Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 634326 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2014, 10:06:24 AM »

I don't doubt these being #3 rivets, I think it is only an outside chance that we're seeing modified (small head) #4 braziers, but short of having Lockheed's drawings and to be thorough it would be good to get a shot of the tails if at all possible to be sure.  Of course they are now buried under the floor in the museum bird, but perhaps they have some shots taken during restoration?

You want buck tails?  Here's yer buck tails (complete with scale).

We took lots of photos of the interior while the plane was under restoration before they re-installed the floor.

Sorry I asked... ;)

Outstanding.  Those are barely more than 1 diameter across - if no. 4 size they'd be under-shot; the consistent well-bucked appearance suggests 'factory original' and the diameter is consistent with no. 3 rivets.  I believe we definitely have original no. 3 rivets in the belly stress skins of the L10 as a firm baseline. 

Don't see that very often - so far as I know it's unique and not what you'd find on DC-3, etc.  Strong pointer toward L10 mother ship IMO.

Thanks Ric.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 10:09:53 AM 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 #31 on: February 06, 2014, 12:42:30 PM »

I'll even elaborate -

This piece is now so distinctive to me as likely having come out of the repaired Electra I am personally convinced that Earhart's bird 'was there'.

I also realize how controversial that thought is to many (to say the least) - and that many rational questions attach to it -

- Can it be from another source?  Could be but no other rational donor makes sense for that part of the world - the vintage, character of rivet spacing, type, etc. all fit the vintage and model and all that I know about typical / rapid 'sawhorse' repair efforts such as NR16020 underwent after the Luke Field accident too well;
- Even if it is from her bird, couldn't it have been imported somehow?  Yes - but that raises the quesiton "from where?"  Had that been the way it was, why didn't we know of that discovery?  Despite exhaustive efforts by many researchers and writers, no credible report of the Electra's remains (or other supportive material) have ever turned up elsewhere.
- Couldn't it be from another L10?  Yes - there were some around Lae and New Zealand / down under doing work - I believe there is some history that supports that.  But that is not anywhere near Niku, and the islanders and coasties who inhabited Gardner / Niku weren't connected to those locations.
- Couldn't it be from another type?  Has to be one subject to receiving pre-WWII repair materials, must have some similar fastener sizing and stiffener spacing to L10 and must have been present-enough to Niku to have become a donor - a narrow list of which I know of no other potential members for.
- Doesn't the piece differ slightly in some regards - and even noticeably as to placement of one 'stiffener' (line of rivets)?  Yes - but a repair such as done on Earhart's airplane creates a crap-shoot to some degree; in a perfect world time is taken to replace all damaged members and carefully realign all structures that were bent / misaligned in a crash - but in a hastily done 'sawhorse' repair (return to fixture not possible and the scheme was executed in about a week) removals tend to be minimized and 'sister members' are frequently simply applied over existing damage, picking up as many original holes as possible, and sometimes adding another member, such as a stiffener.  Any of that can easily account for what we see.
- But we don't have a clear picture of what is described - how do we know this to be true?  We don't and it cannot be sworn as absolute - but the overwhelming circumstances of context among other finds and everything this artifact has to say speaks volumes to the practiced eye: there are only very limited ways that such a unique piece of this particular set of signatures could come to rest at Niku.

Other's MMV, I realize and respect, but in my view TIGHAR has done a terrific job in going on gut-theory at first, then going to Niku and finding such as this and other complementary artifiacts.  Pick another island, any island - go there and see if such a picture emerges from the random stuff there - I have severe doubts that it will happen.  As I think back over the 'stuff' found it is truly amazing that a period-correct Talon zipper pull, matching jack-knife remains, plexiglass of telling thickness and contour and this particular rich piece of history (2-2-V-2) have turned-up on the same island (among other things).  That someone like Tom King can view it all and realize a plausible pattern humbles me and rings true as to 'likelihoods' now to me, not just 'possibles'. 

What of navigation?  What about the size of the ocean (Pacific) - isn't it more likely she never made land?  Not expert, but I've developed my own pet thoughts on that and even attached a different outcome by averages, realizing that 'finding one's self at Niku' can be regarded as problematic.  But I have to admit it is also not beyond the pale to have arrived at Niku for reasons we will never know for certain.  We do know of a comment about 'on THE line' - and where that line passes near - and I can't dismiss that one for one thing.  One thing is for certain: land plane pilots and seasoned navigators don't give up easily on finding land - true then as it is now, and whatever Earhart and Noonan were, they were not without ability and brains.  Yes, I have a bit of confidence in the human spirit that way, even in flawed characters.

What of post-loss radio traffic supposedly Earhart but highly questionable?  I don't know if Betty or others heard Earhart or not - doesn't matter so much to me, other evidence is overwhelming now in my view.  If others place more credence there (not saying I don't believe in it, just not necessary to me), bully - if not, consider the other things.  If you disagree entirely, bully for you - keep searching or don't, it's up to the individual of course.

What of fuel?  I think it was dicey - maybe closer than we think as I'm not fully confident that Earhart would have managed the fuel as closely as should have (speculation, of course - just a confidence factor to me).

All cinched-up by a piece of sheetmetal not unlike many I've tossed on the scrap pile - except for its truly unique character in more ways than I can enumerate here: it reads like an aviation maintenance history / Lockheed 10 repair volume to me now - the character of it is telling, but the clear 'vintage' trumps the table in my view now.

Is this a slam-dunk to end all speculation and doubt?  Hardly - but those who would say 'this could be anything' need to pay more attention - they're missing or simply refusing to see a lot of crucial detail.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 12:58:44 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2014, 01:35:28 PM »

Here's a question that has been raised by a non-aviation person:

We know we have B-24 parts on the island which we presume were brought there from Canton Island (200 miles away) where there was a B-24 crash during WWII.  How do we know 2-2-V-1 is primary structure?  Why couldn't it be from some non-load bearing interior structure (in a  B-24 perhaps)?

I know how i would answer that but I'm curious to know what you would say.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2014, 02:13:15 PM »

Here's a question that has been raised by a non-aviation person:

We know we have B-24 parts on the island which we presume were brought there from Canton Island (200 miles away) where there was a B-24 crash during WWII.  How do we know 2-2-V-1 is primary structure?  Why couldn't it be from some non-load bearing interior structure (in a  B-24 perhaps)?

I know how i would answer that but I'm curious to know what you would say.

For one thing the B-24 has been looked at to some degree for a match, but I can't say exhaustively.  It would be good for someone to thoroughly look - but:

The B-24 entered service in 1940.  By the time a war-time production B-24 found its way to the area I have severe doubts that it would be an example carrying pre-war aluminum stock as we see in this artifact, or that it would have carried a repair with #3 brazier rivets.  Possible?  yes, likely?  No - this item is clearly 'repair related' - hand work is evident; the military establishment of the time that such a bomber would have been in service would not likely have been supplied with old stores of pre-war aluminum and fasteners that were becoming out-dated by then.

It would also be interesting to find similar structure in the more heavily-built bomber.  Although notably lighter in construction than the B-17, it is still a very substantial heavy bomber.  But if the questioner can point to a place in the B-24 that might be a 'donor', this is partly what I had suggested: if there's a better explanation I'm all ears.  But the odds of such material turning up on a 1940+ model airplane seem miniscule to me.  Does it stack-up as likely as this item fitting a known area of the Electra reasonably well, especially given damage and rapid repairs as we know happened?  I don't think so.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 02:19:05 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2014, 02:28:43 PM »

For one thing the B-24 has been looked at to some degree for a match, but I can't say exhaustively.  It would be good for someone to thoroughly look - but:

I've looked at two B-24s trying to find a candidate area - the B-24D Strawberry Bitch at the Air Force Museum (they even let me use a scaffold to check the top of the fuselage and wing) and the airworthy B-24J operated by the Collings Foundation.  In fact, I showed the artifact to one of the people who maintain the aircraft and asked him if there is anywhere on the airplane that looks like that.  He said no.

The B-24 entered service in 1940.  By the time a war-time production B-24 found its way to the area I have severe doubts that it would be an example carrying pre-war aluminum stock as we see in this artifact, or that it would have carried a repair with #3 brazier rivets.  Possible?  yes, likely?  No - this item is clearly 'repair related' - hand work is evident; the military establishment of the time that such a bomber would have been in service would not likely have been supplied with old stores of pre-war aluminum and fasteners that were becoming out-dated by then.

So you disqualify it based on materials -and i agree.  The question was whether it could be from some internal non-load bearing component.  To me the thickness of the skin (too heavy for interior use) and the implication of closely-spaced stringers tightly stitched (one inch pitch) screams external load-bearing structure on a smallish (cabin-class twin) aircraft.



It would also be interesting to find similar structure in the more heavily-built bomber.  Although notably lighter in construction than the B-17, it is still a very substantial heavy bomber.  But if the questioner can point to a place in the B-24 that might be a 'donor', this is partly what I had suggested: if there's a better explanation I'm all ears.  But the odds of such material turning up on a 1940+ model airplane seem miniscule to me.
[/quote]
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2014, 06:53:48 PM »

Could be but no other rational donor makes sense for that part of the world - the vintage, character of rivet spacing, type, etc. all fit the vintage and model and all that I know about typical / rapid 'sawhorse' repair efforts such as NR16020 underwent after the Luke Field accident

Jeff, With all due respect, I don't agree with the thought that the post luke field repairs were done in a subpar manner. The following statements by Earhart and others lead me to this conclusion, as well as photos of the electra being rebuilt. As regards the artifact, I don't think it was a panel installed over a somewhat damaged panel , as indicated there are pry marks on the stringer side of the 2-2-V-1 panel.


The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored. There is no short cut to full usefulness in either case if perfect healing is desired. In addition to "healing," a strengthening of certain members to withstand the excessive strain to which overloading subjects them as in order for my Electra. This meant some actual redesigning, another process which could not be hurried. As to the precious engines, they were already in the Pacific Airmotive shops at Burbank being thoroughly checked. After the plane and engines were together, some time would have to be allowed for testing.
 
"Those who had an opportunity to observe miss Earhart at Miami I final preparations for her round-the-world flight could to help being impressed by the calm and unhurried manner in which he made sure that everything about her hip was as ready as expert technicians could make it before she would consider starting the trip. There was no hurrying or harassing of mechanic to finish their wok o that she might take off at a given time, no slightest indication of impatience when a difficult job took longer to finish than might have been expected. "it was interesting to watch the effect of such an attitude on the Pan American Airways mechanics and others who were assigned to give Miss Earhart whatever assistance they could. Being men and being engaged in a highly essential phase of the serious business of air transportation, they all naturally had preconceived notions about a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight - not very favorable notions, either. it was, undoubtedly, something of a shock to discover that the 'gal' with whom they had to deal not only was an exceptionally pleasant and reasonable human being who 'knew her stuff,' but that she knew exactly what she wanted done, and had sense enough to let them alone while they did it. There was an almost audible clatter of chips falling off skeptical masculine shoulders.

Lockheed personal X-Raying the Electra

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1170&bih=551&tbm=isch&tbnid=H011jJDYhdh-wM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2Famelias_pictures_page_2.htm&docid=6dzCOO7V-P88zM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2FAMELIA%252520EARHART%2FAMELIA-ELECTRA10E1937I.jpg&w=490&h=350&ei=DDv0UpnOJaiiyAGy3oC4DA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1328&page=5&start=56&ndsp=18&ved=0CJ8CEK0DMEE
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 07:16:39 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2014, 07:42:22 PM »

As regards the artifact, I don't think it was a panel installed over a somewhat damaged panel , as indicated there are pry marks on the stringer side of the 2-2-V-1 panel.

That's not the Hyothesis.

The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored.
 

If you're going to refute the analysis you're going to have to address the physical facts of the artifact.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 07:44:07 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2014, 12:50:04 AM »

The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored.
 
Though I would like to take credit for this quote, I can not do that ....It is believed to be a quote from Earhart, taken from the Oceania log. It is my view that by said statement Earhart put much faith and confidence in her Plane's rescuers, ( Lockheed) .....If this artifact proves to be from the Electra, it may be that her hopes were misplaced. Consider the installment ....labeling stamp alclad was on exterior of sheet/ at least one rivet not bucked correctly/...and if the alignment of the rivets is proven to have not been caused from deformation, then one can include that flaw as well. Again , photos of work quality and statements of expected work performance by Earhart , ..and with lockheed's reputation on the line as well , it is my belief that this was no Moe's Aeroplane Repair Service procedure.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 12:56:04 AM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2014, 08:44:34 AM »

Consider the installment ....labeling stamp alclad was on exterior of sheet/

..which was consistent with standard Lockheed practice.  The attached photo shows an Electra being built with the labeling on the exterior side of the sheet.  Other manufacturers such as Boeing and Douglas seem to have put the label-side on the interior.  It may be that the presence of the labeling on the exterior side of the artifact is another indication that it came to Nikumaroro via Burbank.

at least one rivet not bucked correctly/...and if the alignment of the rivets is proven to have not been caused from deformation, then one can include that flaw as well.

The repairs were rushed.  There's no doubt about that.  On May 10, Putnam told Col. Johnson at the Department of Commerce that repairs had been completed (see attached letter).  Stretching the truth was a Putnam specialty. Four days later, on May 14, the Bureau of Air Commerce inspector in Los Angeles told his boss in Washington that repairs and inspection of the Electra would take another 10 days.  Somehow they got the job finished in half that time and the repairs were signed off on May 19.  That's a rush job. I've read anecdotal accounts ( I forget where) of how during these last days of repair AE was constantly in the shop and the front office at Burbank pestering workers and senior management to hurry up and finish the job.

Again , photos of work quality and statements of expected work performance by Earhart , ..and with lockheed's reputation on the line as well , it is my belief that this was no Moe's Aeroplane Repair Service procedure.

And no one is suggesting it was.  The work, rushed as it was, passed Bureau of Air Commerce inspection.

If you have an alternative explanation for the origin of the artifact let us hear it.
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2014, 09:04:44 AM »

  (from this Pacific Wrecks site):
(quote)...Thomas F. Equels adds:
"While working for Contractor H&N on Canton Island in 1971, we saw the hull of the troop ship and nearby on the beach was the fuselage of a PBY with a radial engine close by." (end quote)
Might this be the source of the Canton engine?
As I recall, Ric or others have looked pretty closely at PBY's for a potential source of 2-2-V-1.  What other pre-war aircraft might be sources consistent with the "Alclad" lettering and #3 Brazier-head rivets?  Japanese?  British?  Both countries operated flying boats in the Pacific in the 1930's.  It's an obvious question that skeptics are sure to raise.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2014, 10:34:59 AM »

Could be but no other rational donor makes sense for that part of the world - the vintage, character of rivet spacing, type, etc. all fit the vintage and model and all that I know about typical / rapid 'sawhorse' repair efforts such as NR16020 underwent after the Luke Field accident

Jeff, With all due respect, I don't agree with the thought that the post luke field repairs were done in a subpar manner. The following statements by Earhart and others lead me to this conclusion, as well as photos of the electra being rebuilt. As regards the artifact, I don't think it was a panel installed over a somewhat damaged panel , as indicated there are pry marks on the stringer side of the 2-2-V-1 panel.


The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored. There is no short cut to full usefulness in either case if perfect healing is desired. In addition to "healing," a strengthening of certain members to withstand the excessive strain to which overloading subjects them as in order for my Electra. This meant some actual redesigning, another process which could not be hurried. As to the precious engines, they were already in the Pacific Airmotive shops at Burbank being thoroughly checked. After the plane and engines were together, some time would have to be allowed for testing.
 
"Those who had an opportunity to observe miss Earhart at Miami I final preparations for her round-the-world flight could to help being impressed by the calm and unhurried manner in which he made sure that everything about her hip was as ready as expert technicians could make it before she would consider starting the trip. There was no hurrying or harassing of mechanic to finish their wok o that she might take off at a given time, no slightest indication of impatience when a difficult job took longer to finish than might have been expected. "it was interesting to watch the effect of such an attitude on the Pan American Airways mechanics and others who were assigned to give Miss Earhart whatever assistance they could. Being men and being engaged in a highly essential phase of the serious business of air transportation, they all naturally had preconceived notions about a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight - not very favorable notions, either. it was, undoubtedly, something of a shock to discover that the 'gal' with whom they had to deal not only was an exceptionally pleasant and reasonable human being who 'knew her stuff,' but that she knew exactly what she wanted done, and had sense enough to let them alone while they did it. There was an almost audible clatter of chips falling off skeptical masculine shoulders.

Lockheed personal X-Raying the Electra

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1170&bih=551&tbm=isch&tbnid=H011jJDYhdh-wM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2Famelias_pictures_page_2.htm&docid=6dzCOO7V-P88zM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2FAMELIA%252520EARHART%2FAMELIA-ELECTRA10E1937I.jpg&w=490&h=350&ei=DDv0UpnOJaiiyAGy3oC4DA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1328&page=5&start=56&ndsp=18&ved=0CJ8CEK0DMEE

I didn't mean to imply 'subpar', Jerry, just 'hurried' once the ball started rolling; it is a real-world outcome in my experience.  I saw 'scab patch' as a possibility, not a necessary point: we don't know exactly what configuration Earhart's airplane had in that area and the skin may perfectly match a modified situation.

What we see may have been a perfectly lovely repair, prior to its destruction at some point later - with at least one exception of at least one rivet that we know that was under-driven (if I recall correctly the remaining rivet was such).  Perhaps that is why that one survived - was extracted without too much effort.

Lots of things are possible, and I appreciate the information you have provided.  Question is, what is there that materially offsets what we've been able to observe in this part?  There just aren't that many easy alternates - the markers on this item are too distinct IMO, but it would be interesting if someone found some.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2014, 01:31:45 PM »

I stand corrected as per the panel installation procedure per Lockheed , regarding which side the alclad stamping was on after attachment ....I made several references before as to what I thought was a backwards installation , however my thought was never corrected.
Jeff, I would have to say it was your terminology that set me off in defense of Lockheed , in my neck of the woods, ...the term sawhorse , is akin to backyard ( mechanic).
As regards the artifact and it's hypothesis, ....the phrase.... tested by fire comes to mind,... I and many have questions that help provide the fire to give it that test.
That said , in regard to the artifact sustaining the noted damage during it's detachment, how is it determined to be from said detachment , instead of it's repurposed use?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2014, 02:13:40 PM »


Jeff, I would have to say it was your terminology that set me off in defense of Lockheed , in my neck of the woods, ...the term sawhorse , is akin to backyard ( mechanic).

I think Jeff meant sawhorse as in - sawhorse.  The aircraft was literally repaired on sawhorses.

Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2014, 03:23:30 PM »

What an odd picture ?

The man and woman sitting staring at camera under were Tighar think the artifact is from ?

Do we know who the lady is ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5333
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2014, 03:27:13 PM »

The man and woman sitting staring at camera under were Tighar think the artifact is from ?

No. The location is much further aft.

Do we know who the lady is ?

That's no lady.  That's Amelia Earhart.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP