I’m not sure of how item 7 of the repair report is to be interpreted. Attached are two interpretations regarding the 8” on left side. One has the 8” a separate piece and one has the 8”as a continuation of the right side repair skin.
Since it was noted that repair directions were not followed elsewhere(near the cockpit) can this repair be verified by any photographs?
I’m wondering if it makes sense for the 2nd string of 5/32" holes to tear along the rivet line or if they were close to an edge would they tend to tear thru to the edge instead. The photo you provided seemed to show something like that in the adjacent skin.
Edit:The tab is so narrow it may not have enough support from adjacent skin to pull the 2nd row holes near it thru to an edge
Greg,
Your interpretation is as good as any, IMHO; your realization of how these orders might have been difficult to clearly understand also illustrates something important about what we may be seeing in 2-2-V-1:
Many things are possible, hence 2-2-V-1 becomes a more likely outcome of the repairs done to NR16020, IMO.
Far from definitively telling us what 2-2-V-1 "IS", or even that it 'can't be from' the Electra, we can easily see how 2-2-V-1 could emerge as we see it (the original planform, not damaged) from such a general outline of repairs. On the surface one can argue that it is 'clear' that certain skins should be 'replaced' - but reading carefully it is clear that the intent was not necessarily entire, original skins - but skinned material - cutting and splicing in as fairly clearly stated in some cases, but easily as 'interpreted' in others.
We also see orders to straighten or replace certain members. That sounds straightforward enough - but in a hurried (it was hurried for such a considerable repair given that this was apparently done in little more than a week) environment, lots of license can be taken. 'Sister' members may be applied where bent members are allowed to remain, etc.
We'd all like to think that Lockheed applied a production-quality effort to the skin / underlying members repair effort, but it isn't entirely possible to do that on sawhorses and in a week's time, where damaged stuff has to be straightened or removed, and new material formed and match-drilled. In my experience it is inevitable that some deviation from standard spacing would have occurred, and the introduction of some sister (additional) members would be no surprise.
In sum, the 'order' leaves plenty of room for the oddly-fit piece we see in 2-2-V-1. I realize that proves nothing - but consider that we're looking at a relatively bastardized (relative to original quality build of most any airframe) hand-fit piece that was clearly adapted to make-fit to a piece-repair need on some airframe. While that is possible on many craft, I remain struck that we know of one particular craft that bore a repair scheme that could easily iinclude what we see in 2-2-V-1 - and now we're looking at the repair order that swings that door wide-open.
The tidy 'orders' we see may actually well be more of a 'report' written out mostly after the fact to capture what the workmen did over several days of effort: in that shop environment it is necessary to have, for the record, a clear work order by which the effort would have proceeded. Those are not always done so thoroughly in advance as one might assume.
The orders are tidy enough - but they are clearly not so definitive as to rule out what we see in this artifact in the least. Nor would I expect to find that much that truly closely conformed to the order: it isn't possible because the order is just not that crisply definitive IMO.
It is in this way that the order speaks volumes in support of 2-2-V-1 very possibly being an NR16020 artifact IMO: it has to have been from a ship that was repaired in the manner suggested by this very document. How many such ships came anywhere near Gardner / Niku?