Randy,
You might want to review the extensive strings on this window more closely - much has been written as to at least a few of these details you have noticed.
As to my own thoughts -
Granted I'm no expert here, but I am still confused as to why anyone would want to put a bigger window on this plane.
To facilitate celestial navigation as envisioned during the first world flight attempt, as I understand it. It was also covered later for reasons not entirely clear, but much speculated upon. It may have been as simple as a desire to close off an unneeded hole in the bird since Noonan apparently felt differently about how to do celestial navigation from this ship than did the primary navigator on the first world flight attempt. This window having been covered, Noonan seems to have believed he could work adequately from the existing (remaining) windows in the cabin, and perhaps at times from the cockpit. I believe a similar window was covered by re-skinning the main entry door as well (on the opposite side of the cabin).
As I was looking at this photo I noticed that the so called patch window has a frame around it. Kinda of like when we customize car windows or install a window. As you can see in the orange arrows....the window was encased....unlike the window to the right that has the red arrows. This is the actual window design of this aircraft.
I suspect it had to do with the oversize window being built into a non-standard window location where no existing bracing or extra reinforcement existed, and that the visible external 'coaming' was fabricated and installed as a retainer for the new window's transparency and to add a finished edge to the opening. It may have also been added to restore some strength and rigidity where the new opening had removed material from the original semi-monocoque membrane. All conjecture on my part, but seems to make sense given what we can see.
Now here is where I am really questionning this whole window concept. At the bottom of the patch window you notice a series of rivets outlined by blue boxes. If you were to make any changes to windows...why on earth would you change your rivet pattern to do so?
Those are original rivet placement patterns, not modified. The only added fasteners I see beyond the coaming itself are the two in the vertical line extending above the forward edge of the coaming.
Anyway, why I say that...the patch window does not line up along the main support that runs up and down.
Correct. It is offset 'aft' of the former at (or near) STA 293 5/8 - perhaps due to flange placement at that former which may have made attachment difficult or impossible at that location, or for some other reason. In any case, consider that this placement of the window's edge is roughly consisent with the placement of the stock window you've referred to, which also does not reach the formers fore and aft of the stock opening. It seems of little importance, if any, as to the scheme of things to me, for what it is worth.
Also, noticed a slight gap in the metal of the plane (outlined in gold).
My own belief is that the slight 'gap' there is not much of a 'gap', but more of a slight 'step' - which is normal to the build. I believe it is visually exaggerated by some shadowing effect. Some have held that this may be evidence of damage from a hard landing, but I point to the absence of wrinkling (diagonal between formers and stiffeners would be typical), etc. and disagree that we're looking at signs of distress from overstrain. I believe this is a normally appearing feature because of my own recollection of having looked rather closely at many similar structural features in my 37 year career as an A&P mechanic and more lately (20 years), engineer. I am not a structures engineer but a generalist (Certification) by profession, but am keenly familiar with structural design and build, by long experience.
At the bottom of the plane...you have a series of rivets that run along the metal....but as soon as they get to the area where the patch window is...they stop? Why is that?
Not sure I follow, but I'm trying to sort out what you refer to. I believe we are seeing normal rivet patterns for an L10, excepting the vertical forward row and upper longitudenal row that we can see in the edge of the window coaming. 'Normal pattern' includes the double-staggered row along the bottom edge of the coaming, which indicates that the original fastener pattern was picked up by the window installer - a common practice where practical.
To be honest...I feel that this window wasn't intended to be a window afterall, but a door!!!! Give me your feedback!!! Thanks!!!
I believe it was intended as a window, hence the size that does not extend further toward the belly - and far from the lavatory floor, for instance (why would they stop so short if a door was intended). It was clearly not stock, but a specialized window - apparently for navigation purposes - which I believe is supported by the extra height of the window (I suppose to allow a greater view of the heavens).
