This is an update on what I’ve been doing to test the hypothesis that 2-2-V-1 is from the C-47A that crashed on Sydney Island Dec. 17, 1943.
As shown in the attached illustrations, I’ve assigned an alpha-numeric designator to each rivet hole on 2-2-V-1 ( see “hole numbers.jpg”). After precisely measuring distances on the artifact with adhesive measuring tape, I’ve plotted each hole on a schematic in Adobe Illustrator to a tolerance 1/32”. The result is a far more accurate picture of the rivet pattern than we have ever had.
Major take-aways:
• The spacing of the rivet lines as shown in a
1992 issue of TIGHAR Tracks is not precise. The paper template of 2-2-V-1 used by Tom Palshaw is based on the 1992 measurements. The differences, while not huge (see “Actual v template”.jpg ) are significant when measuring precise alignment with the pattern on the C-47 wing. Palshaw’s template appears to fit the C-47B wing but it does not accurately reflect the artifact.
• The pitch of the small rivets in all four lines - a total of 93 rivets - is unfailingly precise at exactly one inch, except in one instance. The space between holes C14 and C15 is 1/16” short (see “#3 pitch anom.jpg”). Hole C14 is “stretched” vertically. I don’t see how the two anomalies have anything to do with each other. The pitch precision of 99% of the small rivets suggests the use of a jig or template, but the anomaly argues against a jig, so the small rivet holes appear to have been hand-drilled using a template which apparently slipped in one instance. This would seem to be more likely in an expedient repair rather than during factory manufacture.
The vertically deformed hole is unusual - nearly all other holes are undeformed. The vertical deformation implies a tugging force. The bottom edge of 2-2-V-1 exhibits lateral tearing due to overload, i.e. tugging.
• The two top rivet lines (E and F) angle down left to right and are nearly, but not exactly, parallel to each other. The center rivet line (D) runs straight left to right. The lowest row of small rivets (C) is parallel to the center line (D).
• The large rivet holes along the bottom of the artifact (B) have a consistent pitch of 1 1/4” except between B5 and B6 where the pitch is 1 1/8” (an eighth of an inch short) and between B6 and B7 where the pitch is 1 11/16” (nearly half an inch too long).
• Perhaps more significantly, line B is actually two separate lines. Holes from B1 to B5 are in alignment, but at B6 the line jumps up 1/8” and continues straight to B14. There may, or may not, be a hole at B15. (see “Line B.jpg”)
• An “A” line of rivets is implied but no remnant of a hole is discernible so it’s not possible to know the distance between lines A and B.
Whether any of these features can be seen on the patch awaits Jeff Glickman's work with the 16mm film.
All of this is unlike anything I saw on the C-47A at Dover AFB and supports the hypothesis that 2-2-V-1 is a repair rather than factory construction.
Tom Palshaw was using an inaccurate template (my fault, not his) to compare 2-2-V-1 to the wrong airplane (a C-47B rather than a C-47A). The C-47A at Dover, 42-9284, is a different contract year than the plane that crashed on Sydney, 43-30739. For the best possible comparison to the C-47A that crashed on Sydney Island, we need to come as close as we can to apples-to-apples. We need to do a detailed examination and measurement of the relevant section on the wing of the closest surviving C-47A by tail number. We will be doing that later this winter.