »

I don't suppose there was ever a KOA on Gardner? (just kidding)
http://www.airstream.com/files/library/ba001792c0a731f5.pdf
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #513 on: March 12, 2014, 08:19:48 PM »

This makes me want to remove cupboards from our 32 foot Airstream to see what's underneath, or should I strip the paint from the outside?
As for the presence of "ALCLAD 24ST-T3..." stamps, please refer to the crashed Kawanishi HK6 pictures I posted earlier.  The stamps seem most likely to indicate that the Japanese bought the aluminum prior to the war, built the aircraft, and it eventually got shot down during the war.  Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?
Cheers,
JohnO
 
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 #514 on: March 12, 2014, 08:48:01 PM »

Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?

Yes.  Alcoa told us the A-N-A 13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If some can show that is incorrect please do.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #515 on: March 12, 2014, 09:35:08 PM »

Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?

Yes.  Alcoa told us the A-N-A 13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If some can show that is incorrect please do.

"AN-N-13" was the general US Army-Navy specification for Alcad 24S sheet, according to this manual- [See page 65]
"Aluminum in aircraft. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Aluminum company of America 1943"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4444813;view=1up;seq=7
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #516 on: March 12, 2014, 09:59:56 PM »

For Mark Pearce, do you have any details of what Fortress the AN-A-13 corrugated material in last photo is from?  (I assume that photo shows the corrugated wing strength layer under the "flat" skin)
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #517 on: March 12, 2014, 10:27:20 PM »

For Mark Pearce, do you have any details of what Fortress the AN-A-13 corrugated material in last photo is from?  (I assume that photo shows the corrugated wing strength layer under the "flat" skin)

Doug, here is the link to the photo's 'home' page, where you will find more info. [Look for comments below the photos.]  The plane went down somewhere in Poland. 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1266421967/1266668813/HELP+NEEDED-WW2+wreck+parts+identification-B-17--
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #518 on: March 13, 2014, 05:51:20 AM »

Jeff Neville,

The photo you posted above (in Reply #502) is available for viewing in the Purdue e-archives:

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=509&CISOBOX=1&REC=3

It looks like the Purdue archives photo is a bit clearer than the one you posted.

The photo was taken in Karachi (India in 1937, now Pakistan) during the 2nd world flight attempt.

When I zoom in to the area in question in this photo in the Purdue archives, I don't see anything abnormal in the skin of the aircraft.  Perhaps what you see in the version you posted is just shadows or some other effect of the lighting in this area.

Jeff P.

Thanks Jeff.  Yes, the original from Purdue is much clearer and I see that.

The copy I posted was at least third generation, and bitmap at that (now I notice), so not great.  It looks like some light/shadow effect is more pronounced for some reason.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #519 on: March 13, 2014, 08:45:23 AM »

Thanks Mark, will check that out re B-17.

On another tangent, referring to the C-47 wing wreckage shown at Pacific Wrecks and mentioned by others previously, could the internal structure shown with the AN-A-13 labelling reasonably be anything other than original construction?  I'm no expert (hence all questions and no answers) and dont know if extensive repairs such as to internal wing structure would even be undertaken for a cargo plane in the middle of a conflict but I would expect a "field" repair to look like a field repair and probably not have such perfectly formed holes for one thing.  (Not saying the repair guys couldn't work wonders).

I believe I read here that wing damage to everyone's favorite Electra was remedied with a complete replacement wing section.  Just saying
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #520 on: March 13, 2014, 11:13:50 AM »

Thanks Mark, will check that out re B-17.

On another tangent, referring to the C-47 wing wreckage shown at Pacific Wrecks and mentioned by others previously, could the internal structure shown with the AN-A-13 labelling reasonably be anything other than original construction?  I'm no expert (hence all questions and no answers) and dont know if extensive repairs such as to internal wing structure would even be undertaken for a cargo plane in the middle of a conflict but I would expect a "field" repair to look like a field repair and probably not have such perfectly formed holes for one thing.  (Not saying the repair guys couldn't work wonders).

I believe I read here that wing damage to everyone's favorite Electra was remedied with a complete replacement wing section.  Just saying

By as much as I can see, if any of that is 'repair' (not original) I cannot discern the difference.  As to that point - ideally, a good repair would be hard to tell from 'original' if one could tell at all; it is the other way around with 2-2-V-1 - what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc.

As to the replacement wing on NR16020 - yes, aware of that - but we're not talking about wing as a source but fuselage (which was repaired).
- 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 #521 on: March 13, 2014, 11:30:28 AM »

Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?

Yes.  Alcoa told us the A-N-A 13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If some can show that is incorrect please do.

It appears per Mark's offering "Aluminum in Aircraft" (1943) that AN-A-13 was a 'recent' standard at the time that book was published.  Whether 1937 was 'recent' in those terms (if the spec existed) I can't tell so far.

Another thing I cannot tell is how Alcoa could tell that 2-2-V-1 was so marked (as "AN-A-13") just by the faint "A" and "D" hand-printed characters.  Seems like a leap to me - maybe someone at Alcoa was confused and may have given mistaken information?  They seem to have missed as to the meaning of that code - and it seems to me whether 2-2-V-1 is even of that spec (or at least whether it was so marked, or if the code even existed when that metal was produced...).

As such, AN-N-13 may be no more than an unintended red herring here.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #522 on: March 13, 2014, 12:07:12 PM »

Quote from Jeff "As to the replacement wing on NR16020 - yes, aware of that - but we're not talking about wing as a source but fuselage (which was repaired)".

Actually my point in mentioning the Electra in this context was just to show a precedent where in an arguably similar plane with wing damage, key structure was apparently replaced with factory assembly rather than patching.  Suggests, to me anyway, assuming a similar standard of care, that field repairs to internal structure of the C-47 wing might be unlikely, therefore more likely to be original (non-repair) structure as pictured.  A leap in logic....maybe

I wonder if damage/repair records exist for that C-47
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #523 on: March 13, 2014, 12:27:19 PM »


"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

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


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 02:23:32 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #524 on: March 13, 2014, 02:45:37 PM »


"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

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


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem with that kind of work coming out of Canton...  ;)

...and perhaps my words about the repair are unfairly harsh, given that time and exposure have so weathered this part.

Let us just say it is clearly 'repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features.  Those things are NOT unusual in repair work where one is trying to match to existing, damaged structure that may have been straightened to some degree, etc.  You work with what you have.

As to the bent shank - can happen anywhere, but especially in a relatively rushed repair job where the owner is in the front office pushing for attention on her bird...

- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 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