Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 85   Go Down

Author Topic: 2-2-V-1 - patch?  (Read 1117364 times)

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2014, 06:48:55 PM »

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2014, 12:18:17 PM »

It would be nice if a photo wouild emerge that gives some clear indication of rivet pattern.

The thought written of earlier by Greg Daspit about fore-aft bracing vs. vertical due to curvature (less in fore-aft plane) makes a lot of sense - not that we can tell for sure yet just what was done.  But given that this was a somewhat hastily effected field repair (not saying bad quality - just basic) it is a near-given that the more elaborate forming of stiffeners for use in the vertical plane would not be practical.  The amount of forming needed for a fore-aft arrangement would be minimal because of the inherent shape of the fuselage; that suggests fore-aft as a reasonable direction.  That does also of course fit the notion of 2-2-V-1.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2014, 01:10:03 PM »

The light part on top of the "patch" couold be the sky and the dark part at the bottom could be a car or something similiar.

I have it on impeccable authority that the "dark part" is Bigfoot. And don't ask me how I know that.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP

Monty. Haven't you heard? Bigfoot is out of bounds. Just your reference may be enough to have this thread locked.

I'd admit it's off-topic, except considering that the reflection is something, and maybe that something...

But who are we to say it doesn't exist?  :P
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

David Alan

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #48 on: June 13, 2014, 04:44:17 PM »

I am not sure this is the best location to post this since it does not directly tie into the question of 2-2-v-1's provenance, but it is inspired by the postings within this topic and I don't think it deserves its own new topic.  I leave it to the moderators to edit and re-post it as they see fit with my apologies for any inconvenience.

The anecdotes Ric provides of three point landings -- http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31929.html#msg31929 -- as well as his and others' speculation in this topic about the possibility of the fuselage failing is certainly interesting reading.  Since I only have limited exposure to flying in small aircraft, I am left trying to imagine the difficulties and hazards of landing on a reef on Niku and that, in turn, leaves me with a lot of questions perhaps some of you can answer.

At the time of Hawaii loop landing was that era's technology capable of detecting hairline fractures or damage in the airframe or skin that could be exacerbated by several more routine landings and at least one more hard landing?

If a landing were hard enough to crack a window (and the damage, acknowledged), would this not have set off an air-worthiness process that might lead to schedule delays?

What would have been the approach and landing/stall speed of the empty 10E?  I only ask this because, regardless, it must be a real crap shoot to land any aircraft on an unknown, water covered surface.
 
If the aft end of the fuselage snapped at the belly or crumpled upward how would this affect AE's ability to steer the aircraft?

And where would FN be during all this? Did he typically sit up front during  take-offs and landings or just ride it out in the back?

cheers,

david alan
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2014, 06:29:31 PM »

At the time of Hawaii loop landing was that era's technology capable of detecting hairline fractures or damage in the airframe or skin that could be exacerbated by several more routine landings and at least one more hard landing?

I can chime in on that one. In the late 1930s-early 1940s, metallurgy was still in its infancy. Although metal fatigue and metal stress were understood to happen, that was about as far up the food chain as the knowledge went.

As WW II ramped up into high gear and aerial weapons got more complex (think ME-262, B-29), some basic tests on large components could be done, usually at the depot level. I have a picture somewhere of a B-17's wingtip being examined by a huge fluorscope (X-ray machine) underneath, and the technician perched on the wing, looking through what appears to be a welder's helmet, and wearing what was undoubtedly a lead apron. In Earhart's time ... no. The area would have gotten a thorough eyeballing and anything that looked the least bit suspicious would probably have been replaced.

That's one reason why aircraft of that era were grossly overbuilt, compared to today's featherweight creations. The engineers and mechanics of that era knew they were going to be twisting the dragon's tail with every new design. They tried to build to that level of stress the best they could, and by and large did magnificent work (if you want to read about stress-testing an aircraft, read the story about why it was decided that the first B-17 didn't need a stress test, after a close encounter with a thunderstorm).

LTM, who is patiently waiting on the paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2014, 09:03:04 AM »

The Lockheed did get X-rayed, but to what degree I don't know.  I'll try to find the photo that shows the gentlemen holding the machine standing by the aircraft.  A quick search of the Purdue collection didn't turn it up, but it's out there somewhere.  I seem to recall reading that they took a large number of shots.  Too bad the films aren't available, assuming film was used and not a fluoroscope.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 651
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #51 on: June 14, 2014, 10:42:27 AM »

The Lockheed did get X-rayed, but to what degree I don't know.  I'll try to find the photo that shows the gentlemen holding the machine standing by the aircraft. 
The picture you seek appeared in this thread about 3 months ago. Look here.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

David Alan

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #52 on: June 14, 2014, 07:17:33 PM »

The photos of the x-ray equipment are interesting but based on information derived from the Pop. Mechanics article and a little number crunching, the caption information seems a little dubious to me. But, admittedly, I know nothing about metallurgy. 

First, 1/1000000 of an inch is equal to about 25 nm which is roughly the size of molecules.  An x-ray's wavelength is about 10 nm and perhaps that is where the translation from scientist to reporter went awry.  For the article to imply a crack of 1/1000000 of an inch could be visualized is pretty ludicrous, at least in 1937.  I might be mistaken but I don't think molecules and atoms were visualized until the current century.

Further complicating this supposed resolution is that even modern film with the best apochromatic lenses can only resolve around 150 lp/mm (line pairs per mm) )under ideal conditions.  (Just a few of the limiting conditions would include, shutter speed, stop, temperature, humidity, processing chemistry, and even the inherent quality of the imaging equipment.)  At 150 lp/mm, one lp is about 1012 nm wide, significantly larger than 25 nm.

I don't doubt that the x-ray equipment of 1937 could resolve small cracks but not anywhere near the size spoken of in the Pop. Mechanic article. 

cheers,
david alan
Logged

Randy Conrad

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 398
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #53 on: June 14, 2014, 08:10:42 PM »

John.....

  In the video I just posted in topic..."Lockheed Aircraft Company..."In the Beginning!".....it talks about this very process and even gives a short clip of the process being used to detect cracks and flaws. Very interesting!
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2014, 04:00:38 PM »

Well ... you learn something new every day. Maybe Amelia's trip did advance the science of flight, so that in itself was a good thing.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Jay Burkett

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #55 on: June 16, 2014, 11:23:08 AM »

Richie,

Good catch with that photo.  Definitely no reflections, but, it looks like a there is a shadow under the lower edge of the "patch".  There is also a hint of a bright edge on the forward side of the "patch".  I would not be surprised to see a non-flush edge on the top and bottom of such a patch.  A non-flush forward edge does seem odd.  This would lend credance to any suppositon that this "scab", or "surface", patch was somewhat crude or hasitly done.  Looking at the shadows on the ground the sun would appear to be overhead, so, the time would be sometime in the middle of the day.  This would have the effect of an exaggerating the thickness of the patch especially if it was not exactly flush.  With a properly installed surface patch the only step difference would have been from the material thisckness of the material --- I doubt there would have been enough of a shadow to have shown up on this photograph.  On this photo a "proper" well done conformal patch would have exhibited no shadow on any edge.  Such a patch would have shown up as a rectangle of a lighter or darker shade of gray with no chane in intensity due to brighter edges or shadows.

Another thought that comes to mind would be about the drag from such a patch.  I remember reading about Voyager team sweating out increased fuel consumption after the wingtips were ground off during takeoff on their round-the-world flight.  This window/patch is well back on the fuesalge.  I would think that the boundary layer there would probably be realtively thick in that location, but, perhaps not.  It is common for aircraft losses to be due to multiple factors.  A small, seemingly insignificant, increase in drag would not have helped.

Again, good find.  Don't stop digging!       
Jay Burkett, N4RBY
Aerospace Engineer
Fairhope AL
 
Logged

David Alan

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #56 on: June 16, 2014, 12:30:33 PM »

Jay, the Purdue info on that photo in Richie's post http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31968.html#msg31968 says it is was taken in India in 1936 more than a year before the patch was installed in Florida. Is that the photo you are talking about or did I miss something (which happens all the time)?

cheers,
david alan
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 651
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #57 on: June 16, 2014, 12:39:34 PM »

... says it is was taken in India in 1936 more than a year before the patch was installed in Florida.

No, the description of the picture definitely says that it was taken in Karachi on June 16, 1937.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

David Alan

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #58 on: June 16, 2014, 12:44:38 PM »

Right you are Bruce, I transposed the 16 with July (the 7 th month and don't even ask how I got July out of June) with the year.  Like I say, it happens all the time.  My apologies Jay.

cheers,

david alan
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 12:49:45 PM by David Alan »
Logged

Friend Weller

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #59 on: June 17, 2014, 07:51:49 AM »

As I'm a pro in stating the obvious, this possibility came to mind:

If we take this:  http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=7724;image
                        http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=7731

And add it to this: http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1490.0;attach=7750;image
                           http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg31929.html#msg31929

Toss in a few more hard 3-point landings on dirt/grass strips around the globe, could we get this? 

http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=787&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=1932&DMY=1743&DMTEXT=%20Karachi&REC=9&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0  (a gradually weakening patch...???

Too bad we don't have a few more photos taken along the way...to see if the seam progressed from semi-flush to semi-gapping.  After all, if those forces could break a window, as Ric said, those same forces could potentially do more to the empannage......

Followed by one more hard landing, not on an airstrip, and thousands of miles from home.....
Friend
TIGHAR 3086V
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 85   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