Regardless of when this photo was taken... ... does it appear to have just enough detail to show "crossing lines" of rivets in the same area 2-2-V-1, (which has no "crossing" rivet lines), is alleged to have come from?
Just asking.
Is it not the case that the image below has appeared in this thread already? Wouldn't an attentive researcher have remembered this picture of where TIGHAR thinks 2-2-V-1 might have originated? Is it possible to make accusations in question form?
Just asking.
To answer Mark -
"No." I can't see the area between stations 269 5/8 and 293 5/8 well enough in your photo (as nice as it is in other regards) to make such a determination. However, the picture Marty has posted does reinforce my memory and clarify - that
there are clearly no crossing members in the area we speak of, at least certainly in this ship we see up close by this picture.
Marty,
Thanks for posting this - and my understanding of the structure in this area is refreshed by it.
Which raises a point of discussion about the fitment problem of 2-2-V-1 to known L10 airplanes, so far -
I had come to labor under an understanding somehow that the stiffeners merely butted-up against each structural bulkhead (often the case), and that therefore an altered placement of the rows could be easily explained. Not so, as evidenced here. This picture was one I was trying to find again to clarify this point (and I stand reminded by Marty's effort here that most such stuff already resides here, if only I'd get smarter in my efforts...
): the stiffeners do not abut each bulkhead and terminate - they actually pass through.
What does that mean? For one, they are not merely station-to-station stiffeners, but light stringers after all. For another, they are not so portable as to lateral displacement: notice that the u-channel style stiffeners pass through cut-outs in the bulkhead at station 293 5/8. This means that displacement of the stiffeners to either side would require a 're-notching' of the bulkhead - at least as in the case we see before us, this particular L10.
So, as has been discussed, some fair questions as I see it are -
ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers? For one thing, 2-2-V-1 is an extremely distorted piece of metal - it is difficult to get an accurate flat pattern off of something like that, and the bending and stresses it endured would also mean that it cannot be 100% true to the original pattern as-cut and installed. The error between those considerations could account for a great deal of misalignment. The large divergence seen at the 4th stringer would remain a bit suspect, but this is worthy of consideration.
Barring that -
Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason? I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.
Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now? I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.
Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics? If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained. I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no".
A scab is usually an ugly thing anyway, and avoided in most cases except for the most expedient needs. But they are sometimes used, often as a temporary measure in a needy situation until better repairs can be effected.
So we are still stuck with a real fitment problem of 2-2-V-1 in the belly of known L10 types so far. What is hopeful is how closely the keel and first stiffener align; after that, divergence gets to be a problem. Better questions might be -
What can we learn of any variations in this area, if any, between the E model and other L10 variants?
Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?
Can we learn more about Earhart's own airplane? Much discussed already and hard to find specifics beyond the anecdotal.
And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner? We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.
Nothing new, this has been with us all along. I appreciate the visual clarification as to how the stiffeners are arranged relative to the bulkheads - the transverse members do dictate in substantial degree where the stiffeners lie in terms of lateral butt line, so errant placement would not be so likely - IF the L10E (NR16020 in point of fact) was true to this scheme. It would be good to know more about possible variations in this area among the various L10 variants... (hows that for varying variables...).
"Is it possible... accusation... question?" - yes, it truly is, and you were nearly rabbinical in pointing that out, e.g. "so, what's wrong with a question?" - LOL!!!
I have to say those who constantly go after someone else's interest in a given pursuit by slinging so much pasta and sauce on the kitchen wall never cease to amuse me with the 'just gotta be something else' chase or the 'could be anything' dismissal...
This one, however, is refreshing.
Rarely do those who would prove us wrong behave so well or bring forth such an enormous amount of useful material to help - stuff actually that I would scarcely have the time to go out and find on my own. So I hereby thank Mark, who tends toward gentle conduct in his effort whatever his motives, and I mean to encourage his continued contributions of material. To me he's more of an ally in this search than not (and if he finds that to be more than he intends, I beg his forbearance). This comes in the form of 'useful discussion' more than disruptive 'trolling' as I see it, a nice change.
So, in that vein, I will also challenge Mark to help us find more specific data on the L10 variants - let the chips fall where they will.