Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1036822 times)

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #525 on: March 13, 2014, 05:50:34 PM »

Quote
Posted by: Jeffrey Neville
« on: Today at 11:13:50 AM »...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....

Did I do the quote thing right?

Some B-24 semi-close up shots attached. I note lots of irregular rows, seemingly different rivet sizes, uneven spacing, various pitches.  Point being that if this Liberator represents state of the art in assembly line production then maybe apparent inconsistent workmanship on artifact doesn't necessarily say so much.

I guess Rosie was allowed some artistic license
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #526 on: March 13, 2014, 08:16:20 PM »

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

I think Mark Pearce has done that. Thank you Mark.  The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1.

We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943.  So how did a piece of sheet labeled AN-A-13 end up on a pre-war Japanese flying boat?

Clearly, the guy at ALCOA who, in 1996, told us that AN-A-13 was the designation for "reserve stock" was wrong. That means we DON'T know whether 2-2-V-1 was from a repair or not.  What we DO know about the artifact is that there is an "AD" in a particular font that was used by ALCOA.  The only word that ALCOA stamped on there product that contains the letters "AD" is ALCLAD but at some point they stopped using the entire word ALCLAD and abbreviated it to "ALC".  We also know that the AD on the artifact is not aligned with the grain of the metal so it was probably hand-stamped rather than rolled-on.  Both of those factors suggest that 2-2-V-1 is an early, probably pre-war, piece of ALCLAD sheet.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 08:18:16 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #527 on: March 13, 2014, 09:52:08 PM »

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

I think Mark Pearce has done that. Thank you Mark.  The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1.

We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943.  So how did a piece of sheet labeled AN-A-13 end up on a pre-war Japanese flying boat?

Clearly, the guy at ALCOA who, in 1996, told us that AN-A-13 was the designation for "reserve stock" was wrong. That means we DON'T know whether 2-2-V-1 was from a repair or not.  What we DO know about the artifact is that there is an "AD" in a particular font that was used by ALCOA.  The only word that ALCOA stamped on there product that contains the letters "AD" is ALCLAD but at some point they stopped using the entire word ALCLAD and abbreviated it to "ALC".  We also know that the AD on the artifact is not aligned with the grain of the metal so it was probably hand-stamped rather than rolled-on.  Both of those factors suggest that 2-2-V-1 is an early, probably pre-war, piece of ALCLAD sheet.


I'm happy to help out. The word 'ALCLAD' and either 'AN-A-13' or 'ANA 13' is visible in the photos of three different aluminum sheets - said to be from the 1940s and 1950s, at the Airstream Co. link below, [mentioned earlier?]

- a .051" Alcoa sheet, a .032" Kaiser Aluminum sheet and a .032" Alcoa sheet.

Can you post a high resolution photo of the 'AD' letters?
The Japanese flying boat- really a Mavis, or....?     

http://www.airstream.com/files/library/ba001792c0a731f5.pdf


Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #528 on: March 14, 2014, 06:30:09 AM »

Quote
Posted by: Ric Gillespie
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:16:20 PM »"....The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1...."
 

Not exactly, the reference to applicable sheet thickness is simply indicating a reduction in relative cladding thickness at 0.064 and heavier...doesn't say that the spec doesn't apply to lighter gauges.  Airstream photos confirm availability in 0.032
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #529 on: March 14, 2014, 09:50:30 AM »


"...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...

Yes, exactly, it is clearly "...repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features."
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone.  [The Japanese bombed the place from the air, and shelled it from submarines.]  But it's not the kind of work I'd expect to see from Lockheed employees, working in the safety of the Calif. factory, with every proper tool at hand, and with AE looking over their shoulders.  She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field.  The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.  The repaired plane's structure was even X-rayed!! To seek out flaws in the structure!!

Everything I see here screams- WW2 repair job patch- later scavenged at Canton Island  and brought back to Gardener Island.     

http://www.sff.net/people/brook.west/arc/abdr.html
"Aircraft battle damage repair (ABDR)... the "quick fix and get it in the air again" brand of aircraft repair."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_562.htm
"...certain skin areas are classified as highly critical, other areas as semi-critical, while still other areas may be classified as non-critical."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_546.htm
"5. Rivets less than three thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter should not be used for any structural parts."

--------------------------------------------------

"When Amelia Earhart's big plane was placed under a newly developed X-ray machine recently, several flaws were discovered which might have forced down the aviatrix at some point on her round-the-world-flight if they had not been corrected..."  Popular Mechanics, Aug. 1937, Page 178.


"Aviation experts recently utilized a new portable X-ray machine to locate possible structural defects in the huge transport plane in which Amelia Earhart, world famous woman flyer, recently crashed at Honolulu, Hawaii, while on a attempted flight around the world.  Rays developed by the apparatus were said to be strong enough to penetrate eighteen inches of solid aluminum and reveal motor or framework flaws as small as one millionth of an inch.  More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."
  Popular Science, August 1937, page 58


Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #530 on: March 14, 2014, 10:26:37 AM »

Quote
Posted by: Ric Gillespie
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:16:20 PM »"....The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1...."
 

Not exactly, the reference to applicable sheet thickness is simply indicating a reduction in relative cladding thickness at 0.064 and heavier...doesn't say that the spec doesn't apply to lighter gauges.  Airstream photos confirm availability in 0.032

That's not the way I read it.  We'd need to see the actual specification to be sure.  In any event, the information we were given by the metallurgist at ALCOA was not accurate and there seems to be no way to know whether the AN-A-13 was ever on the artifact.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #531 on: March 14, 2014, 10:58:16 AM »

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

Yes, exactly, it is clearly "...repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features."
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone. ...

She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field. ...

The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.

You've express your opinion (again).  That's fine, but it's not supported by the facts. 

We know this for sure:
• The repairs to Earhart's aircraft had to pass Bureau of Air Commerce inspection.

•There is nothing to indicate that repairs as implied by 2-2-V-1 would not pass government inspection.

• Your opinions are all "would haves" (or "wouldn't haves").  You have no facts.

• Your opinion about the work not being done "in a pinch" is not supported by correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies. GP was telling State Dept. officials that the repairs were completed and inspected when the inspector was telling his boss that the repairs would take another ten days.  In fact, everything was wrapped up in five days.  That's a rush job.

Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #532 on: March 14, 2014, 12:47:32 PM »


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work. ...
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone. ...

She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field. ...

The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.

You've express your opinion (again).  That's fine, but it's not supported by the facts. 
• Your opinions are all "would haves" (or "wouldn't haves").  You have no facts.
• Your opinion about the work not being done "in a pinch" is not supported by correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies. GP was telling State Dept. officials that the repairs were completed and inspected when the inspector was telling his boss that the repairs would take another ten days.  In fact, everything was wrapped up in five days.  That's a rush job.


All the major and minor repairs, and the 1000 X-rays, done start to finish in five days?  It would be good to have a fact-based "time-sheet" covering the repair job.  A letter written by GP to Purdue's Pres. Edward Elliott on March 30th 1937, starts,

"Dear Elliott,  The plane gets back Friday to the factory here..."

Forty days (?) later, on May 15th, the United Press published a short article titled "Amelia to Take Off Again Before June 1"  It says in part, "The famous woman flyer said her plane has been restored to "perfect condition".  It has been undergoing extensive repairs at the Lockheed factory..."

[The other story below quotes Amelia as estimating "...not more than three weeks" for the repairs.]

Are the other letters on-line?   

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19370515&id=I1wbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-UwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5818,5642730
 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19370328&id=IicbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=C0wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2888,4634814
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 12:58:47 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #533 on: March 14, 2014, 02:22:26 PM »

All the major and minor repairs, and the 1000 X-rays, done start to finish in five days?

No.  You seem to be having a hard understanding this.  I must not be communicating clearly.  The aircraft was at the Burbank facility for repair from early April until May 19.

  It would be good to have a fact-based "time-sheet" covering the repair job.

yes it would.  Let me know if you find one.

Forty days (?) later, on May 15th, the United Press published a short article titled "Amelia to Take Off Again Before June 1"  It says in part, "The famous woman flyer said her plane has been restored to "perfect condition".  It has been undergoing extensive repairs at the Lockheed factory..."

And yet, the day before the BAC inspector in L.A. told his boss that the repairs and inspection would take another ten days.

Are other letters on-line?   

No.  I'll do that as soon as I can.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #534 on: March 14, 2014, 02:25:38 PM »

I've been getting a lot of calls from media for TIGHAR's take on the missing Malaysian flight.  I'll be in New York tonight as one of a "panel of experts" on The Kelly File, FOX News at 9pm Eastern.  Should be interesting.
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #535 on: March 14, 2014, 02:45:28 PM »

Fox "news"? Be sure to take your tinfoil hat   ;D


LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

P.S. - use your time to plug Niku VIII !!! I mean, why not?
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #536 on: March 14, 2014, 03:15:19 PM »

So the plane was at the Lockheed factory for 47 days.  That is plenty of time for the plane to be brought back to the "perfect condition" AE described.  She could be quite fussy from what I've learned.   

Jeff N. has emphasized the irregular riveting seen in 2-2-V-1 as a sign of work not done in a factory. 

 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 03:22:57 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #537 on: March 14, 2014, 04:47:58 PM »

So the plane was at the Lockheed factory for 47 days.  That is plenty of time for the plane to be brought back to the "perfect condition" AE described.  She could be quite fussy from what I've learned.

Sounds like you were either there or that you have experience fixing heavily damaged airplanes.  I was not there, but in my former life handling insurance claims I have monitored the repair of many heavily damaged airplanes. In my experience, I would expect the kind of repairs that NR16020 needed would take at least two months.
We know that on May 15 when Amelia said the plane had been brought back to perfect condition it would be another five days before repairs were actually completed and inspected. Shocking as it may be, Amelia Earhart did not always tell the truth - especially to the media.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #538 on: March 14, 2014, 06:32:12 PM »

It would really be shocking if Lockheed did less than perfect work on the repair.  Would she lie and say a "perfect job" had been done, when Lockheed had really cut corners?  What are the chances that  Lockheed would cut corners repairing AE's plane- a plane they had designed and built - that was going on a flight around the world?



 


Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #539 on: March 15, 2014, 09:23:39 AM »

It would really be shocking if Lockheed did less than perfect work on the repair.  Would she lie and say a "perfect job" had been done, when Lockheed had really cut corners? 

Would she lie and call her plane a "Flying Laboratory" when, in fact, it was equipped pretty much the same as any airliner of the day?  Would she lie and tell the press that the cross-country flight to Miami was just a test flight?  Would she lie about why the South Atlantic flight ended up in St.Louis instead of Dakar?

What are the chances that  Lockheed would cut corners repairing AE's plane- a plane they had designed and built - that was going on a flight around the world?

None. They would repair the plane to approved Bureau of Air Commerce standards. It had to pass government inspection.  If 2-2-V-1 is what we think it is, the repairs left that part of the airplane as strong or stronger.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 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