I agree there is a bend there but it could be very subtle bend caused by the patch overlapping the extra height of two layers of skin at that spot.
Take a look at this detail from the Darwin Hangar photos. Not what I'd call a subtle bend.
I can also see an indication of the vertical line at Station 207.
By 'Station 207' you apparently mean 'Station 307', of course, Ric. Thanks for sharing this.
I too can see the 'vertical line' spoken of at roughly what should be STA 307 - but like you, I'm an amateur at photo analysis and cannot be certain what is creating that image.
If, for argument's sake, that were a vertical line of rivets creating that 'line', then 2-2-V-1 is patently disqualified by visual examination: there are no corresponding rivet holes in the artifact that would match the vertical line you've pointed out.
Further, there would be no reasonable need of the longitudenal 'stiffener' lines that 2-2-V-1 has been postulated to have had were it the 'patch'.
If, however, those are
not rivet heads creating that visible line, then what is creating the image? Is it perhaps an abrasion, a light scuff mark - a relatively shiny area as grime might have been 'polished' away in an area of contact? It could be many things other than a vertical member or rivets, I am guessing. It could perhaps even be related to some physical impact that actually created what may be the rather large 'dent' of our fascination: perhaps a worker bumped the airplane with a ladder or cart or flung a fuel hose onto the side in a clumsy moment of rush, or fell against it while climbing during some ground handling effort, etc. So many things are possible. I'm not sure we'll ever know.
But, consider also that it has been previously suggested that the finding of a 'footprint' on 2-2-V-1 of what looks like the presence of an unfastened vertical member roughly near what was postulated to be STA 307 (were the artifact the patch). That mark was in fact on the exterior air passage surface, were that artifact the 'patch' and aligned as has been conjectured at Wichita, etc. Could that 'footprint' on 2-2-V-1 actually be 'the line' you see at STA 307?
That would be intriguing, but the problem with that as I see it is dimensional (annoying, I know) -
A recent dimensional study of 2-2-V-1
(TIGHAR Bulletin #76, pages 12 thru 15 of same - and my thanks to you and Pat for publishing my report) reveals that the 'station' where that footprint appears on 2-2-V-1 is distinctly incongruent with the relative proximity of the forward edge of the artifact. The forward edge lies too far forward (by about 1.5") to match where STA 307 would be, were the artifact to attach to the Electra as we see the 'patch' lying in various photos, not just the Darwin ramp photo.
Further, although we've previously postulated as to why a vertical member could have been present but not riveted, it actually makes no sense to me from a structural viewpoint that such a thing should have been done: why leave off a few rivets that would take only a very few minutes to install to tie such a member in, which would make it worthwhile, compared to relatively more time to fabricate and fit such a member behind the skin in the first place?
Additionally, were such a member installed in contact with the inner surface, why would there be no corresponding 'footprint' on the inner skin surface? It has always been an oddity that the 'footprint' existed on the outer surface of 2-2-V-1 only, when considered in terms of whether the artifact was the patch.
Even had there been an unriveted inner vertical brace and some external force had created a visible outer mark (notwithstanding the dimensional challenge), would we reasonably have no evidence of the member's contact with the inner surface? Why wouldn't there be creasing evident at the edges of the flange, for instance, or at least some mark similar to what appeared on the outside surface? There is none on 2-2-V-1.
Accordingly, 2-2-V-1 does not appear to meet the physical window cover criteria in terms of photographic or dimensional aspects, IMO (which is no longer so humble, I admit). Were a vertical stiffener installed - which of course would be a preferred means of bracing as it would be consistent with the pre-existing structure, then:
- The 'station' is wrong on 2-2-V-1 - the part is too long and would have to extend too far forward on the Electra to match what we see in various photographs of where the forward edge of the window covering actually ends for this 'STA 307 feature' to match up on the artifact.
Further, by the presence of this line on the hangar photo and considering that rivets might be the cause (not clear to me):
- The absence of vertical rivet holes at this location on 2-2-V-1 disqualifies.
- The absence of evidence of a contacting member on the corresponding interior surface of 2-2-V-1 also appears strongly disqualifying.
- The dimensions of vertical mark placement on 2-2-V-1 compared to the forward egde is disqualifying by dimensional analysis.
Additionally, consider -
Were a vertical member installed to back the window cover, why then would the longitudenal bracing suggested by the mid-field rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 even be present? Further thought on that suggests that to add that bracing would amount to troublesome and gross overkill: again, if the installer had bothered with installing a vertical brace, it would be far easier to merely pick up the vertical member with a few rivets in a vertical row than to even contemplate concocting an odd series of longitudenal light bracing, as the analysis of 2-2-V-1 has suggested to be the case, were it the window covering.
Even had there been a desire to 'repair' a 'dent', it would be simpler to replace a wounded vertical member - were that the case, and straighten the skin than to add a series of new longitudenal stiffeners.
I wish it were not so -
I readily admit that there's nothing quite like a tantalizing piece of sheetmetal that looks as if it popped right off the hull of one of history's most tantalizing lost airplanes and surfed into our laps on the shore of a desert isle. But it appears we're reaching too far now - 2-2-V-1 is not the glass slipper in my long studied view, sorry to say: the printed information on the artifact doesn't match era-sensitive examples as known to-date, the
metallurgical analysis is problematic in terms of alloy content / era, and the
dimensional analysis would have to be quantifiably overcome in any case.
Is it truly productive to keep after this artifact?
