Print

[Greg Daspit]

It still would not fit because the thickness of the skin is wrong and there should be about 1 1/2" between the staggered double rows and there isn't. IMHO.

Note that the space between the dbl row on the Wichita plane is not 1-1/2" either, however on page two of the The Window, the Patch and the Artifact it is noted that there may have been an additional stiffener or stringer at the bottom. The larger diameter rivet row in the aritfact it this location, so close to the edge, still suggests to me that this patch had to do with a structural concern. Again, the timing of the patch was right after the hard landing in Miami

[Greg Daspit]

Looking at the PBY's so called "perfect fit" shows how hard it is to match all of the features of the artifact. So maybe that helps in a way. If it was a joke by skeptics, it's a joke that backfired.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Marty, Elgen Long did take that photo way back in 1992.  You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing him of falsifying data, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a serious claim.  Shame on you!

Monty Fowler was man enough to realize his snap judgement about the photo was wrong and apologize for it here on the forum.  You need to do the same.

A devoted and sharp-eyed reader of the Forum says I need to apologize for saying that the rivet lines were visible THROUGH the template.  By his calculation, someone has drawn the rivet lines perpendicular to the long axis of the template.  He has inserted yellow arrows to show that the rivet lines do not show through around the edges of the template.  It seems that someone must have drawn the lines by hand on the template in order to produce this picture of a "perfect fit."

[Ron Lyons]

Honestly maybe it IS intended as a joke... "here's a picture of it 20 feet away, it obviously matches" .  Or maybe it's a sarcastic comment on what they see as shortcomings on TIGHAR's pictures.  Hard to say...

The bottom double row of rivets is a question mark on it fitting the electra, but as Ric has shown we already know that they had placed an extra stringer on the forward edge of the frame, because of the bulkhead there not allowing them to put rivets through it (can't get to the back of the rivet).  It's possible as the paper points out that they also added a stringer to the bottom... they may have even added stringers to all 4 sides (it would be a clean way to do it).   

It seems far more plausible that this is possibly from the Electra, which many people suspect crashed near here... then to imagine that it comes from a plane that has no record of crashing there, or losing part of a wing there. 

If you're going to believe a PBY wrecked there, why would you ridicule someone who says an Electra MAY have wrecked there?  We have an Electra missing but no PBY's missing in the general area that we know of.  We have TIGHAR who's presented lots of evidence to suggest AE's Electra went down near there, but not 1 piece of evidence to suggest a PBY ever did. We have evidence that seems to support it could not have possibly came from a PBY (wrong thickness, unpainted) and the jury's still out on the pitch pattern.  We clearly have an Electra with a strange piece of sheet metal strikingly similar to this one, that we know went down somewhere out here.   

Maybe TIGHAR's wrong... but I don't understand how an honest observer won't even consider the possibility. 

[Ron Lyons]

Marty, with all due respect I don't think you're seeing that rotated the right way.  On the artifact, there is a tab that points down as mounted on the Electra.  In the picture of the wing, that tab is pointed aft... which would line the rivet lines up as they are shown in the picture of the template laying on the wings.  Ric provided Mr. Long with that template, and likely had drawn the rivets on it himself...

With that said, it still obviously doesn't match, it just happens to line up... sort of... and the double row of rivets doesn't seem to exist on the plane (but does on the artifact)... and the thickness is wrong, and the paint is missing, and the pitch pattern appears to be wrong (according to technical documents identifying the pitch requirements on that plane).  So it appears that yes, the rivet lines may be spaced the same distance but 4 other specifications exclude it from being from a PBY.

[JNev]

This is one of those discussions best had in person, not possible...

I believe Mary now gets the orientation - if he didn't before (and I may have misread him then).  What seems to be the case is that we may be looking at 'drawn' rivet lines, made to match those of the PBY...

I don't know.  Bottom line -

a) What we see here is too ambiguous to serve as 'evidence' for any point of substance, and
b) We've stated that shortcoming and the need of more definitive data, should whomever put that 'up' as evidence truly desire to have it accepted as 'fact', and
c) Yes, you've stated it well, Ron - maybe it is a note of sarcasm as to how our analysis is viewed -

If so, touche', and more power to them - but the joke is on them; we've more than admitted that there's more to be done, that we recognize the remaining risks as to 2-2-V-1's provenance. 

Further to that last thought, it is odd, but 2-2-V-1 seems to have fewer alternative sources as these arguments wear on: no one has yet strengthened the idea of a PBY, B-24, C-87 or B-17, etc. source in all these arguments, but done more to help us deplete the logical alternatives.

Which is not the same as proving a fit to NR16020, and admittedly we still have a wild card on our hands.  The question narrows, however - how many viable candidates were there in that part of the world as donors that would fit the thickness and bracing pattern we see in this part? 

The PBY had .045"T skins in the purported area - if sarcasm, fine, but 2-2-V-1 is still provides the substance for a very likely covering for that window, given the little time or resources a guy like Bo McNeeley likely had to work with.

Perhaps the PBY 'joke' has given its laughs, and it may deserve little more concern.  We can enjoy the humor of that irony, it seems.  On reflection, I take it as more tongue in cheek sarcasm than serious display, and can enjoy the irony of it.  I'm much more interested in my own nutty pursuit of a crusty old piece of metal than worrying about what others may think of that, now that the piano has been safely moved... the piano was a bigger folly than 2-2-V-1, trust me.

[Bessel P Sybesma]

...

If you're going to believe a PBY wrecked there, why would you ridicule someone who says an Electra MAY have wrecked there?  We have an Electra missing but no PBY's missing in the general area that we know of.  We have TIGHAR who's presented lots of evidence to suggest AE's Electra went down near there, but not 1 piece of evidence to suggest a PBY ever did. We have evidence that seems to support it could not have possibly came from a PBY (wrong thickness, unpainted) and the jury's still out on the pitch pattern.  We clearly have an Electra with a strange piece of sheet metal strikingly similar to this one, that we know went down somewhere out here.   

Maybe TIGHAR's wrong... but I don't understand how an honest observer won't even consider the possibility.

One possible explanation for the patch coming of a PBY could be that it was a temporary patch fitted until a permanent repair could be made. This could explain the wrong thickness and the lack of paint. Also the fact that the patch was found alone, without any other wreckage of a PBY.  Having been replaced by a proper patch, what is now known as 2-2-V-1 was simply discarded and picked up by the villagers for practical use...

Still doesn't explain the double row of rivets where none are shown on the PBY wing's surface though...

[Ron Lyons]

That could be... but it still stands that we know of no PBY's in the area with a patch on them... and we know of no PBY's in the area that lost a patch...

but we do know of an Electra, in the area (at most within a couple hundred miles of that island, no matter what theory you ascribe to ), with a similar patch, that's wholly missing. 

[Bessel P Sybesma]

But we do know that PBY's regularly visited Nikumaroro to resupply the LORAN station in 1944 - 1945, so unless we trace the maintenance history of each of those aircraft, we can not be 100% certain that the patch did not come off one of them...

[Bruce Thomas]

But we do know that PBY's regularly visited Nikumaroro to resupply the LORAN station in 1944 - 1945, so unless we trace the maintenance history of each of those aircraft, we can not be 100% certain that the patch did not come off one of them...

This is reminding me more and more about the possibility of the Bevington Object being a cement mixer.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

I believe Mary now gets the orientation - if he didn't before (and I may have misread him then). 

I don't know what you mean by "gets the orientation."

The object is rectangular.

It has a long axis and a short axis.

The rivet lines run parallel to the long axis.

In the "perfect match" photo, the (apparently) sketched-in rivet lines run parallel to the short axis.

What seems to be the case is that we may be looking at 'drawn' rivet lines, made to match those of the PBY...

Yes, that seems to me to be the case.  This photo is of the outside of the skin.  I think they turned their outline so that they were looking at the rivet pattern from the inside, as in this plot of the size and location of the rivet holes in 2-2-V-1:

[JNev]

You seem to have it 90 degrees off, Marty.  It appears to me that we are looking outboard along the long axis - the rows appear properly oriented.

As to PBY and temporary patch - how would you install 3/32" rivets in 1/8" existing holes?  I don't buy that.

[Bill Mangus]

Everyone,

I was successful in getting access to the top of the PBY at the Military Aviation Museum yesterday.  The pictures and measurements are on their way to Ric.  There was a surprise or two but, bottom line, Artifact 2-2-V-1 did not come from a PBY.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

You seem to have it 90 degrees off, Marty.  It appears to me that we are looking outboard along the long axis - the rows appear properly oriented.

So you believe that there is that much foreshortening in the photo?

I suppose it could be an optical illusion. 

Even in that case, the question remains of how the "perfect match" lines could have gotten onto the tracing.  As the GIS drawing from the interior perspective shows, there is a series of larger rivets along one edge that unquestionably do not match the existing lines of the PBY wing.  Did they just ignore that information? 

[Tim Collins]

But we do know that PBY's regularly visited Nikumaroro to resupply the LORAN station in 1944 - 1945, so unless we trace the maintenance history of each of those aircraft, we can not be 100% certain that the patch did not come off one of them...

This is reminding me more and more about the possibility of the Bevington Object being a cement mixer.

Surprised someone hasn't suggested the patch came from the bottom of Gallaghar's bass boat.