This is maddening. What are the chances that this piece of metal, with the correct metallurgical characteristics, in this most remote of locations, that just so happens to juuuusssstttt fit this particularly odd piece of this aircraft, isn't this patch? It boggles my mind.
Yet, I'm about one inch or less from being convinced 2-2-V-1 cannot be the patch.
One of the most telling pictures for me is the one of the actual artifact held against the New England Air Museum Electra (
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32043.html#msg32043). For all the grainy uncertainty of all the post-patch pictures of NR16020 I think it's pretty clear that the patch was placed precisely in place of what Jeffrey calls the coaming. In fact, when I think about it, if I were the one placing the patch, wouldn't it make sense to drill out the coaming and use it as a template for the patch? Maybe add a little vertical length to double the top row of rivets (to seal it better because they patched the window because it leaked like a sieve? Maybe? Guessed Dave). But the horizontal length therefore must be less than the station 293 5/8 to 320 distance? Or more precisely, equal to the coaming vertical rivet holes?
Oh, and I have to say, I think it unlikely (not that I have any expertise, especially in respect to Jeffrey and those with actual aircraft construction experience) that the patch installer would have drilled new holes and placed the patch over the existing coaming. Considering the detail apparent in the Miami close up, the plane would be Swiss cheese at that point. Seems an Ocam's razor kind of thing - removing, templating, and reusing existing holes is way easier. And a cleaner result I would think. But, I admit, I know relatively nothing about the realities of aircraft construction and field maintenance.
Nothing absolute about it, but given the detail of the front edge of the window now available, and what can be seen in the post-patch pictures, is 2-2-V-1 too long to fit the patch? The picture of the actual artifact against the plane is more telling than the uncertain scaled Photoshop renderings. The patch appears to match the coaming width, and the coaming rivets are about an inch inward from stations 293 5/8 and 320 (see detail from Miami and Oakland pre-first attempt pics). If it was a 1-to-1 fit with the coaming, wouldn't these vertical rivets/rivet holes be on 2-2-V-1? Every time I strain to see clearly, yet try to be coldly rational about it, I'm convinced the patch as pictured on the actual aircraft is within the 293 5/8-320 frames, and that it's just too likely that it would be riveted directly in place of the existing coaming holes. Does that make 2-2-V-1 too long? The rivet holes would show? Maybe. Still, if 2-2-V-1 were just rotated ever so slightly in the pic at the NEAM I could believe that the vertical rivet holes wouldn't show on 2-2-V-1. It's really, really, close.
I'm starting to wonder if this horizontal dimension is crossing the line and excluding 2-2-V-1. It pains me, but (think Johnny Cochran), "if it doesn't fit, you must quit." Perhaps enough clarity in nailing down the horizontal dimension of the patch is enough to exclude 2-2-V-1? As much as it pains me to say so, but that seems a possible avenue of investigation if horizontal rivet rows can't be resolved. Or maybe that line of investigation can show that 2-2-V-1 is still possibly the patch?
Here's hoping a clearer picture of the patch shows up validating that 2-2-V-1 fits.