Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review  (Read 182326 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2014, 10:55:36 AM »


I too am amazed at how vehement some can be as to what something 'is' (which I and others are often accused of, I understand...) without putting it to the test.

Well they are coming out of the woodwork on the comments thread in the National Geographic article recently posted about 2-2-V-1:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141104-amelia-earhart-forensic-photo-spectral-imaging-analysis/

"Their" commitment to winning the PR battle is relentless and impressive.

It is a nice article.

We shouldn't be upset with the comments.  Although many deviate from it, healthy critical debate is a fine thing.  But I'm afraid you are right - so much of this is about nothing more than wishing to dampen what is perceived as splash enjoyed by another.  Maybe in some cases it is someone else wishing for more splash of their own (and slight apologies to 'splashed-n-sank').

The utterly hilarious part of that to me is that NO ONE is going to drive a stake through the heart of this mystery short of AIRPLANE ON THE DECK: if someone believes they have a better idea, then go sell the idea, instead of trying to de-sell the other guy's idea.  When I see so much negative energy going into these things it suggests to me that we're actually seeing a lack of 'sellability' of someone else's idea, if you will.  I'm sure that much of it is no more than the ordinary cosmic static that the internet generates - there are always armchair naysayers for everything from aspirin to zebra stripes.  But I also don't doubt that at least some of it is 'competitively driven', even if only by a few who find alternate theories more to their liking.

All of which also tells me that there are no better ideas floating around, or those who are busy thus would be busy at their own workshop and their followers would be preoccupied with those pursuits.

In a way, that is pitiable - maybe the public can't get as excited about going out to look at a few square miles of ocean floor as theorized by a navigation guru, etc. as they can about the idea of Earhart washing up on Gardner, tantalizingly close to her destination, but with no cigar box - only maybe a long lost sextant box, but having left (possibly) other tidbits lying about.

Backing off and looking at the whole thing as best I can - biases and all, it is just odd how the emotions run wild in this - and yet I too have that same bug somehow.  It's just too bad that we cannot all build more of a community-minded idea for the search... but I guess human nature gets in the way - berries don't get picked without some sense of competition, it seems. 

Oh well, maybe Earhart herself wouldn't be surprised that humans are about as mired in the negative as they tended to be when she left Lae in 1937.  I wonder if she'd ever have made that flight if she'd of taken her ques from the naysayers of her day?  I'm sure there were plenty.  She failed - and many of those who search will fail too - including possibly us, ultimately.  But the glory is in the effort. 

Wouldn't it be great if those who differ simply went on and applied that energy in a search instead of finding fault with others?  Me included, I must try harder.
- 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 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2014, 11:18:04 AM »

The PBY repair manual has some dimensions.

That's a great resource, Greg.  Section II, Paragraphs 2-22 to 2-27 dealing with wing skin damage and repair and Figure 2-7 discussing rivet spacing is very interesting.

Figure 2.5 shows some specific wing stringer spacings in the area just outboard of the engine - lateral stations 16 through 18 are clearly depicted.  I'm not sure those stations are entirely representative of the whole wing in terms of stinger spacing, but this was the general area of focus in the Long photo, it seems.  By this, the upper surface stringer spacings are more on the order of 7 to 9 inches, typically.  The spacing on 2-2-V-1 is more on the order of 4" +/-, depending on which rows are measured and where.  I do see one spacing that is closer to the 2-2-V-1 example - a bit over 4" - it is the aft-most spacing between stations 15 and 16.  Overall, what I am seeing in the manual is more nearly what I recall seeing in Dayton on a 'live' PBY - it's a big airplane, and the stringers are mostly not so close together - more like the dimensional callouts that I'm seeing in the manual.

Now I am left puzzled by the Long photo and how it was scaled - something does not seem right.  Can it be that we're simply not seeing the same area in the manual here as in the photo?  Or, was there perhaps an error in scaling that layover that was shown on the actual wing?  Who authored that depiction, can we get more information, perhaps?  I'd really like to know how they sized that layover.  I'd also still like to see a clear overhead shot if it can be had.

The manual is a great resource, lots of neat and useful information - good find, thanks for sharing that.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 11:26:28 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2014, 11:35:35 AM »

The PBY repair manual has some dimensions.

That's a great resource, Greg.  Section II, Paragraphs 2-22 to 2-27 dealing with wing skin damage and repair and Figure 2-7 discussing rivet spacing is very interesting.
Paragraph 2-22 also recommends the thickness of the skin be increased (when the original is .032 or less) just like the experts TIGHAR consulted with noted.
3971R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2014, 11:54:35 AM »

The PBY repair manual has some dimensions.

That's a great resource, Greg.  Section II, Paragraphs 2-22 to 2-27 dealing with wing skin damage and repair and Figure 2-7 discussing rivet spacing is very interesting.
Paragraph 2-22 also recommends the thickness of the skin be increased (when the original is .032 or less) just like the experts TIGHAR consulted with noted.

'Same or next thicker gage' is a fairly common recommendation.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2014, 01:26:20 PM »

"PBY wing match photo" posted here: http://i.imgur.com/fqipchg.jpg"

It's curious to me why that photograph was taken the way it was.  I mean, someone had to walk out on the wing and lay that approximation of 2-2-V-1 there, where they thought there was a match.  Why not take the picture from there, just above it, with a ruler or some other object included for scale/dimensions.  Very strange and certainly not conclusive, to me at least, especially seeing how carefully the work was done in Kansas.

Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2014, 01:44:09 PM »

It's curious to me why that photograph was taken the way it was.  I mean, someone had to walk out on the wing and lay that approximation of 2-2-V-1 there, where they thought there was a match.  Why not take the picture from there, just above it, with a ruler or some other object included for scale/dimensions. 

Exactly, Bill. As Jeff so gently pointed out, my assertion on the orientation was wrong, but, still, there is nothing that tells us HOW that photo was taken. Or any kind of scale. Or really ... anything, except it's a picture of something white on something that is largely gray.

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

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2014, 02:22:03 PM »

2-2-V-1 is also unpainted.  Were the PBYs unpainted in this area?  That's another attribute to consider.

Exactly, Jeff. 2-2-V-1 was tested for paint residue. None was found, on either surface. If 2-2-V-1 was from a wartime PBY loss, of which there were eight between 1940-1944, it would have been painted on both sides, or certainly at least on the "outside" surface.

So if 2-2-V-1 is from a PBY, as TIGHAR's detractors allege, why isn't it painted?

LTM, who is pretty sure he can handle the truth,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2014, 02:46:51 PM »

Looking at the Long photo and trying to locate where they think the match is on figure 2.3 in the Repair Manual, I think their approximation of the patch is located over the inboard end of the internal fuel tank in that wing.  The skin thickness specified in that drawing is .045 (in the middle of that cross-hatched section).

2-2-V-1 is .032.

Am I interpreting the drawing correctly? 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2014, 03:30:08 PM »

Some interesting paragraphs in the PBY manual were regarding the importance of using “Clad” in regards to corrosion resistance, or to paint the “unclad” metal. You would expect that to be a major concern for a PBY. Same concern for  Pan Am’s sea plane maintenance facilities.  We also know Lockheed painted their Alclad (interior).
 
With the concern to use the right metal in repairs: If either the Lockheed factory or Pan Am’s repair facility had leftover painted metal or small unpainted left overs that had no visible markings,  would they want to mark it as “CLAD” or “ALCLAD” using their own stamp? 

 I keep coming back to the hypothesis that the aluminum suspected to be used as the patch  is not the same as what was used in manufacture and that it went thru a different journey if it was the same.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 03:31:54 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2014, 04:57:32 PM »

I doubt a shop would re-mark leftovers; the practice is more typically that the applied markings were applied with enough frequency so as to appear for the most part on any smaller cuts, within reason.  2-2-V-1 appears to be of enough size for the mill markings to appear a number of times.

2-2-V-1 is not marked like the factory metal in the Electra; our hypothesis aside, we don't know where the patch metal came from.
- 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: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2014, 05:48:03 PM »

I wonder if the apparent external difference in the rear window external "trim", if thats a good way to word it, could be connected to the modification mentioned in this excerpt from Elgin Long's book.

Long provides no source for his assertion other than:
"March 1937 photos show a window. May 1937 photos in Miami show an aluminum hatch both open and closed."
No they don't.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2014, 05:57:41 PM »

I gave Elgen that template in 1992. If he has exactly matched it to a PBY he has never told me.  If he has a detailed report that supports his claim he needs to produce it before he makes the assertion.  That’s the standard we follow.  To be credible, that’s the standard he must follow. 

The attached photo was posted to a blog by his grandson.  It supposedly shows the template and the ‘exact fit” of the template to the upper wing surface of a PBY. As poor as the photo is, I can see a big problem.   The artifact has four parallel rows of 3/32nd inch rivets. One edge of the artifact (the edge with the “tab” sticking out) tore along a double staggered row of 5/32nd inch rivets. I see no double row of larger rivets on the PBY.  The parallel lines of rivets are clearly all the same size.
To match the artifact to a PBY (or any airplane) takes more than finding five parallel rows of rivets roughly for inches apart.  We found places like that on several different types.  To have a match to the artifact requires:
•  Four rows of 3/32nd inch rivets with a pitch (distance between rivets) of 1 inch.
•  The distance between parallel rows must be nominally, but not consistently, 4 5/8ths inches.   
•  A double staggered row of 5/32 inch rivets with a pitch of 1.5 inches, except for one anomalous spot where there is a 1 5/8ths inch gap.
•  The rivets must be AN 455 brazier heads
•  The skin to which they are attached must be .032 24St Alcad

If Bill Mangus is correct that the skin thickness in that area was .045 that puts another nail in the coffin.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2014, 06:30:16 PM »

I just checked the PBY Repair Manual.  See Figure 2-3 on page 17 "Wing Plating Diagram.  There's no doubt about it.  The section where Long says the artifact is a "perfect match" is .045.  In fact, there is no .032 skin on the entire upper wing.

Elgen Long's claim can be categorically dismissed.  The rivet pattern is wrong (no double staggered row) and the skin thickness is wrong. I'd wager that the rivet size is also wrong.  I can't imagine an itty-bitty #3 rivet in a .045 skin.
Logged

Nathan Leaf

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • #4538R
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2014, 07:02:01 PM »

This from skeptic Mark Pilkington, who posted to the Nat Geo article ... this seems to be the main line of attack from the comment threads in all the recent web articles about 2-2-V-1:

"There are other photos such as the Darwin photo that provides adequate rivet line identification, but is apparently not being analysed by Tighar.

But the need to evidence stiffeners, or justify the 4 rows of 3/32" holes , or alternatively find what other aircraft it could be from, or why it is without wartime paint are all largely irrelevant given Tighars own work seems to show the Artefact is too high by @ 2"?

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32359.html#msg32359

The window frame is shown to be 18" high, the inner dimensions from rivet to rivet is more like 17" top to bottom, yet the Artefact is known to be 19" high as confirmed by the NTSB report.

The lower 5/32" rivet line bears no resemblance to the staggered 5/32" rivet line seen on the New England Electra on the lower longeron, and the Darwin photo clearly shows the patch finishes flush with that longeron and row of rivets,

ie the tab on the lower edge of the artefact is not protruding lower as is presented in the Tighar bulletin, and once you lift it up, the top edge height of the patch is clearly exceeded.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/25_artifactexterior.jpg

Similarly, the Tighar bulletin and photograph at New England shows the forward edge of the Artefact hard up against station 293-5/8" position, yet it is agreed by Ric Gillespie in the forum, and on the youtube that is incorrect, and shifting the Artefact rearwards destroys the claim that former at 307" is lining up with the Artefact, but also then the rear edge and rivet line of the patch becomes compromised by the artefact width.

The 19" height against an 18" patch seems rather conclusive, without exploring PBY wing skins or the possibility that the sandwashing in the sea that the Artefact has clearly suffered may have stripped it of any paint in any case.

Then there is the minor issue of the "ALCLAD" stencil, known to have existed in 1943, and unknown and un-evidenced to have existed prior to that date."


Why don't these folks engage in the discussion here?  Do they fear a factual discussion with the researchers who have invested so much time in the critical analysis of this and other pieces of evidence?  (Only semi-rhetorical....)
TIGHAR No. 4538R
 
Logged

Ron Lyons

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 2-2-V-1 - Answering Critical Review
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2014, 07:15:39 PM »

Interesting that they grab at a couple minor things and use that to try to disprove the entire thing, and ignore all the other evidence.

In the picture, Ric is holding the piece slightly too low.  The bottom row of double rivets lines up with a stringer placed just above the bottom of the window sill, which Ric himself mentioned and brought up.  Even when moved up an inch or whatever, it doesn't move outside the 'tape' in the picture, and as Ric stated, the object appears slightly bigger than it is anyways because he's not holding a piece of rusted scrap metal up to touch the side of a beautiful, brand new plane!   

Then the tape isn't perfectly lined up square, either, and we also aren't looking at a plate that filled the hole of the window, but one that covered the entire window and overlapped.  Nobody knows the exact inch the boundary at the top was, or even at the bottom, how close the rivets were to the edge, etc. 

So they're trying to disprove the evidence because they think it's 1" too big than the hole in the plane? Of course it's bigger than the hole, it's a cover.

The assertion that front to back the middle stringer or impression on the plate doesn't line up with the stringer on the plane is just flat out untrue, I believe they misunderstood the point TIGHAR made about that measurement. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17   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