TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Artifact Analysis => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 09:54:26 AM

Title: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 09:54:26 AM
Here's the question:  What evidence would you need to see to convince you that Artifact 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020?

Let's see if we can define the hurdles that must be cleared and what it would take to establish that each has been cleared.  Maybe we'll find a hurdle that absolutely disqualifies the artifact. Maybe not.  If we clear all the hurdles does that make it smoking gun?

We already know that this artifact is more promising than we previously realized. How good is it?  Let's find out.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 03, 2014, 10:25:18 AM
Here's the question:  What evidence would you need to see to convince you that Artifact 2-2-V-1 (pictured below) came from NR16020?

Let's see if we can define the hurdles that must be cleared and what it would take to establish that each has been cleared.  Maybe we'll find a hurdle that absolutely disqualifies the artifact. Maybe not.  If we clear all the hurdles does that make it smoking gun?

We already know that this artifact is more promising than we previously realized. How good is it?  Let's find out.

As tantalizing as it is, 'circumstantial' is weak on this one due to other non-Electra associated airplane stuff found there which implies to me that there was importation of 'junk' by some method among the islanders.  For that reason, for me (since you asked) we have to find a way to tie this part directly to the Electra. 

If this part is a smoking gun, the bullet must lie somewhere among the Electra's repair history (it's almost certainly not a production part UNLESS the oddball intermediate rows (those smaller rivet holes in the middle of the sheet, not at edges) have to do with some added component perhaps).  How the part failed is interesting and perhaps telling to some degree, i.e. consistency with a stranded bird being pounded in surf, etc. but the definitive golden smoking gun is tying it to N16020 via photographic or written repair/inspection record.

Just MHO.  Glad to see the focus on this one and thanks for asking.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 03, 2014, 10:29:08 AM
Rivet pattern match with contemporary photo or engineering documentation.  We already know that it came from a plane, we just need to show where it got its defining characteristics.

Or, find the rest of the plane and see if this piece is missing!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Albert Durrell on February 03, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
Please forgive my complete ignorance on the topic of material, rivets, corrosion, etc.  One way this might be disproved is to find where the artifact would fit on a different model plane.  I have no idea how many different models may have been flown in this part of the world in that timeframe, but could the part be compared to the more usual planes that flew in that area?  Finding an exact match for something other than the Electra would tend to decrease the chance that it came from her plane.  Too many models?  Too big a job?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 11:34:55 AM
Please forgive my complete ignorance on the topic of material, rivets, corrosion, etc.  One way this might be disproved is to find where the artifact would fit on a different model plane.  I have no idea how many different models may have been flown in this part of the world in that timeframe, but could the part be compared to the more usual planes that flew in that area?  Finding an exact match for something other than the Electra would tend to decrease the chance that it came from her plane.  Too many models?  Too big a job?

Complete ignorance is often a benefit.  We've tried and tried and tried to find somewhere on some other airplane that matches this piece.  So far, no luck.

Disqualifying WWII aircraft may be easier than we thought.  Jeff Neville has already said, "For another thing, #3 rivets have long been considered less-than adequate for primary structure and generally are not used in stressed skin situations (this taught me from early days in A&P school, granted some years after Earhart's time - but a long-standing practice)." And yet the Lockheed Model 10, designed in 1934, does indeed use #3 rivets in .032 stressed skins.  The FAA's Aris Scarla has said, "You just don't see smaller than #4 rivets in WWII airplanes." If we can confirm that no American WWII aircraft that served in or transited through the Central Pacific used #3 rivets in .032 stressed skins, then the artifact had to come from an aircraft that pre-dated the abandonment of that practice.  If that is true then it is easy to list the pre-war aircraft that came anywhere near Gardner Island.  Only one of them had #3 rivets in .032 skin and only one of them was lost, damaged, or disappeared.  Bob's your uncle and the gun smokes.

So - how do we confirm when the practice of using #3 rivets in primary structure was abandoned?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 11:40:07 AM
Here's the question:  What evidence would you need to see to convince you that Artifact 2-2-V-1 (pictured below) came from NR16020?

I forgot to post the picture.  Here 'tis.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Albert Durrell on February 03, 2014, 12:59:37 PM
Someone who can speak rivets may want to contact this company:

http://www.nationalrivet.com/about.htm

Their history starts in the 20's and they did a lot of WW2 work.  They may have some relevant information.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 03, 2014, 01:31:42 PM
Someone who can speak rivets may want to contact this company:

http://www.nationalrivet.com/about.htm

Their history starts in the 20's and they did a lot of WW2 work.  They may have some relevant information.

The company is no doubt a good source of history from the specialized supplier's point of view, but the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker).

I am intrigued to learn of the use of #3 rivets in older types more commonly than I had imagined - and that size brazier head rivet was made by the millions for some reason other than to have a few dozen in limited applications per airplane.  The brazier also disappeared for the most part about the time of the war, and universal head (AN470) types showed up.  They also come in 3/32", but as Ric points out, it would be good to pin down the practice of "#4 or larger" and when it began. 

For me it is anecdotal for now - something tattooed on our young heads in A&P school and followed as if catechism by most of us as we went into the world to work.  Few of us had that much contact with pre-war antiques, so I can't claim expertise on something as rare as an L10 Lockheed.  Nor do even museum birds necessarily give us an accurate view - smaller rivets of the past may have been replaced over the decades due to who-knows-what damage, etc.  The drawings would 'know'.

All of this points to Albert's first point to me - can we make a distinction as to what types might be involved so as to consider other sources (and make that a bit more workable by eliminating war machines)?  I trust Mr. Scarla's experience on this - and all the warbirds I am familiar with have a tendency toward 'over-built', i.e. would be surprised to find #3 rivets in primary construction - seriously doubt it exists in the types we'd find lost in that area of the Pacific.  Some research might verify that quickly enough, but for my work I trust this judgment.

So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.  I think that has been done but can't point to the specifics (and admit being pressed for time so as to do myself right now).  Meanwhile we still have a fascinating prospect IMO.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 02:43:16 PM
So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 03, 2014, 04:00:27 PM
So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

I thought so and looked at the old Air Commerce guidance and regs, couldn't find a direct reference.  A look at the more modern AC 65-15A (same as 65-15 in this regard but for large airplanes) gives a formula that makes sense (ref: AC 65-15A Section 5, page 128 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/66ab237baf7184a0862569f1005f7733/$FILE/Chap%205_pg%20127-187.pdf)):

"The size of rivets for any repair can be determined by referring to the rivets used by the manufacturer in the next parallel rivet row inboard on the wing, or forward on the fuselage.  Another method of determining the size of rivets to be used is to multiply the thickness of the skin by three and use the next larger size rivet corresponding to that figure.  For example, if the skin thickness is 0.040 in., multiply 0.040 by 3, which equals 0.120; use the next larger size rivet, 1/8 in. (0.125 in.)."

Of course the manufacturer can design as they will, short of an outright rule about this sort of thing.  I don't think that exists - don't know of it, just 'guidance' - which is binding in the absence of other data, and typically consistent with 'best practices'/what is typically done by designers.  What an airframer typically does is meet the overall static strength, damage tolerance, fatigue and aero-elastic qualities, etc. required for structures by employing details that are not, themselves, always directly governed by hard rule.

By the way, the strength of a 2117T 3/32" rivet in single-shear is about 186 pounds per 'Figure 2' on that page as cited above - probably about the same for the old brazier head style.  Tension failure would occur at about 60% of that value (ductile modus) - or at around 111.6 pounds of tension.  If all those let go at once (excluding the 'keel' row of large fasteners for illustration) you are looking at around 7000 pounds of total force to fail all the 3/32" rivets in unison (does not consider the outer rows / larger rivets); if what we're seeing of that panel is around 275 square inches, that would come to around 25 PSI or so.  If that accounted for the fractures we see (are they all brittle failure, or is there evidence of cyclic fatigue failure, i.e. repetitive bending until failure along one or more edges?) then one should add a value for the tensile strength of the skin, not to mention the addtional and larger fasteners.

I can think of a bunch of experiments to screw around with to get an idea of how this thing failed.  It would be interesting to understand more about the apparent 'explosive' evidence of bulging, etc. but it is hard to imagine how even a raging sea would distort that much metal.  I can readily see the sea 'worrying' the piece off after some initial damage, maybe even fastener-by-fastener, and then failing the remaining edge rivets or fracturing the metal to separation.

Anyway, interesting and there are tons of possiblities.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 03, 2014, 05:47:10 PM
Anyway, interesting and there are tons of possiblities.

Looks like the Japanese got there hands on some ALCLAD also:  http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/mavis.html


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill de Creeft on February 03, 2014, 06:38:34 PM
Ric, Would you remind me of the  location or installation where the repair was done?
It might remind us of the circumstances where and when the repair was done.

I'm thinking if it was at Lae there might be less of a choice for material at hand, and more pressure to 'get a patch on there' and resume the flight...

Even if it was Hawaii...I've seen cases of "lets get this thing going and we'll come up with paperwork later"

(the answer to that is "yeah but the holes drilled in the stringers were pre-existing and the rivets had to fill the holes"...
 No answer to that.)
So we're back to #3 rivets...but the pattern is still open for interpretation.

So on the other existing lockheed wrecks are there just no #3 rivets....or just not in the 'presumed' (dangerous word !?!) position on them ?

I'm of the school that says "yeah, probably from there...soon as we find the airframe we'll prove it; meantime keep looking !!"

Bill
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 07:04:17 PM
Anyway, interesting and there are tons of possiblities.

Looks like the Japanese got there hands on some ALCLAD also:  http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/mavis.html

But the rivet is a dimpled American rivet.  and besides, there were no Japanese aircraft lost anywhere near Gardner island.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 03, 2014, 07:06:05 PM
Ric, Would you remind me of the  location or installation where the repair was done?

The repairs were done at the Lockheed factory in Burbank and inspected and approved by Bureau of Air Commerce inspectors.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 03, 2014, 07:13:48 PM
Ric, Would you remind me of the  location or installation where the repair was done?

At Lockheed in Burbank, California (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/Flak.pdf).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 03, 2014, 09:06:50 PM
Ric sez "...We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure. "

Maybe I missed something, but why should we think it's part of the "primary structure"?  The thin aluminum, use of small rivets, and lack of cross bracing would seem to me to indicate that it was not structural, but rather a simple skin covering a non-structural area, like the lavatory window proposal, or maybe a temporary field repair of some other aircraft using what was at hand.

Title: e: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 03, 2014, 09:33:13 PM
Jeff Neville,
Re your post of 2/3/2104 @ 5:00 PM

When I've drilled out say a 1/8 inch rivet from an existing structure I am directed to re drill the empty hole with a somewhat larger drill i.e. drill out w/#40 drill and redrill w/#42 and then put in an "oversized" 1/8 rivet.

Has this practice changed over the years?

Would this account for the differance in a #3 rivet nominal dia. and the hole size in 2-2-V-1 of 5/32in.?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: e: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 03, 2014, 11:27:56 PM
I am trying to get my arms around the "AD" stencil markings and the tall/thin font and short/fat font.

These photos show examples of "ALCLAD" markings used in WWII planes.  In both cases, both a larger "fat" & "broad" font ALCLAD stencil mark and a smaller "tall" & "thin" font ALCLAD stencil mark appear on the same sheet of aluminum.
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/mavis.html
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/c-47/43-16261/index.html

In these two photos (one can download a very large 8,000 pixel version), the "tall" & "thin" font appears, although several significant areas of aluminum skin seem to have no stencil markings like the stencil markings either weren't applied consistently or rubbed off.  Some of the floor skin in one picture seems to have a black stencil, but maybe that aluminum is not ALCLAD. 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B17F_-_Woman_workers_at_the_Douglas_Aircraft_Company_plant,_Long_Beach,_Calif.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Production_of_B-24_bombers_and_C-87_transports.jpg

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill de Creeft on February 03, 2014, 11:57:57 PM
Beautiful !!

Thank you guys, and my regrets for dragging you down a well trod path !

You are right...what will it take to make the ID of the object more certain, and can it even still exist? (above water, that is !!)
Back to sleeping in front of the fireplace...

Bill
Title: Re: e: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 04, 2014, 06:32:09 AM
Jeff Neville,
Re your post of 2/3/2104 @ 5:00 PM

When I've drilled out say a 1/8 inch rivet from an existing structure I am directed to re drill the empty hole with a somewhat larger drill i.e. drill out w/#40 drill and redrill w/#42 and then put in an "oversized" 1/8 rivet.

Has this practice changed over the years?

The practice I've always known and followed was to use care in drilling only deeply enough to 'pop' the head of the rivet off, then 'punch' the shank and remaining tail ('buck' tail) out of the hole, leaving hopefully a nearly pristine hole at its original size. 

This works well much of the time when the mechanic is experienced and the original hole is good.  I've probably drilled a million heads off without touching the base metal - drill down through the 'dimple' nice and straight (you learn to compensate for bit drift quickly and keep it centered when drilling lots of these), then 'pop' the head off with a flick of the bit at the end by 'leaning' the drill slightly; if you drill true, this works like clock work.  Then come behind with an awl and hammer and rap the tails (shank and tail) out of the hole with a sharp blow (not like driving a spike - just a light but sharp rap). 

That said, sheetmetal, like the world, isn't perfect - so frequently one cannot readily punch the shank out and must drill part way - or sometimes all the way, through the sheets to remove it.  That happens typically where the original hole was somewhat large and irregular to start with.  When that happens, one often is stuck going to the 'next size' - which in the case of the 3/32" rivet ("#3") would mean a 1/8" rivet ("#4"), not two sizes up (5/32" or "#5").  Driven rivets are nice in that they can cover a multitude of mild sins in terms of slightly egged and tapered holes - but that should not be over-done or you lose strength.  A perfect hole is desired, of course and it is better to 'true' the hole next size up.

Quote
Would this account for the differance in a #3 rivet nominal dia. and the hole size in 2-2-V-1 of 5/32in.?

Ted Campbell

I would expect a 5/32" rivet to be a typical replacement for a #4.  To see an entire row of #5 rivets suggests they are original - not surprising to see where a keel beam or stringer is concerned, but I don't know the L10 structure that intimately.  At the very least I would have thought of the keel-skin rivets being at least 1/8" (#4), not #3 - but what do I know about what Lockheed was doing in 1937 without drawings in-hand.  I would have thought it more likely to find original #5 rivets there, actually - which would be consistent with the guidance I quoted up-string here (and linked to AC 65-15).

The rivets I can see on the sides of the bird in lots of photographs (some very clear) appear to my mechanic's eye to be typically #4 by and large, with some larger #5's in areas of concentrated stress, e.g. heavy stringers, gusseted bulkhead intersections, etc.  That is more typical.  That the belly would have smaller rivets is odd to me because it is an area that is in tension for not only flight, but ground ops - that belly keel absorbs a fair bit of tension (with the skins) as fuselage bending moments occur during taxi, loading, etc.  Meaning only that I'm surprised that the belly would have smaller rivets - but again, what do I know about Lockheed's practices of the day, and I'm going by my eyeball estimate of what I see in the photos and am not laying hands on to see up close.

In any case, this artifact is all the more peculiar to me in that it has these light rivet holes - but if that is what Lockheed did on the original structure, then no surprise I guess.  I wish we had the drawings of that area.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 04, 2014, 06:41:53 AM
What if any was the non-aviation usage of Alclad at the time?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 04, 2014, 07:10:16 AM
What if any was the non-aviation usage of Alclad at the time?

It could have been used anywhere but Alclad was developed for aviation applications, and that we have a surviving AD rivet (aviation type) in this panel underscores that it was not likely adapted elsewhere in this instance.  Everything I can see about this panel says "aviation" - the metal type, configuration and fasteners that were used.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 04, 2014, 08:45:02 AM
This is the belly of c/n 1052 in the subject area.  As far as we know this is original construction.  I believe these are all #3 rivets but I can verify that when I'm at there New England Air Museum on February 16. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 04, 2014, 10:03:15 AM
This is the belly of c/n 1052 in the subject area.  As far as we know this is original construction.  I believe these are all #3 rivets but I can verify that when I'm at there New England Air Museum on February 16.

Bingo - that picture is worth a thousand trips to the museum -

I just scaled this photo to real size (based on the stations distance for reference) and unless the light is really wreaking havoc I get an actual rivet-head size of about .18" (diameter across the head) - which corresponds to a normal head diameter of approximately twice that of the shank, so it corresponds to the expected .093 size of a 3/32" (#3) rivet. 

Whatever you see when you get there will be great to know, but I'm now 99% certain we are seeing stock #3 rivets in the belly of an L10 Electra.  I would have bet against it but this is clear evidence - too small to be 1/8" (#4) braziers by my actual scale measurement.  I'd sure love to be there and see that bird with you for a first-hand look.

My thought is that it is quite possible that this scrap of aluminum could be the rag-tag end of repairs done to the Lockheed at Burbank (conjecture: can envision trying to finish up last of details to get bird off saw horses, no jig available) - perhaps a quick, light-guage covering over a bent / scratched parent element (skin) that was left in place - it happens in 'real world'.  Why?  When you are compromised (no jigs / fixtures, just saw horses) you remove as little as possible - if the damage is superficial you might leave in-place, then reinforce; lighter-guage skin applied just adds 'insurance' and covers the 'ugly' - and is easier to contour in. 

I admit this is conjecture - but this is a very compelling artifact in my mind.  Such a repair also might have been done at some point on the trip later, but probably not likely since we don't know of that.  Dings happen, and if obvious, a decision might have been made to apply a temporary scab over a creased or scraped skin until more could be done later.  There are all kinds of reasons this piece fits this sort of repair on an L10 or other make and model; what is extremely compelling to me however is how closely it matches a known section of damaged skin on Earhart's Electra, and the relative scarcity of such host / donor aircraft in that part of the world so far as we have been able to determine.  Now I am at ease with the #3 rivets, which have been a put-off to me for some time as to what this might have been.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dave McDaniel on February 04, 2014, 10:08:16 AM
It's to bad that DNA testing couldn't be used to match the artifact to the person that wrote up the work performed or the AI that signed off on the repair. That would definitely put it in the "smoking gun" or even in the "any idiot artifact" category! Yeah I know, "get back to us when you have something productive to add":)

LTM,
Dave
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 04, 2014, 12:53:36 PM
Ric,
Take a piece of Mylar with you and map the under body skin, bring the Mylar home and see what you get if you lay the sheet over 2-2-V-1.  Stretch it to fit over the bulge on 2-2-V-1.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Randy Conrad on February 04, 2014, 04:51:58 PM
Ric...Several days ago Richie made the comment on this artifact in regards to indoor and outdoor temperature of the plane. Having said that...I was wondering with you and others expertise...what would happen in this scenario...Amelia and Fred land the plane. Sits there on the reef for several days in excruciating heat...Interior heats up over 100 degrees while the skin of the plane is unbearable to touch....Within days or hours the plane gets washed out over the edge of the reef...Someone made a comment about the rivets being popped out by pressure as the plane descended into the atolls of the reef. My question is...with intense interior and exterior heat of the plane...What would happen to the insides of the plane when it fills up with cold sea water at those kind of temperatures of the plane? Do the rivets get blown off by the popping of the metal or do they just sit there? I would buy the scenario of rivets rusting off, but at the same time you would see rust or some form of corrosion developing on these rivet holes. Let me know what you guys think...thanks!!!!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 05, 2014, 06:56:28 AM
This is the belly of c/n 1052 in the subject area.  As far as we know this is original construction.  I believe these are all #3 rivets but I can verify that when I'm at there New England Air Museum on February 16.

To elaborate a bit more - those do appear to be #3 rivets by physical comparison to a similar rivet and a bit of research into brazier head rivets.

Just did a visual comparison of the rivets in the picture Ric posted but had to use modern AN 470 'universal head' rivets that I had in-hand, my working assumption being that the head diameters were similar.  In fact the pictured rivets do more closely match the #3 universal head size, not #4 (meaning they are apparently 3/32" rivets as believed. 

Not quite comfortable with my memory on how the 470 compares to the 455 brazier, I checked on line.  Per one spec at  "Jay-Cee Sales & Rivet, Inc." (http://www.rivetsinstock.com/rivets/solid-aluminum-rivets.html), the common AN 455 brazier head rivet of old had a slightly larger diameter head for the same size rivet than does the universal ("mushroom" per Jay-Cee: a standard brazier head diameter = shank diameter x2.5. 

There is also a modified brazier with a significantly smaller head relative to shank size, and it is possible that we're seeing #4 'modified brazier' rivets with the smaller head size.  If we could see the buck tail more would be evident about shank diameter - a #4 has a noticeably larger tail than does a #3 rivet.

I don't doubt these being #3 rivets, I think it is only an outside chance that we're seeing modified (small head) #4 braziers, but short of having Lockheed's drawings and to be thorough it would be good to get a shot of the tails if at all possible to be sure.  Of course they are now buried under the floor in the museum bird, but perhaps they have some shots taken during restoration?

Here's another page of useful information on rivet types  (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=brazier+head+aviation+rivets&qpvt=brazier+head+aviation+rivets&FORM=IGRE#a) - move mouse over the tables and click so they will open.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 05, 2014, 07:42:55 AM
I don't doubt these being #3 rivets, I think it is only an outside chance that we're seeing modified (small head) #4 braziers, but short of having Lockheed's drawings and to be thorough it would be good to get a shot of the tails if at all possible to be sure.  Of course they are now buried under the floor in the museum bird, but perhaps they have some shots taken during restoration?

You want buck tails?  Here's yer buck tails (complete with scale).

We took lots of photos of the interior while the plane was under restoration before they re-installed the floor.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 05, 2014, 07:50:20 AM
Hi All

I found the following a good read

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch04.pdf

Thanks
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 05, 2014, 10:06:24 AM
I don't doubt these being #3 rivets, I think it is only an outside chance that we're seeing modified (small head) #4 braziers, but short of having Lockheed's drawings and to be thorough it would be good to get a shot of the tails if at all possible to be sure.  Of course they are now buried under the floor in the museum bird, but perhaps they have some shots taken during restoration?

You want buck tails?  Here's yer buck tails (complete with scale).

We took lots of photos of the interior while the plane was under restoration before they re-installed the floor.

Sorry I asked... ;)

Outstanding.  Those are barely more than 1 diameter across - if no. 4 size they'd be under-shot; the consistent well-bucked appearance suggests 'factory original' and the diameter is consistent with no. 3 rivets.  I believe we definitely have original no. 3 rivets in the belly stress skins of the L10 as a firm baseline. 

Don't see that very often - so far as I know it's unique and not what you'd find on DC-3, etc.  Strong pointer toward L10 mother ship IMO.

Thanks Ric.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 06, 2014, 12:42:30 PM
I'll even elaborate -

This piece is now so distinctive to me as likely having come out of the repaired Electra I am personally convinced that Earhart's bird 'was there'.

I also realize how controversial that thought is to many (to say the least) - and that many rational questions attach to it -

- Can it be from another source?  Could be but no other rational donor makes sense for that part of the world - the vintage, character of rivet spacing, type, etc. all fit the vintage and model and all that I know about typical / rapid 'sawhorse' repair efforts such as NR16020 underwent after the Luke Field accident too well;
- Even if it is from her bird, couldn't it have been imported somehow?  Yes - but that raises the quesiton "from where?"  Had that been the way it was, why didn't we know of that discovery?  Despite exhaustive efforts by many researchers and writers, no credible report of the Electra's remains (or other supportive material) have ever turned up elsewhere.
- Couldn't it be from another L10?  Yes - there were some around Lae and New Zealand / down under doing work - I believe there is some history that supports that.  But that is not anywhere near Niku, and the islanders and coasties who inhabited Gardner / Niku weren't connected to those locations.
- Couldn't it be from another type?  Has to be one subject to receiving pre-WWII repair materials, must have some similar fastener sizing and stiffener spacing to L10 and must have been present-enough to Niku to have become a donor - a narrow list of which I know of no other potential members for.
- Doesn't the piece differ slightly in some regards - and even noticeably as to placement of one 'stiffener' (line of rivets)?  Yes - but a repair such as done on Earhart's airplane creates a crap-shoot to some degree; in a perfect world time is taken to replace all damaged members and carefully realign all structures that were bent / misaligned in a crash - but in a hastily done 'sawhorse' repair (return to fixture not possible and the scheme was executed in about a week) removals tend to be minimized and 'sister members' are frequently simply applied over existing damage, picking up as many original holes as possible, and sometimes adding another member, such as a stiffener.  Any of that can easily account for what we see.
- But we don't have a clear picture of what is described - how do we know this to be true?  We don't and it cannot be sworn as absolute - but the overwhelming circumstances of context among other finds and everything this artifact has to say speaks volumes to the practiced eye: there are only very limited ways that such a unique piece of this particular set of signatures could come to rest at Niku.

Other's MMV, I realize and respect, but in my view TIGHAR has done a terrific job in going on gut-theory at first, then going to Niku and finding such as this and other complementary artifiacts.  Pick another island, any island - go there and see if such a picture emerges from the random stuff there - I have severe doubts that it will happen.  As I think back over the 'stuff' found it is truly amazing that a period-correct Talon zipper pull, matching jack-knife remains, plexiglass of telling thickness and contour and this particular rich piece of history (2-2-V-2) have turned-up on the same island (among other things).  That someone like Tom King can view it all and realize a plausible pattern humbles me and rings true as to 'likelihoods' now to me, not just 'possibles'. 

What of navigation?  What about the size of the ocean (Pacific) - isn't it more likely she never made land?  Not expert, but I've developed my own pet thoughts on that and even attached a different outcome by averages, realizing that 'finding one's self at Niku' can be regarded as problematic.  But I have to admit it is also not beyond the pale to have arrived at Niku for reasons we will never know for certain.  We do know of a comment about 'on THE line' - and where that line passes near - and I can't dismiss that one for one thing.  One thing is for certain: land plane pilots and seasoned navigators don't give up easily on finding land - true then as it is now, and whatever Earhart and Noonan were, they were not without ability and brains.  Yes, I have a bit of confidence in the human spirit that way, even in flawed characters.

What of post-loss radio traffic supposedly Earhart but highly questionable?  I don't know if Betty or others heard Earhart or not - doesn't matter so much to me, other evidence is overwhelming now in my view.  If others place more credence there (not saying I don't believe in it, just not necessary to me), bully - if not, consider the other things.  If you disagree entirely, bully for you - keep searching or don't, it's up to the individual of course.

What of fuel?  I think it was dicey - maybe closer than we think as I'm not fully confident that Earhart would have managed the fuel as closely as should have (speculation, of course - just a confidence factor to me).

All cinched-up by a piece of sheetmetal not unlike many I've tossed on the scrap pile - except for its truly unique character in more ways than I can enumerate here: it reads like an aviation maintenance history / Lockheed 10 repair volume to me now - the character of it is telling, but the clear 'vintage' trumps the table in my view now.

Is this a slam-dunk to end all speculation and doubt?  Hardly - but those who would say 'this could be anything' need to pay more attention - they're missing or simply refusing to see a lot of crucial detail.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 06, 2014, 01:35:28 PM
Here's a question that has been raised by a non-aviation person:

We know we have B-24 parts on the island which we presume were brought there from Canton Island (200 miles away) where there was a B-24 crash during WWII.  How do we know 2-2-V-1 is primary structure?  Why couldn't it be from some non-load bearing interior structure (in a  B-24 perhaps)?

I know how i would answer that but I'm curious to know what you would say.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 06, 2014, 02:13:15 PM
Here's a question that has been raised by a non-aviation person:

We know we have B-24 parts on the island which we presume were brought there from Canton Island (200 miles away) where there was a B-24 crash during WWII.  How do we know 2-2-V-1 is primary structure?  Why couldn't it be from some non-load bearing interior structure (in a  B-24 perhaps)?

I know how i would answer that but I'm curious to know what you would say.

For one thing the B-24 has been looked at to some degree for a match, but I can't say exhaustively.  It would be good for someone to thoroughly look - but:

The B-24 entered service in 1940.  By the time a war-time production B-24 found its way to the area I have severe doubts that it would be an example carrying pre-war aluminum stock as we see in this artifact, or that it would have carried a repair with #3 brazier rivets.  Possible?  yes, likely?  No - this item is clearly 'repair related' - hand work is evident; the military establishment of the time that such a bomber would have been in service would not likely have been supplied with old stores of pre-war aluminum and fasteners that were becoming out-dated by then.

It would also be interesting to find similar structure in the more heavily-built bomber.  Although notably lighter in construction than the B-17, it is still a very substantial heavy bomber.  But if the questioner can point to a place in the B-24 that might be a 'donor', this is partly what I had suggested: if there's a better explanation I'm all ears.  But the odds of such material turning up on a 1940+ model airplane seem miniscule to me.  Does it stack-up as likely as this item fitting a known area of the Electra reasonably well, especially given damage and rapid repairs as we know happened?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 06, 2014, 02:28:43 PM
For one thing the B-24 has been looked at to some degree for a match, but I can't say exhaustively.  It would be good for someone to thoroughly look - but:

I've looked at two B-24s trying to find a candidate area - the B-24D Strawberry Bitch at the Air Force Museum (they even let me use a scaffold to check the top of the fuselage and wing) and the airworthy B-24J operated by the Collings Foundation.  In fact, I showed the artifact to one of the people who maintain the aircraft and asked him if there is anywhere on the airplane that looks like that.  He said no.

The B-24 entered service in 1940.  By the time a war-time production B-24 found its way to the area I have severe doubts that it would be an example carrying pre-war aluminum stock as we see in this artifact, or that it would have carried a repair with #3 brazier rivets.  Possible?  yes, likely?  No - this item is clearly 'repair related' - hand work is evident; the military establishment of the time that such a bomber would have been in service would not likely have been supplied with old stores of pre-war aluminum and fasteners that were becoming out-dated by then.

So you disqualify it based on materials -and i agree.  The question was whether it could be from some internal non-load bearing component.  To me the thickness of the skin (too heavy for interior use) and the implication of closely-spaced stringers tightly stitched (one inch pitch) screams external load-bearing structure on a smallish (cabin-class twin) aircraft.



It would also be interesting to find similar structure in the more heavily-built bomber.  Although notably lighter in construction than the B-17, it is still a very substantial heavy bomber.  But if the questioner can point to a place in the B-24 that might be a 'donor', this is partly what I had suggested: if there's a better explanation I'm all ears.  But the odds of such material turning up on a 1940+ model airplane seem miniscule to me.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 06, 2014, 06:53:48 PM
Could be but no other rational donor makes sense for that part of the world - the vintage, character of rivet spacing, type, etc. all fit the vintage and model and all that I know about typical / rapid 'sawhorse' repair efforts such as NR16020 underwent after the Luke Field accident

Jeff, With all due respect, I don't agree with the thought that the post luke field repairs were done in a subpar manner. The following statements by Earhart and others lead me to this conclusion, as well as photos of the electra being rebuilt. As regards the artifact, I don't think it was a panel installed over a somewhat damaged panel , as indicated there are pry marks on the stringer side of the 2-2-V-1 panel.


The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored. There is no short cut to full usefulness in either case if perfect healing is desired. In addition to "healing," a strengthening of certain members to withstand the excessive strain to which overloading subjects them as in order for my Electra. This meant some actual redesigning, another process which could not be hurried. As to the precious engines, they were already in the Pacific Airmotive shops at Burbank being thoroughly checked. After the plane and engines were together, some time would have to be allowed for testing.
 
"Those who had an opportunity to observe miss Earhart at Miami I final preparations for her round-the-world flight could to help being impressed by the calm and unhurried manner in which he made sure that everything about her hip was as ready as expert technicians could make it before she would consider starting the trip. There was no hurrying or harassing of mechanic to finish their wok o that she might take off at a given time, no slightest indication of impatience when a difficult job took longer to finish than might have been expected. "it was interesting to watch the effect of such an attitude on the Pan American Airways mechanics and others who were assigned to give Miss Earhart whatever assistance they could. Being men and being engaged in a highly essential phase of the serious business of air transportation, they all naturally had preconceived notions about a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight - not very favorable notions, either. it was, undoubtedly, something of a shock to discover that the 'gal' with whom they had to deal not only was an exceptionally pleasant and reasonable human being who 'knew her stuff,' but that she knew exactly what she wanted done, and had sense enough to let them alone while they did it. There was an almost audible clatter of chips falling off skeptical masculine shoulders.

Lockheed personal X-Raying the Electra

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1170&bih=551&tbm=isch&tbnid=H011jJDYhdh-wM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2Famelias_pictures_page_2.htm&docid=6dzCOO7V-P88zM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2FAMELIA%252520EARHART%2FAMELIA-ELECTRA10E1937I.jpg&w=490&h=350&ei=DDv0UpnOJaiiyAGy3oC4DA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1328&page=5&start=56&ndsp=18&ved=0CJ8CEK0DMEE
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 06, 2014, 07:42:22 PM
As regards the artifact, I don't think it was a panel installed over a somewhat damaged panel , as indicated there are pry marks on the stringer side of the 2-2-V-1 panel.

That's not the Hyothesis.

The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored.
 

If you're going to refute the analysis you're going to have to address the physical facts of the artifact.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 07, 2014, 12:50:04 AM
The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored.
 
Though I would like to take credit for this quote, I can not do that ....It is believed to be a quote from Earhart, taken from the Oceania log. It is my view that by said statement Earhart put much faith and confidence in her Plane's rescuers, ( Lockheed) .....If this artifact proves to be from the Electra, it may be that her hopes were misplaced. Consider the installment ....labeling stamp alclad was on exterior of sheet/ at least one rivet not bucked correctly/...and if the alignment of the rivets is proven to have not been caused from deformation, then one can include that flaw as well. Again , photos of work quality and statements of expected work performance by Earhart , ..and with lockheed's reputation on the line as well , it is my belief that this was no Moe's Aeroplane Repair Service procedure.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 07, 2014, 08:44:34 AM
Consider the installment ....labeling stamp alclad was on exterior of sheet/

..which was consistent with standard Lockheed practice.  The attached photo shows an Electra being built with the labeling on the exterior side of the sheet.  Other manufacturers such as Boeing and Douglas seem to have put the label-side on the interior.  It may be that the presence of the labeling on the exterior side of the artifact is another indication that it came to Nikumaroro via Burbank.

at least one rivet not bucked correctly/...and if the alignment of the rivets is proven to have not been caused from deformation, then one can include that flaw as well.

The repairs were rushed.  There's no doubt about that.  On May 10, Putnam told Col. Johnson at the Department of Commerce that repairs had been completed (see attached letter).  Stretching the truth was a Putnam specialty. Four days later, on May 14, the Bureau of Air Commerce inspector in Los Angeles told his boss in Washington that repairs and inspection of the Electra would take another 10 days.  Somehow they got the job finished in half that time and the repairs were signed off on May 19.  That's a rush job. I've read anecdotal accounts ( I forget where) of how during these last days of repair AE was constantly in the shop and the front office at Burbank pestering workers and senior management to hurry up and finish the job.

Again , photos of work quality and statements of expected work performance by Earhart , ..and with lockheed's reputation on the line as well , it is my belief that this was no Moe's Aeroplane Repair Service procedure.

And no one is suggesting it was.  The work, rushed as it was, passed Bureau of Air Commerce inspection.

If you have an alternative explanation for the origin of the artifact let us hear it.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 07, 2014, 09:04:44 AM
  (from this Pacific Wrecks site (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/kiribati_canton.html)):
(quote)...Thomas F. Equels adds:
"While working for Contractor H&N on Canton Island in 1971, we saw the hull of the troop ship and nearby on the beach was the fuselage of a PBY with a radial engine close by." (end quote)
Might this be the source of the Canton engine?
As I recall, Ric or others have looked pretty closely at PBY's for a potential source of 2-2-V-1.  What other pre-war aircraft might be sources consistent with the "Alclad" lettering and #3 Brazier-head rivets?  Japanese?  British?  Both countries operated flying boats in the Pacific in the 1930's.  It's an obvious question that skeptics are sure to raise.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 07, 2014, 10:34:59 AM
Could be but no other rational donor makes sense for that part of the world - the vintage, character of rivet spacing, type, etc. all fit the vintage and model and all that I know about typical / rapid 'sawhorse' repair efforts such as NR16020 underwent after the Luke Field accident

Jeff, With all due respect, I don't agree with the thought that the post luke field repairs were done in a subpar manner. The following statements by Earhart and others lead me to this conclusion, as well as photos of the electra being rebuilt. As regards the artifact, I don't think it was a panel installed over a somewhat damaged panel , as indicated there are pry marks on the stringer side of the 2-2-V-1 panel.


The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored. There is no short cut to full usefulness in either case if perfect healing is desired. In addition to "healing," a strengthening of certain members to withstand the excessive strain to which overloading subjects them as in order for my Electra. This meant some actual redesigning, another process which could not be hurried. As to the precious engines, they were already in the Pacific Airmotive shops at Burbank being thoroughly checked. After the plane and engines were together, some time would have to be allowed for testing.
 
"Those who had an opportunity to observe miss Earhart at Miami I final preparations for her round-the-world flight could to help being impressed by the calm and unhurried manner in which he made sure that everything about her hip was as ready as expert technicians could make it before she would consider starting the trip. There was no hurrying or harassing of mechanic to finish their wok o that she might take off at a given time, no slightest indication of impatience when a difficult job took longer to finish than might have been expected. "it was interesting to watch the effect of such an attitude on the Pan American Airways mechanics and others who were assigned to give Miss Earhart whatever assistance they could. Being men and being engaged in a highly essential phase of the serious business of air transportation, they all naturally had preconceived notions about a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight - not very favorable notions, either. it was, undoubtedly, something of a shock to discover that the 'gal' with whom they had to deal not only was an exceptionally pleasant and reasonable human being who 'knew her stuff,' but that she knew exactly what she wanted done, and had sense enough to let them alone while they did it. There was an almost audible clatter of chips falling off skeptical masculine shoulders.

Lockheed personal X-Raying the Electra

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1170&bih=551&tbm=isch&tbnid=H011jJDYhdh-wM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2Famelias_pictures_page_2.htm&docid=6dzCOO7V-P88zM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deejay51.com%2FAMELIA%252520EARHART%2FAMELIA-ELECTRA10E1937I.jpg&w=490&h=350&ei=DDv0UpnOJaiiyAGy3oC4DA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1328&page=5&start=56&ndsp=18&ved=0CJ8CEK0DMEE

I didn't mean to imply 'subpar', Jerry, just 'hurried' once the ball started rolling; it is a real-world outcome in my experience.  I saw 'scab patch' as a possibility, not a necessary point: we don't know exactly what configuration Earhart's airplane had in that area and the skin may perfectly match a modified situation.

What we see may have been a perfectly lovely repair, prior to its destruction at some point later - with at least one exception of at least one rivet that we know that was under-driven (if I recall correctly the remaining rivet was such).  Perhaps that is why that one survived - was extracted without too much effort.

Lots of things are possible, and I appreciate the information you have provided.  Question is, what is there that materially offsets what we've been able to observe in this part?  There just aren't that many easy alternates - the markers on this item are too distinct IMO, but it would be interesting if someone found some.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 07, 2014, 01:31:45 PM
I stand corrected as per the panel installation procedure per Lockheed , regarding which side the alclad stamping was on after attachment ....I made several references before as to what I thought was a backwards installation , however my thought was never corrected.
Jeff, I would have to say it was your terminology that set me off in defense of Lockheed , in my neck of the woods, ...the term sawhorse , is akin to backyard ( mechanic).
As regards the artifact and it's hypothesis, ....the phrase.... tested by fire comes to mind,... I and many have questions that help provide the fire to give it that test.
That said , in regard to the artifact sustaining the noted damage during it's detachment, how is it determined to be from said detachment , instead of it's repurposed use?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 07, 2014, 02:13:40 PM

Jeff, I would have to say it was your terminology that set me off in defense of Lockheed , in my neck of the woods, ...the term sawhorse , is akin to backyard ( mechanic).

I think Jeff meant sawhorse as in - sawhorse.  The aircraft was literally repaired on sawhorses.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 07, 2014, 03:23:30 PM
What an odd picture ?

The man and woman sitting staring at camera under were Tighar think the artifact is from ?

Do we know who the lady is ?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 07, 2014, 03:27:13 PM
The man and woman sitting staring at camera under were Tighar think the artifact is from ?

No. The location is much further aft.

Do we know who the lady is ?

That's no lady.  That's Amelia Earhart.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 07, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
Sorry should have been more specific

My bad

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 07, 2014, 11:40:22 PM
Is anything more known about the PV-1 that crashed on Canton Island.
http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

In this type of accident, would the PV-1 have been repaired on Canton Island and flown out, or written off?


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Chris Johnson on February 08, 2014, 02:27:47 AM
What about post war planes prior to the end of the settlement from Canton?

Is there evidence of scrap being imported to the island for use in the settlement (I'm thinking WW2 aluminium from the Pacific theatre)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill Mangus on February 08, 2014, 07:16:38 AM
Believe AE is standing at the nose of the aircraft.

Could the man and woman(?) under the fuselage be FN and his wife?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 08, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
Is there a reasonable limit to the distance over which a piece of aluminum might be imported to Gardner/Niku Island?  Canton Island has already been suggested, but what about more distant places?  There were a lot of documented wrecks all over the Pacific, but obviously not all were within "reasonable" distance from Gardner to consider for importation.
I can think of 3 different importation scenarios - 1) Gardner Islanders visiting family on other islands or mainland and bringing pieces back home, 2) Supply ships or other visitors bringing a variety of stuff for sale or trade, and 3) Military personnel bringing stuff that gets left with the islanders, either as gifts or abandoned in place.
(There's a 4th scenario - aircraft pieces arrived on the island by air, in the form of a complete flying aircraft, while the island was unpopulated before the war.)  Each of these scenarios might imply a different importation radius. Military personnel for one example might bring spare parts from the US (or Britain, Australia, or even Japan, if any of them visited the island before, during or after the war).  The USCG Loran station on Gardner was resupplied occasionally by aircraft, which might have been repaired on-site for example, leaving the left over scraps. The type of material and rivets would (presumably) be unique to US military aircraft and easily distinguished from 2-2-V-1, wouldn't it?
What is known about islanders likely family visits?  Emily Sikuli was living in Fiji when TIGHAR interviewed her, and went to school in Tarawa, but never returned to Gardner.  What route did she take to get to Tarawa and Fiji, and were those trade routes that might have also been a way for metal scrap to find its way back to Gardner?
Would US, British or Japanese pre-war flying boats have used similar metal/rivets?  They were operating in the South- and Western-Pacific as early as 1935 or 36.  Many of them got shot up early in the war, especially in Australia, and might have been salvaged.  Is Australia too far away to consider as a source?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 08, 2014, 10:03:07 AM
Is there a reasonable limit to the distance over which a piece of aluminum might be imported to Gardner/Niku Island?  Canton Island has already been suggested, but what about more distant places?  There were a lot of documented wrecks all over the Pacific, but obviously not all were within "reasonable" distance from Gardner to consider for importation.
I can think of 3 different importation scenarios - 1) Gardner Islanders visiting family on other islands or mainland and bringing pieces back home, 2) Supply ships or other visitors bringing a variety of stuff for sale or trade, and 3) Military personnel bringing stuff that gets left with the islanders, either as gifts or abandoned in place.
(There's a 4th scenario - aircraft pieces arrived on the island by air, in the form of a complete flying aircraft, while the island was unpopulated before the war.)  Each of these scenarios might imply a different importation radius. Military personnel for one example might bring spare parts from the US (or Britain, Australia, or even Japan, if any of them visited the island before, during or after the war).  The USCG Loran station on Gardner was resupplied occasionally by aircraft, which might have been repaired on-site for example, leaving the left over scraps. The type of material and rivets would (presumably) be unique to US military aircraft and easily distinguished from 2-2-V-1, wouldn't it?
What is known about islanders likely family visits?  Emily Sikuli was living in Fiji when TIGHAR interviewed her, and went to school in Tarawa, but never returned to Gardner.  What route did she take to get to Tarawa and Fiji, and were those trade routes that might have also been a way for metal scrap to find its way back to Gardner?
Would US, British or Japanese pre-war flying boats have used similar metal/rivets?  They were operating in the South- and Western-Pacific as early as 1935 or 36.  Many of them got shot up early in the war, especially in Australia, and might have been salvaged.  Is Australia too far away to consider as a source?

By what I understand of the material involved in 2-2-V-1 (vintage - distinctly pre-WWII metal as-marked and by presence of brazier rivet) this part did not come from just any airplane, but something of the L10's time and make-up - and something distinctly of American technology.  That limits likely sources to domestic 'other than' war types reliably well, IMO.  Yes, there were 'other types' operating where you note - New Zealand, Australia, New Ginea, etc. - all a long way from Niku. 

So what are odds of scrap as we see making its way from such places to Gardner / Niku?  Did islanders who turned up there have relatives in places where those operations were going on, and did they have access to airfield (or crash) sites where scrap could be harvested?  If they did, did they come and go in such manner so as to obtain odds and ends to take back for trade and to work into useful things?  Seems far-fetched to me as I undersand the people who inhabited Niku: they weren't exactly highly-mobile enough to reach such places or their circumstances wouldn't have put them on Niku.

Did someone export such stuff in hopes of promoting trade?  Somehow the notion of westerners thinking to do that - glean odds and ends out of junkpiles to stow away for eventual trade doesn't seem likely ("oh what a nice torn piece of dural - think what a nice comb some islander could make for that if I take it there in hopes of gaining favor...").

We can't know for sure, of course - but this stuff looks like it was opportunistically gotten from the field - off of damanged goods.  Why the diversity, of which some obviously came from a non-L10 type (like the PBY bookcase)?  Not easy to answer - stuff other than 2-2-V-1 generally doesn't appear to have come from Niku because we don't know of any potential donor craft that would have borne that stuff by definition.  The island was visited prior to and during WWII by some known types, with no accidents known: Colorado's biplanes - no landing; a Walrus overflight - British, different construction, no accident; seaplane visits to Loran station - no accidents known.  No real opportunity to glean such stuff from those birds.

We know there were military losses on other islands in the area - DC-3, PBY, etc. - all potential donors for some things we see, but not good sources for what we observe in 2-2-V-1 (vintage of metal and fastener don't add up to those types).  So back to 'did someone obtain this off of a civilian pre-WWII type elsewhere - south to west Pacific - and import'?  Can someone show me why it is believeable that islanders had that kind of reach for such stuff?  We're talking 2000 miles distant, and then either access to a crash or an airfield scrap bin - fairly narrow case at the end of a long journey.

I submit that this stuff was of more local and easily-opportunistic origin - that the military-like stuff could easily have come from neighboring islands, wherever there was a crash that produced donated stuff.  So where, nearby then, was the pre-WWII lightly-built ('cabin class twin' is a good description) that bore external pre-war metal stampings on alclad that was fastened with light no. 3 brazier rivets?  If a donor for that was found on another island, wouldn't we likely know of it, like we do the DC-3 and PBY, etc.?  I submit 'probably so' - but we don't.

So where was the donor?  We have anecdotal accounts of a wreck at Niku - not anything firm but a potential source; more than that, we have a distinct piece of aviation repair history that by markings and a remaining fastener speaks volumes as to the presence of 'something very much like a Lockheed L10' having been about.  We're back to a very narrow, pointed case IMO - not too many donor craft in the area, and where is the mostly likely spot for an L10 to have passed with far too little notice, as other history and circumstances suggest?

I'm not sure the public, or even many aviation specialists for that matter, really appreciate how unique 2-2-V-1 is as to how the stars cross on its markings and fasteners, right down to a grip length indicated on the surviving brazier rivet that it was tacked onto .060" of underlying structure, consistent with what we see in the museum shots of the L10 belly.  We have a very unique piece of aviation metal on our hands - found on Niku, and with no really good explanation for it finding its way there short of having flown in on an intact ship that never left that way.  Further, the way it broke away - whether in one explosive action or by being 'worried' at by the sea and finished by man's hand, etc. we do see evidence of it suffering fatiguing trauma that is consistent with mother nature's hand in the surf: something fretted with this metal over time before it got to where it is, and it was not lacking in some violence to have come from the parent structure in the form that we see today.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 08, 2014, 12:46:48 PM
The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored. There is no short cut to full usefulness in either case if perfect healing is desired. In addition to "healing," a strengthening of certain members to withstand the excessive strain to which overloading subjects them as in order for my Electra. This meant some actual redesigning, another process which could not be hurried. As to the precious engines, they were already in the Pacific Airmotive shops at Burbank being thoroughly checked. After the plane and engines were together, some time would have to be allowed for testing.
 
"Those who had an opportunity to observe miss Earhart at Miami I final preparations for her round-the-world flight could to help being impressed by the calm and unhurried manner in which he made sure that everything about her hip was as ready as expert technicians could make it before she would consider starting the trip. There was no hurrying or harassing of mechanic to finish their wok o that she might take off at a given time, no slightest indication of impatience when a difficult job took longer to finish than might have been expected. "it was interesting to watch the effect of such an attitude on the Pan American Airways mechanics and others who were assigned to give Miss Earhart whatever assistance they could. Being men and being engaged in a highly essential phase of the serious business of air transportation, they all naturally had preconceived notions about a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight - not very favorable notions, either. it was, undoubtedly, something of a shock to discover that the 'gal' with whom they had to deal not only was an exceptionally pleasant and reasonable human being who 'knew her stuff,' but that she knew exactly what she wanted done, and had sense enough to let them alone while they did it. There was an almost audible clatter of chips falling off skeptical masculine shoulders.

This is the kind of stuff that press agents write, not serious people.  Almost devoid of content, but chock full of how they want to be perceived.  Read it one line at a time and at the end of each sentence, ask yourself what conclusions can be drawn from the preceding words?  The writer hopes that you will be unable to distinguish impressions from conclusions and walk away with the former thinking it to be the later.  Remarkable how little time changes things.

The one line that accidentally gets near something of substance concerns a need to redesign components to withstand overloading.  Other than putting skis on the belly so that there is something to slide on after you overload and collapse the gear by trying to take off sideways, what is she talking about?  Is there any indication that she asked Lockheed to change anything, or just put it back together so I can get out of here?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 08, 2014, 03:59:19 PM
Could the man and woman(?) under the fuselage be FN and his wife?

I think it's just two men on repair crew watching the photographer.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 08, 2014, 04:11:44 PM
Ric

it is defo a woman an man

 ;D

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 08, 2014, 04:13:10 PM
Is anything more known about the PV-1 that crashed on Canton Island.
http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

In this type of accident, would the PV-1 have been repaired on Canton Island and flown out, or written off?

Dunno.  We may be able to dig up the accident report.  The notation doesn't makes any sense - "Gear up landing after aborted takeoff at Canton."  If the takeoff was aborted there was no landing. It may be that the pilot aborted the takeoff and ran off the end of the runway collapsing the gear.  Could be repairable.  Could be a write off.

In any case, the question is whether there is anywhere on a PV-1 where there are #3 rivets in a .032 skin. The PV-1 is a Model 18, same as a USAAF C-60 or a civilian Lodestar.  The Model 18 was a much bigger airplane than a Model 10 and was almost entirely flush riveted except for one small section in the tail.  I doubt - but don't know for sure  - that the rivets were itty-bitty #3s.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 08, 2014, 04:24:38 PM
What about post war planes prior to the end of the settlement from Canton?

Big four-engine airliners and only one loss - 1962, an FAA Constellation checking navaids crashed during a touch and go. No way it could be the source of 2-2-V-1.

Is there evidence of scrap being imported to the island for use in the settlement (I'm thinking WW2 aluminium from the Pacific theatre)

Yes.  Definitely.  All of the identifiable parts we've found have been from a B-24 - possibly the Liberator that crashed after takeoff at Canton 19 July 1944.  5 fatals.
Scrap from that loss and others was probably brought back to Nikumaroro after the war by people from Niku who worked for the airlines on Canton.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 08, 2014, 04:41:04 PM
Ric

according to wiki the only people to add to population of Niku in 1944 was the Loran station guys ?

And giving how precious aluminium was them days would the sea escorts/passenger ships actually let precious metal as such be taken of ship to be used for unspecified things ?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 08, 2014, 04:50:34 PM
Testing the Hypothesis once more ….Would you have a photo of the Electra… pre/post luke field repairs that gives evidence of a remaining al-clad print? I know it's been stated that some impression could remain after detailing, however any evidence to prove or disprove this may be helpful. The following statements by Earhart seemly describe at least a fair amount of attention to it’s appearance. The photo gives me an indication as to it’s just gifted sheen, …though black and white photos don’t tell the whole story , it appears the Electra outshines her new Cord automobile.

The following are all per Earhart
With the plane the only specific job to be done, so far as appeared, was curing one small leak where a gauge let flow a few drops of gasoline, though from a harmless source. But while everything was working well, a complete inspection was in order, and an oil change, greasing, check of landing gear and the like. further, the plane itself was given a thorough-going scrubbing. Moisture of the preceding week had tarnished its metal surfaces, which every so often should be cleaned and burnished to a degree
Karachi
In our hurried scheme of things, with the problems of our own special transport uppermost, most of or time "ashore" was spent ih and around hangars. More important far than sightseeing was seeing to it that our faithful sky steed was well groomed and fed, its minutes mechanical wants cared for.

We did not intend to stay at Akyab overnight. Instead we hoped to reach Rangoon at least, and started off from Akyab after checking the weather and fueling Once in the air the elements grew progressively hostile. the wind, dead ahead, began to whip furiously. Relentless rain pelted us. The monsoon, I find, lets down more liquid per second that I thought could come out of the skies. Everything was obliterated in the deluge, so savage that is best off patches of paint along the leading edge of my plane's wings. Only a flying submarine could have prospered. It was wetter even than it had been in that deluge of the mid-South Atlantic. The heavens unloosed an almost unbroken wall of water which would have drowned us had our cockpit not been secure. After trying to get through for a couple of hours we give up, forced to retreat to Akyab.
Dakar
The Dakar airport is excellent, picturesquely situated on a jutting point of land with the pink city nearby. I am finishing this account of the flight to date, writing in the hangar while he good mechanics of air France work. Every inch of the plane has been  scrubbed with soap and water. The Electra's periodic face-washings were performed by natives. i must say the aspect of the African grease monkies was sometimes considerably simian. it was not only oily when we arrived but thee was a curious pattern from dust and rain made b the airflow over the wings. 

 
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=3607&CISOBOX=1&REC=15
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 08, 2014, 05:08:05 PM
The plane and its crew back in California, the obvious task was not to lament the past but prepare for the future. Like broken bones which Nature knits slowly in her own special process, the injured parts of an airplane must be painstakingly restored. There is no short cut to full usefulness in either case if perfect healing is desired. In addition to "healing," a strengthening of certain members to withstand the excessive strain to which overloading subjects them as in order for my Electra. This meant some actual redesigning, another process which could not be hurried. As to the precious engines, they were already in the Pacific Airmotive shops at Burbank being thoroughly checked. After the plane and engines were together, some time would have to be allowed for testing.
 
"Those who had an opportunity to observe miss Earhart at Miami I final preparations for her round-the-world flight could to help being impressed by the calm and unhurried manner in which he made sure that everything about her hip was as ready as expert technicians could make it before she would consider starting the trip. There was no hurrying or harassing of mechanic to finish their wok o that she might take off at a given time, no slightest indication of impatience when a difficult job took longer to finish than might have been expected. "it was interesting to watch the effect of such an attitude on the Pan American Airways mechanics and others who were assigned to give Miss Earhart whatever assistance they could. Being men and being engaged in a highly essential phase of the serious business of air transportation, they all naturally had preconceived notions about a woman pilot bent on a 'stunt' flight - not very favorable notions, either. it was, undoubtedly, something of a shock to discover that the 'gal' with whom they had to deal not only was an exceptionally pleasant and reasonable human being who 'knew her stuff,' but that she knew exactly what she wanted done, and had sense enough to let them alone while they did it. There was an almost audible clatter of chips falling off skeptical masculine shoulders.

This is the kind of stuff that press agents write, not serious people.  Almost devoid of content, but chock full of how they want to be perceived.  Read it one line at a time and at the end of each sentence, ask yourself what conclusions can be drawn from the preceding words?  The writer hopes that you will be unable to distinguish impressions from conclusions and walk away with the former thinking it to be the later.  Remarkable how little time changes things.

The one line that accidentally gets near something of substance concerns a need to redesign components to withstand overloading.  Other than putting skis on the belly so that there is something to slide on after you overload and collapse the gear by trying to take off sideways, what is she talking about?  Is there any indication that she asked Lockheed to change anything, or just put it back together so I can get out of here?

Earhart was an author as well as aviator, they do have ways of saying things that the general populous wouldn't,..perhaps in the hopes of holding an audience's attention,..and to bring a sense of excitement to their story, with the ultimate goal of enabling the reader to imagine he/she is actually there, experiencing it. A bit of flamboyant wording,... perhaps,.... untruths,.... I believe not.   
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 08, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
Have been searching for pre-WW2 civilian aircraft which flew around the vicinity of the Phoenix Islands, apart from the obvious Pan-Am flying boat activities at Canton Island 1937-1942. Came across this aircraft loss over Pago Pago, about 600K from Gardner?

"Samoan Clipper was one of ten Pan American Airways Sikorsky S-42 flying boats. It exploded over Pago Pago, American Samoa, on January 11, 1938, while piloted by famous aviator, Ed Musick. Musick and his crew of six died in the crash.

The aircraft developed an engine problem (caused by an oil leak)[1] shortly after taking off from Pago Pago Harbor. The S-42 was fully loaded with fuel and exceeding the gross weight maximum for a safe landing. Because of this, Captain Musick elected to dump fuel before attempting an emergency landing. However, because of the seaplane's weight and reduced power, the S-42 circled the harbor with flaps extended to maintain lift while fuel dumping was in progress. Apparently, Sikorsky and Pan American had never tested fuel dumping with flaps fully extended. The position of the fuel dump vents on the wing, coupled with the consequent airflow with extended flaps created a back flow of vaporizing fuel which lingered and grew around the trailing edge of the wing.
It is believed that an explosive fuel/air mixture eventually extended to the engine exhaust manifold causing a catastrophic detonation that destroyed the plane in flight."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Clipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Clipper)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2014, 07:59:16 AM
Is there a reasonable limit to the distance over which a piece of aluminum might be imported to Gardner/Niku Island?  Canton Island has already been suggested, but what about more distant places? .........

Importation of aircraft aluminum from distant places as you describe, although arguably highly unlikely, was certainly possible.  That's not the issue.  Cast the net as widely as you please but to come up with an alternative source for artifact 2-2-V-1 you need to find an American aircraft (the sheet and the rivet are, beyond question, American) that used #3 brazier rivets in .032 skin. If you can find such an aircraft, you then have to show that there was someplace on the aircraft that could have been repaired in such a way as to result in a rivet pattern at least similar to that seen on the artifact. 
I think you'll find that the aircraft you're looking for had to have been a Lockheed Model 10 - so what you're really asking is whether it's possible that another Electra (in the U.S., Japan or Australia) was damaged and repaired in a fashion similar to Earhart's and that aircraft was then involved in an accident that resulted in damage like we see on the artifact. Possible?  Sure.  If you can find records of such an airplane then you can look for some reasonable for a piece of wreckage from that airplane to have been imported to Nikumaroro.

In short, the first question that must be answered is not how the artifact got to Nikumaroro.  The first question is what kind of airplane the artifact could possibly have come from.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2014, 08:15:21 AM
I'm not sure the public, or even many aviation specialists for that matter, really appreciate how unique 2-2-V-1 is as to how the stars cross on its markings and fasteners, right down to a grip length indicated on the surviving brazier rivet that it was tacked onto .060" of underlying structure, consistent with what we see in the museum shots of the L10 belly.  We have a very unique piece of aviation metal on our hands - found on Niku, and with no really good explanation for it finding its way there short of having flown in on an intact ship that never left that way.

Therein lieth our problem.  The extraordinary complexity of the artifact is both its strength and its curse. To understand how vigorously this gun smokes requires a familiarity with historical aircraft materials, structures and procedures that few possess.  The irrelevancy of many of the questions raised here is testament to that fact - not to fault the questioners - this is, after all, a forum for the general public. The challenge is to make the argument for 2-2-V-1 accessible to everyone.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2014, 08:25:23 AM
Testing the Hypothesis once more ….Would you have a photo of the Electra… pre/post luke field repairs that gives evidence of a remaining al-clad print?

I'm aware of no such photo, but neither is the labeling apparent on the artifact unless you look closely and catch the light just right.
 
The following statements by Earhart seemly describe at least a fair amount of attention to it’s appearance.

Yes, she liked her airplane to look nice, but these statements in no way bear upon the question of whether the artifact came from NR16020.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2014, 08:33:10 AM
Have been searching for pre-WW2 civilian aircraft which flew around the vicinity of the Phoenix Islands, apart from the obvious Pan-Am flying boat activities at Canton Island 1937-1942. Came across this aircraft loss over Pago Pago, about 600K from Gardner?

Not a candidate for 2-2-V-1.  Heavy flying boat structure, only floating debris recovered, 618 nm away, etc., etc.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2014, 09:06:11 AM
It strikes me that 2-2-V-1 presents us with a unique opportunity.  Our other physical artifacts  - the pocket knife, the freckle cream jar, the zipper, the plexiglas, etc. - may fit neatly into the Earhart/Niku hypothesis but we're always left with the possibility that there is another explanation.  Any of the objects found at the Seven Site COULD have belonged to a Coastie (who can say it is impossible?).  The plexi matches the cabin windows of an Electra but MIGHT also match some WWII airplane window or turret (we can't check them all).

BUT if it is true that the materials and the structure of 2-2-V-1 conclusively identify the artifact as being from a relatively small, pre-war American stressed-aluminum aircraft we have a very different situation.  Unlike jack knives, freckle cream jars and zippers - we have an excellent record of what aircraft were damaged or lost in the Central Pacific from pre-war days right up to today.  We can say with great certainty what is and is not a possible source for the artifact.

'It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'
Sherlock Holmes, The Beryl Coronet

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: James Champion on February 09, 2014, 10:26:20 AM
Forget completely about Amelia and Fred for a moment.

The presence 2-2-V-1 on Niku makes no sense. Flying the Pacific requires large, heavily-built airplanes. Aircraft pre-or-post WW2 build with light skin and small rivets have no reason to be found so remotely in the Pacific. Smaller planes have no reason to ever be in a area so remote on the Earth. Even Islanders would unlikely have access to scrap of this construction on nearby or far-away islands.  Had such a piece of aircraft been found in Nebraska there would be no question.

Rather than 2-2-V-1 pointing to the presence of AE/FN, only AE/FN can point to the existance of 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 09, 2014, 11:29:47 AM

Rather than 2-2-V-1 pointing to the presence of AE/FN, only AE/FN can point to the existence of 2-2-V-1.

James, I would submit that the same thing is true of the Bevington Object: rather than the Bevington Object pointing to the presence of the Electra, only evidence of the Electra can point to the validity of the Bevington Object.


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 09, 2014, 03:56:52 PM
Forget completely about Amelia and Fred for a moment.

The presence 2-2-V-1 on Niku makes no sense. Flying the Pacific requires large, heavily-built airplanes. Aircraft pre-or-post WW2 build with light skin and small rivets have no reason to be found so remotely in the Pacific. Smaller planes have no reason to ever be in a area so remote on the Earth. Even Islanders would unlikely have access to scrap of this construction on nearby or far-away islands.  Had such a piece of aircraft been found in Nebraska there would be no question.

Rather than 2-2-V-1 pointing to the presence of AE/FN, only AE/FN can point to the existance of 2-2-V-1.

Yes. Two sides of the same coin.  If there is no rational null hypothesis then the hypothesis is correct.

The Bevington Object is an example of another piece of evidence for which there is no apparent rational null hypothesis, but it does not have anything like the potential of 2-2-V-1. All we know about the Bevington Object is what we can tease from a photographic image the size of a grain of sand. Because we cannot confirm or deny our interpretation of the image we cannot draw firm conclusions - only probabilities.  Likewise with images of things seen in underwater videos.  Electra parts and body parts or camels in the clouds?  The stuff of debate, conflicting opinion, and - sadly - even legal action.

By contrast, 2-2-V-1 is a physical entity. I can (and often do) hold 2-2-V-1 in my hands.  We can examine it, measure it and test it.  We can ascertain its properties.  we can compare those properties to other known proprieties.  We can draw conclusions that are unassailable. In our efforts to verify what we believe to be true we might find something that disqualifies the artifact as being as unique as we now believe it to be. If so, so be it.  But if we can confirm what we now believe to be true then we have reached a heretofore unprecedented level of confidence that the Earhart/Niku Hypothesis is correct.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 09, 2014, 05:59:43 PM
Likewise with images of things seen in underwater videos.  Electra parts and body parts or camels in the clouds?  The stuff of debate, conflicting opinion, and - sadly - even legal action.


Ric, in January 2013 you said:

Funding permitting, Niku VIII will have the capability of checking out the area you believe holds the wreckage of the plane.  If half of what you've identified is really there it should be a piece of cake to find and recover an armory of smoking guns.  Your observational ability will be vindicated and we will look like blind idiots.  Until then, I think the forum is best served by discussions and debates like the ones we've been having recently.

139 posts in less than four hours says that you are ignoring reality. I'll now sign on at least to the "blind" part of your opinion. The picture of the fuselage you have had in your possession for over a year and a half now. I was able to find the capture in less than two days. And there is plenty more.

John Lanz advised you that, in his opinion, there would never be a Niku VIII. I now concur.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 09, 2014, 09:03:07 PM
The nearest aviation repair shop to Gardner island circa 1930's I can find so far is this one.

"May 1939: Pan American World Airways arrives on Kanton Island to build a service station for a flying boat service to New Zealand. The service starts in July 1940."

Does artefact 2-2-V-1 have to be from a missing or crashed aircraft if it isn't from the Electra?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 09, 2014, 09:32:04 PM
It might be a bit off topic, or not, but you could have knocked me down with a feather when I read this. I know Canton was within range of big four engine planes but imagine my surprise to find 20 or so Bell P-39 Airacobras stationed on Canton Island in 1942. No, they didn't fly there, they were boxed up and shipped there...

"The 333rd was dumped on Canton in September, 1942. Things hadn't improved much. If the US sent prisoners to such a place today, they would sue the government. The 333rd  settled in. The first thing you did there was trade your  helmet for one that was painted white to match the coral background. There were 4 P-39s: the other 15 came in big crates. Each had to be wrestled ashore and assembled. Planes were refueled by hand and facilities were very primitive. There were still millions of rats. There was a rat killing contest, no firearms allowed, with a bottle of scotch as a prize and a Sergeant named Warburton killed over 500 in a week on his spare time. There was dysentery and the bad diet did nothing to help it.  For fun, one could periodically forage on the wreck of the transport SS President Taylor, which had grounded months earlier, losing 80% of it's needed supplies in the process. (On the other hand, working in the flooded holds under equatorial sun attempting supply salvage was no fun at all.)  A 10 foot high seawall had been bulldozed around much of the island so enemy submarines couldn't see anything to shoot at. Drums of water and gasoline were stored in it. Until some industrious 333rd soul borrowed a bulldozer and successfully dug a well, everyone was bathing in sea water. The well was a big improvement. It wasn't drinkable, but at least it wasn't salty. Porcelain fixtures and mirrors from the President Taylor went into the first permanent shower and latrine. The planes went on alert or on patrol around the clock."

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.Canton.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.Canton.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra)


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 09, 2014, 09:35:02 PM


By now, the main focus of the fighting was in the Guadalcanal area; about 2,000 miles away from Canton. Still, Canton knew they were in a war. Canton was a key link in the supply line. The enemy kept Canton under surveillance with long range flying boats out of the Gilbert Islands to the west. Around January 1943, enemy submarines put a blockade on, and food and supplies got scarce. Everyone's shoes wore out. Coral is a living thing, so you couldn't just walk about with holed shoes as coral would grow in any cut on your foot. Or anywhere else with moisture including the ear canal. Chunks of old inner tubes were used as shoe liners. The food situation went from bad to worse; the once discarded bread with grubs became part of the diet. Everyone's clothing was falling apart and there was barely gas for the planes to fly patrols. The Navy finally broke the blockade, but things got tight before they did.
On January 30, 1943, a Japanese sub surfaced before dawn and shelled the island for 30 minutes. It did no damage, but 333rd  planes that scrambled with depth charges didn't sink it either. There were night raids by Japanese patrol bombers on March 19th, 22nd, and 26th, 1943. The 333rd scrambled planes, but the enemy came in at high altitude  in ones or twos and, without radar, interception was a long shot. Only the last raid caused any real damage including 3 destroyed barracks, a Navy PBY Catalina, and holes in the water tank the 333rd had built. (Contrary to one published account, the mess hall was not hit.)  But everyone got a good laugh as Tokyo Rose claimed great damage, including 2 hits that "sunk" the rusting derelict  SS President Taylor.
This Canton photo was probably taken from the palm tree.
Note the army cot and fuel drums by the wing shadow. The plane's engine was
kept warmed up, the tanks topped off, and the pilot slept by his plane.
If there was an alert, he was flying in about 60 seconds.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 10, 2014, 05:54:38 AM
Likewise with images of things seen in underwater videos.  Electra parts and body parts or camels in the clouds?  The stuff of debate, conflicting opinion, and - sadly - even legal action.


Ric, in January 2013 you said:

Funding permitting, Niku VIII will have the capability of checking out the area you believe holds the wreckage of the plane.  If half of what you've identified is really there it should be a piece of cake to find and recover an armory of smoking guns.  Your observational ability will be vindicated and we will look like blind idiots.  Until then, I think the forum is best served by discussions and debates like the ones we've been having recently.

139 posts in less than four hours says that you are ignoring reality. I'll now sign on at least to the "blind" part of your opinion. The picture of the fuselage you have had in your possession for over a year and a half now. I was able to find the capture in less than two days. And there is plenty more.

John Lanz advised you that, in his opinion, there would never be a Niku VIII. I now concur.

I guess my underwater observation skills reveal me to be a blind idiot - I see a giant frog (broad, smiling but still-closed mouth at center, right eye peering with heavy 'brow') bearing down on a 'monkey face' that is looking upward from seafloor (looks rather like 'Curious George' with blank stare and long face).  Is that it?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 10, 2014, 06:12:25 AM


By now, the main focus of the fighting was in the Guadalcanal area; about 2,000 miles away from Canton. Still, Canton knew they were in a war. Canton was a key link in the supply line. The enemy kept Canton under surveillance with long range flying boats out of the Gilbert Islands to the west. Around January 1943, enemy submarines put a blockade on, and food and supplies got scarce. Everyone's shoes wore out. Coral is a living thing, so you couldn't just walk about with holed shoes as coral would grow in any cut on your foot. Or anywhere else with moisture including the ear canal. Chunks of old inner tubes were used as shoe liners. The food situation went from bad to worse; the once discarded bread with grubs became part of the diet. Everyone's clothing was falling apart and there was barely gas for the planes to fly patrols. The Navy finally broke the blockade, but things got tight before they did.
On January 30, 1943, a Japanese sub surfaced before dawn and shelled the island for 30 minutes. It did no damage, but 333rd  planes that scrambled with depth charges didn't sink it either. There were night raids by Japanese patrol bombers on March 19th, 22nd, and 26th, 1943. The 333rd scrambled planes, but the enemy came in at high altitude  in ones or twos and, without radar, interception was a long shot. Only the last raid caused any real damage including 3 destroyed barracks, a Navy PBY Catalina, and holes in the water tank the 333rd had built. (Contrary to one published account, the mess hall was not hit.)  But everyone got a good laugh as Tokyo Rose claimed great damage, including 2 hits that "sunk" the rusting derelict  SS President Taylor.
This Canton photo was probably taken from the palm tree.
Note the army cot and fuel drums by the wing shadow. The plane's engine was
kept warmed up, the tanks topped off, and the pilot slept by his plane.
If there was an alert, he was flying in about 60 seconds.

Fascinating piece of history, Jeff Victor.  Can you provide anything about P-39 structures?  Not sure they were braced similar to the L10 (stringer locations, etc.) but considering this presence it seems it would be worth looking at the Airacobra as a potential source for 2-2-V-2. 

That said, I doubt it is likely.  It did first fly in 1938 and was introduced in 1942, but its construction - by what I've found so far, appears to be more typically flush, heavier military.  I found a few pictures on Wiki so far - lots of flush rivets on outer skin (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/P-39Q_Airacobra_weapons_bay.jpg). 

It did have lovely lines  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/P-39_Airacobra_2006-06-15.jpg) despite other challenges to its performance.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 10, 2014, 08:04:56 AM
Can painted planes be eliminated as donors?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2014, 08:12:25 AM
The nearest aviation repair shop to Gardner island circa 1930's I can find so far is this one.

"May 1939: Pan American World Airways arrives on Kanton Island to build a service station for a flying boat service to New Zealand. The service starts in July 1940."

Does artefact 2-2-V-1 have to be from a missing or crashed aircraft if it isn't from the Electra?

2-2-V-1 is a sheet of aluminum that was once part of an airplane. It was riveted to underlying structure during repairs to that airplane.  The area of repair was later subjected to forces exerted on the interior surface sufficient to blow the heads off many of the rivets and fracture the sheet resulting in a three-sided fragment with some pieces of underlying structure still attached. The fragment was then bent back and forth against a rigid underlying edge until the fourth side failed from metal fatigue. The surviving pieces of underlying structure were pried off.
I think the answer to your question is yes.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2014, 08:16:20 AM
Can painted planes be eliminated as donors?

I don't think so. Paint can go away over time.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 10, 2014, 09:47:22 AM
The artifact was previously suspected to be just forward of the cabin door but  the "space between lines of rivets was an inch or less narrower on the artifact than on the airplane (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_1/Back_to_Square_One.html)”.
So the latest possible fit is directly across the cabin door where the taper has the lines closer together?  Was that area not selected before because the lines of rivets would have been too close together and is it  the possible deformation in the artifact that may now allow it to fit that area directly across the cabin door?
Is the pitch of the rivets in that new location the same as the previous location? If so, is the significance of the spacing of the rivets at 1” on the artifact and 1.5” on the airplane that this is evidence it was repaired?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 10, 2014, 10:00:24 AM
Ric sez "...Importation of aircraft aluminum from distant places as you describe, although arguably highly unlikely, was certainly possible.  That's not the issue."

Highly unlikely?  What about the bookcase?  Was it not imported from a distant place?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 10, 2014, 10:31:38 AM
Ric sez "...Importation of aircraft aluminum from distant places as you describe, although arguably highly unlikely, was certainly possible.  That's not the issue."

Highly unlikely?  What about the bookcase?  Was it not imported from a distant place?

I suspect 'more likely' due to known PBY crash in region.  Yes - it was 'imported' most probably.  But if the sheet 2-2-V-1 were imported, then 'what from'?  No clear other donor as is the case with the bookcase.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2014, 12:43:49 PM
Ric sez "...Importation of aircraft aluminum from distant places as you describe, although arguably highly unlikely, was certainly possible.  That's not the issue."

Highly unlikely?  What about the bookcase?  Was it not imported from a distant place?

I took "distant places" to mean places beyond other islands of the Phoenix Group.  The bookcase came from a B-24.  There was a B-24 crash on Canton. People from Niku worked on Canton after the war, so Canton would seem to be the logical source of the bookcase.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2014, 01:28:50 PM
So the latest possible fit is directly across the cabin door where the taper has the lines closer together?  Was that area not selected before because the lines of rivets would have been too close together and is it  the possible deformation in the artifact that may now allow it to fit that area directly across the cabin door?

To be honest I don't remember why we didn't see the match before.

Is the pitch of the rivets in that new location the same as the previous location? If so, is the significance of the spacing of the rivets at 1” on the artifact and 1.5” on the airplane that this is evidence it was repaired?

I'm not sure about the rivet pitch in the new location. Scaling from the photos I have gives conflicting answers. I'll check it in person next Sunday when I'm at the New England Air Museum for a speaking engagement.  In any case, the fact that the artifact is from a repaired section of some airplane is based on the labeling that identifies it as metal that has been approved for use in repairs but original construction.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 10, 2014, 02:48:30 PM
Regarding the antenna lead wire found tangled with 2-2-V-1.
If this piece of aircraft skin was re purposed as a grill after being salvaged then here are some thoughts about the wire:
1. The wire was used to hang up the grill after use(possibly still hot). It came untied after abandonment but still got tangled in a tear.
2. The wire  was used to tie one end of the panel down to something so it could be cantilevered some distance above the fire.
3. It never was untangled while they used the grill.  Seems odd.
4. It became tangled with 2-2-V-1 after being used for something else and abandoned. Seems like long odds. Maybe multiple salvaged aircraft parts were kept in one area.

Is there evidence of scratched areas that could be evidence of grilling and/or scraping cooked fish off on 2-2-V-1? Perhaps the area of corrosion?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2014, 04:26:20 PM
Regarding the antenna lead wire found tangled with 2-2-V-1.....

Recall that the artifact was discovered in the wash-up from a severe storm.   If our speculation is correct that the artifact was repurposed as a cooking grill and was merely uncovered and moved inland buy the storm, then the presence of a piece of wire tangled on the artifact implies no particular significance to the wire.

Is there evidence of scratched areas that could be evidence of grilling and/or scraping cooked fish off on 2-2-V-1? Perhaps the area of corrosion?

Good thought but, no, I don't see anything like that.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 10, 2014, 04:45:43 PM
Ric

Can u add a photo of other side of artifact ? My apologies as i know this image is available but cant find it anywhere  ::)

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 10, 2014, 06:25:00 PM
Can u add a photo of other side of artifact ? My apologies as i know this image is available but cant find it anywhere  ::)

There is a photo of both sides in the NTSB Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html). 

(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/figure1a.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 10, 2014, 07:04:29 PM
"That said, I doubt it is likely.  It did first fly in 1938 and was introduced in 1942, but its construction - by what I've found so far, appears to be more typically flush, heavier military.  I found a few pictures on Wiki so far - lots of flush rivets on outer skin. 

It did have lovely lines  despite other challenges to its performance."

Quite an innovative design for a pre-WW2 plane Jeff, mid engine to allow for the machine guns to be installed forward of the cockpit, tricycle undercarriage but, shame about the performance and inherent problems with the skin stress. Fully flush riveted as you noticed and nice streamlined lines as well, good looking plane.

From a recovered P-39 project regarding problems with the skin

During testing and combat reports, the one thing the Soviets were discovering was that the P39 suffered a structural weakness of the rear fuselage. After thorough testing, the Soviet LII (Flight Research Institute) and TsAGI (Central Aero and Hydrodynamic Institute) recommended a number of improvements to be undertaken at repair workshops from mid 1944.

These were recorded as: -
 Defect and modification. - Twisting of rear fuselage and skin deformation.
 All Q models up to and including the Q21 to have the following.
 a. Two additional skins around radio compartment hatches.
 b. fuselage longeron reinforcing member
 c. two supports to forward tailplane spar attachment joints
 d. two plates to reinforce the port forward fuselage beam. 

Items a and c are clearly visible on ‘White 23’. These skins have been added over the red star and have covered segments of it. Whether or not it was deemed important, the star was not repainted.

All Q series models were to have the following work undertaken to the fin.
 a. reinforce fin leading edge with additional skin.
 b. add third fin/fuselage attachment point.
 c. reinforce the forward and rear post with additional profiles.
 d. additional plates at the middle of the rudder hinge.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/ (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/)


I was aware of these problems as I have read up on this model many years ago and wondered if the problems were due to the mid engine arrangement adding unexpected stresses along the length of the fuselage when manoeuvring.

From a P-39 restoration project regarding the riveting

"In fact, what shines through every facet of this 28+ year project is the ingenuity Ian applied not just to replicating the work of "Mr Bell and his many thousand work force of WW2" but to the very design and building of numerous tools. The P-39 features an external skin flush riveted throughout. These rivets require 'countersinking' and when holding thin metal STRESSED skin in place, this means deforming the inner edge of the hole - an operation called "dimpling".

http://www.qaww2.com/p39-project.html (http://www.qaww2.com/p39-project.html)

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 10, 2014, 08:13:59 PM
These photos of 2-2-V-1 were taken under low angle lighting to accentuate the bends, bows, wrinkles and dents.  It is one beat up piece of metal.
The notations of nose and tail reference how the piece appears to fit on NR12060.  We, of course, don't really know the nose/tail orientation of the piece but the rivet lines do taper slightly toward what was probably the tail.

The four edges of the piece have been numbered for ease of reference.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Chuck Lynch on February 10, 2014, 09:52:47 PM
If I may make a suggestion, those two sepia images look much better in black & white.

Thanks.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Chris Johnson on February 11, 2014, 05:32:43 AM
Top sepia image to the right as you look at, the row of holes seem wider spaced than those on the inside of the piece? Why would this be?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 11, 2014, 06:47:41 AM
Top sepia image to the right as you look at, the row of holes seem wider spaced than those on the inside of the piece? Why would this be?

They are, of course, the same holes so they are exactly alike on the inside and the outside. The illusion you describe is due to the bowed-out shape of the sheet.  The surface of the sheet is closer to the camera in the photo of the exterior.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 11, 2014, 09:40:50 AM
Quote
"That said, I doubt it is likely.  It did first fly in 1938 and was introduced in 1942, but its construction - by what I've found so far, appears to be more typically flush, heavier military.  I found a few pictures on Wiki so far - lots of flush rivets on outer skin. 

It did have lovely lines  despite other challenges to its performance."

Quite an innovative design for a pre-WW2 plane Jeff, mid engine to allow for the machine guns to be installed forward of the cockpit, tricycle undercarriage but, shame about the performance and inherent problems with the skin stress. Fully flush riveted as you noticed and nice streamlined lines as well, good looking plane.

From a recovered P-39 project regarding problems with the skin

During testing and combat reports, the one thing the Soviets were discovering was that the P39 suffered a structural weakness of the rear fuselage. After thorough testing, the Soviet LII (Flight Research Institute) and TsAGI (Central Aero and Hydrodynamic Institute) recommended a number of improvements to be undertaken at repair workshops from mid 1944.

These were recorded as: -
 Defect and modification. - Twisting of rear fuselage and skin deformation.
 All Q models up to and including the Q21 to have the following.
 a. Two additional skins around radio compartment hatches.
 b. fuselage longeron reinforcing member
 c. two supports to forward tailplane spar attachment joints
 d. two plates to reinforce the port forward fuselage beam. 

Items a and c are clearly visible on ‘White 23’. These skins have been added over the red star and have covered segments of it. Whether or not it was deemed important, the star was not repainted.

All Q series models were to have the following work undertaken to the fin.
 a. reinforce fin leading edge with additional skin.
 b. add third fin/fuselage attachment point.
 c. reinforce the forward and rear post with additional profiles.
 d. additional plates at the middle of the rudder hinge.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/ (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/)


I was aware of these problems as I have read up on this model many years ago and wondered if the problems were due to the mid engine arrangement adding unexpected stresses along the length of the fuselage when manoeuvring.

From a P-39 restoration project regarding the riveting

"In fact, what shines through every facet of this 28+ year project is the ingenuity Ian applied not just to replicating the work of "Mr Bell and his many thousand work force of WW2" but to the very design and building of numerous tools. The P-39 features an external skin flush riveted throughout. These rivets require 'countersinking' and when holding thin metal STRESSED skin in place, this means deforming the inner edge of the hole - an operation called "dimpling".

http://www.qaww2.com/p39-project.html (http://www.qaww2.com/p39-project.html)

Good find, Jeff Victor - and very interesting history on the Airacobra.

By some contrast to the Airacobra story on structures, attached is a close-up of the wing root / forward fuselage / engine ring cowl on a Spartan Executive.  The Spartan was a product of roughly the same period in airframe development as the Electra (Lockheed Electra model L10E TC is number 590, the Spartan Executive model 7W TC is number 628).  In studying this I see 'conventional' metal construction similar to what we'd see today - with some fine-point variations: rivet size in primary structure, and rivet type.  Note that the Spartan displays some distinctly similar features to the Electra in terms of construction, right down to brazier rivets (smooth dome appearance, constant radius head vs. the double-radius semi-flattened top of the more modern universal head rivet).  This includes a consideration of sizes used in primary structure - #3, #4 and #5 braziers being evident in various different rows (#3 rivets not so common on later war-era types). 

This exercise has gotten very educational for me, I'm finally getting to use some of that boring old stuff from Embry-Riddle days about aviation regulation and the history of, and what it really did at the 'nuts and bolts' level (literally): both the Lockheed Electra and Spartan Executive were built under the old Department of Commerce - Aviation Bureau (1926 - 1938) 'Aero Bulletin 7A'  (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgccab.nsf/0/96A3F126D9326EA886256E23006E73F0?OpenDocument) standards, so no wonder we see the shared features in construction.  The bulletin itself does not prescribe exacting information as to rivet size, etc. - but the practices used by industry then to meet the strength criteria of the day are clearly common, much as they remain today albeit with newer materials and fastenings (and updated regulations and guidance).  By all this we can tell a great deal about design and construction practices during early-to-mid 1930's for all-metal airplanes such as the Electra and Executive, all prior to the war and emergence of the CAR standards that were introduced in 1938. 

Now I realize the real import of the introduction of the more modern Civil Air Authority in 1938: it just 'happened' to coincide with a major effort to modernize for war production.  Things like tougher strength and fatigue standards (including practices with regard to common fastener sizes and how to build more robust airframes) were taken up; efforts to standardize and reduce complexity in production were undertaken; we have seen that sheet metal production took-off and the markings were modernized to an automated roller operation in lieu of hand-stamping of the past.  The AN470 universal head rivet emerged at some point in this transition as an acceptable replacment for the older brazier, round head, flat head style rivets previously used in specialized areas of the airframe - such as seen in the L10E and Spartan Executive (braziers being common to air-passage external areas where flush-riveting was not necessary).  Tooling and inventories were thus simplified and airframes became more robust as experience was gained and applied through new standards. 

In the teaching I was subject to in the 1970's, #3 rivets were considered inferior for fatigue reasons - it is just a diminutive fastener with limited capabilities - and as I look back I realize experience came to bear: the next size #4 is far superior in strength and simply a better choice for resistance to destructive forces, hence no doubt the teachment of "do not use #3 rivets in primary structure" that I have cited so many times before.  It was not part of the knowledge in the mid-thirties, nor is a well-designed and built airplane a death-trap because of its use - but time moves on and realities set some things toward robust improvement.  War is a great catalyst as well.  So we see pre-war machines that were elegantly and lightly-enough built, but we also see a standard that has disappeared with time and experience: they could not be certified in today's environment.

All of this further underscores for me just what a unique piece of aviation repair history we are looking at in 2-2-V-1 - it is nearly certain to be from your grandfather's Oldsmobile, not from your dad's (speaking for my generation...).  More clearly now it would be an extremely odd-ball item to have occurred on any of the wartime birds known to have been in the Niku area.   As has been noted, it is also American - the AN standards were distinctly such. 

The B-24 (see 'Crash at Sydney Island' (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/crash.pdf)) has already been discussed as a possible donor and I among others do not see it as a likely source for 2-2-V-1 for reasons already discussed.  But, the DC-3 was a product of the same era as the L10E and Spartan Executive - and as a later variant was larger and more modern than the predesessors DC-1 and -2.  Especially so for the war-time produced C-47.  Our greatest potential donor may be the crashed C-47 at Sydney Island (another TIGHAR bulletin) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html), which had been built only in October of 1943 (which the bureau number of that airplane, C-47A-60DL serial (bureau) number 43-30739 bears out); that makes this candidate a distinctly 'war time production' airplane which was well past the era of older rivet styles and construction practices of the mid-thirties. 

Also, consider the newness of the airplane at the time of the loss - not even two months old; other than the known repair to a wing-tip, it is probably reasonable to surmise that it was not a great candidate to have had such a repair skin present.  Further, any shop in the area doing sheet metal repair would have by default likely been supplied with later materials than we see in 2-2-V-1 due to more modern war mobilization efforts to place facilities and materiel in the field.

I've gone on too long - again - but consider these points and how they point further into the unique nature of 2-2-V-1; the potential for parent / donor airframes gets distinctly slimmer.  The nature of what we see points to a repair of a fairly large area - such as very much consistent with a belly skin on NR16020.  Short of import from far away Australia / New Gunea / New Zealand / Japan, there just are not a large number of potential donors in that part of the world for this combination of features - size, vintage, material type / style - it was a unique period and practice of aircraft building and repair that produced what we see now.

Enjoy the picture of the Executive - and more at this link. (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=spartan+executive&id=E8CD105910D36937CE757DF2E92B1781F8CFC937&FORM=IQFRBA#a)

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on February 11, 2014, 09:48:10 AM
Jeff (and everyone quoting Jeff),

You say "This further underscores for me just what a unique piece of aviation repair history we are looking at in 2-2-V-2"

Please everyone, the artifact is 2-2-V-1 not 2-2-V-2 - Note the thread topic

Nit picking, I know, but before it gets further institutionalized in the discussion, lets get it straight.

Andrew
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 11, 2014, 09:59:02 AM
Thanks Andrew, my bad - I will correct to "2-2-V-1" through-out my own posts - well, in last post: the thread topic should make it plain otherwise that we're talking about 2-2-V-1 (and I've so little time left at moment).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 11, 2014, 10:06:41 AM
Number problem notwithstanding, Jeff has done a great job placing the construction practices evident in the artifact in context with the historical period they clearly represent.  Anybody else smell smoke?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 11, 2014, 10:21:27 AM
Anybody else smell smoke?

Have any of the [usual] naysayers from far and wide chimed in yet about the apparently smoldering gun-like object?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 11, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
Anybody else smell smoke?

Have any of the [usual] naysayers from far and wide chimed in yet about the apparently smoldering gun-like object?

I'd welcome any well thought-out criticism.  As far as broad-shot 'could be anything' pot-shots, that doesn't cut it here, the information that can be seen in 2-2-V-1 is far too specific now, IMO, of course.  But that's why I would welcome any intelligent challenge to my opinion: it must be a credible alternative to hold water. 

That artifact got to Niku by some rational means and there can only be so many reasonable sources and paths for it to have done so: critics need to study the potential sources and make the credible case.  In full context, I believe we have a clear answer now - and I was far from an easy sell on this myself.

In short, this metal absolutely smokes.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 11, 2014, 10:35:00 AM
Have any of the [usual] naysayers from far and wide chimed in yet about the apparently smoldering gun-like object?

Not yet, but we really haven't put out the word properly.  All of this needs to be pulled together in a comprehensive paper with photos and citations.  I'll do that as soon as I can.  Meanwhile let's continue to look for anything we may have missed that would change the picture and cool the barrel.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 11, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
This is the belly of c/n 1052 in the subject area.  As far as we know this is original construction.  I believe these are all #3 rivets but I can verify that when I'm at there New England Air Museum on February 16.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7219;image

I was wondering if the skinners (crew who installed the AL clad panels) would always begin by skinning the same side of each new unit and overlap each plane the same. ...if the belly of the Electra is the same as this example, would the keel portion depicted on the artifact ( placed as thought) be the under lap layer of skin?  Is there any evidence of this? 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 12, 2014, 12:52:18 AM

(devil's advocate mode ON)
I've read comments elsewhere (especially in the Wrecks of the Pacific website) that a lot of pre-war aircraft were destroyed in the early days of the war.  Someone is bound to say that those aircraft might be the source of 2-2-V-1.  Is there a solid argument against that hypothesis?

Also, I vaguely recall reading somewhere in these forii that Lockheed sold at least one L-10 to Japan, and there were several used by pre-war airlines in the South Pacific region.  Have those been documented well enough to rule them out as sources?

(devil's advocate mode OFF)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 12, 2014, 05:37:03 AM

(devil's advocate mode ON)
I've read comments elsewhere (especially in the Wrecks of the Pacific website) that a lot of pre-war aircraft were destroyed in the early days of the war.  Someone is bound to say that those aircraft might be the source of 2-2-V-1.  Is there a solid argument against that hypothesis?

More than an argument against that 'hypothesis', I'd ask what is the basis for it?  Let's work with facts, not comments

This is exactly what I meant when I welcomed intelligent challenges (not demeaning your point, you are merely sharing what you've noted and rightly pointing out that there will be 'challenges', no doubt) - foggy 'might bes' are far from substance.  We have very distinct 'substance' in 2-2-V-1 - what substance do the commenters offer?  What pre-war aircraft were destroyed; where were they destroyed?  Were those types a possible source (American made, metal stressed-skin, etc.)?  Were the locations plausible sources for a piece of wreckage to find its way to Niku?

We'll always have those who will say 'could be anything'.  We have an artifact of very distinctive features that turned up in a most unlikely place.  As I said before - pick another island, any island - see how well this can be duplicated; if pre-war dural with antique #3 brazier rivets is so common because of a flood of Pacific pre-war wrecks then we'd have big reason to doubt.  I presently and seriously doubt that is the case.

Quote
Also, I vaguely recall reading somewhere in these forii that Lockheed sold at least one L-10 to Japan, and there were several used by pre-war airlines in the South Pacific region.  Have those been documented well enough to rule them out as sources?

(devil's advocate mode OFF)

I think it is well known that Japan did have at least one Electra (and probably used it to reverse engineer a similar airplane, if not having built under license even, as may have been the case).  There were definitely Electras in the south and western Pacific - Japan, Australia, New Zealand - and I believe New Guinea.  No doubt some accessible islands were visited by those as well - but far away Gardner? 

If our part is what many of us now believe it to be, it either flew there on an Electra with extraordinary range (look at Niku on map and consider access) or someone imported it.  Import is possible - but that part, from where?  Now you have to consider the islander's migrations - did they have access to the places where this sort of wreckage was likely to have deposited itself by a crash?  It is not clear to me that they would have had that - the places we know of so far don't include losses of the type that would have produced this. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 12, 2014, 02:19:47 PM
As I understand from some of Ric's postings, the printed "ALCLAD" clearly seen in  this Japanese Flying Boat wreck example in New Guinea (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/MavisAlcad.jpg) was applied by machine, while the lettering found on 2-2-V-1 was stamped or stenciled by hand (please correct me if I've got that wrong), which clearly indicates the artifact was of pre-war manufacture.  Was Japan building aircraft using ALCLAD purchased from the US before the war, or was there some other way for them to get it during the war?  I'm confused by the timing of the sequence of events - when was the transition from "pre-war" hand stamping to "war-time" machine stamping "ALCLAD"?  I assume the change took place after the L-10 was repaired but before Japan stopped buying from the US. 

Papua is a long ways away from Gardner Island, but the Japanese lost quite a number of these large flying boats during the war in places much closer.  See  This Pacific Wrecks page  (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/h6k/1111.html). 

(later update -  found in  Tiger Tracks Volume 12, number2/3 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html):  "...the labeling was hand-stamped, a practice replaced by rolled-on labeling when aluminum production boomed after 1939."
Doesn't this indicate that the Japanese ALCLAD examples were produced after 1939, but before 1941?)

I found an interesting book review of  Japanese Aircraft Equipment 1940-1945 (http://www.historynet.com/japanese-aircraft-equipment-1940-1945-book-review.htm)  that might contain some information on early-war and pre-war Japanese aircraft.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John B. Shattuck on February 13, 2014, 08:57:52 AM
To the educated it smokes quite well... and I appreciate the depth and erudition of Jeff's posts.  Problem is that I predict there will be unsubstantiated counter explanations to explain away the presence of 2-2-V-1.  To the general public I believe the mystery will remain unresolved and still subject to some of the rather entertaining theories out there, unsubstantiated and without hard evidence though they may be.  I'm on board, I think it smokes, but to employ what is clearly some speculative prediction, I don't know that we have crossed the "any idiot" thresh-hold.

My opinion only...

JB
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 13, 2014, 09:11:48 AM
I don't know that we have crossed the "any idiot" thresh-hold.

I agree.  The challenge is to present the case in such a way that any idiot can understand it.  I'm not sure it can be dumbed-down that far. 

The other way to approach it is to solicit endorsements from unimpeachable third party sources who do have the education to smell the smoke.  If we really have a solid scientific case for 2-2-V-1 being a piece of NR16020 the results of our analysis should be replicable.  Who then, would the public consider to be an unimpeachable source?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John B. Shattuck on February 13, 2014, 09:21:28 AM
The NTSB and the Smithsonian come to mind.  Could be others as well; but if those two organizations found that the only reasonable explanation for the presence of 2-2-V-1 is AE's plane, I think it would be accepted as truth.  Again, my opinion.

JB
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 13, 2014, 09:37:54 AM
Lockheed also comes to mind, something like "Yes, this is definitely a part we installed on Amelia's aircraft during repairs ...." (quotes are mine)
Getting a corporation to make such a statement would need a minor miracle, but a welcome one.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 13, 2014, 09:48:59 AM
The NTSB and the Smithsonian come to mind.  Could be others as well; but if those two organizations found that the only reasonable explanation for the presence of 2-2-V-1 is AE's plane, I think it would be accepted as truth.  Again, my opinion.

I've already been down that road with the NTSB.  Their lab was willing to do materials identification on our artifacts but they were emphatic that they would not offer interpretations of the results or offer opinions about what kind of airplane the artifacts came from.  NTSB is not about to get dragged into the Earhart controversy.  Also - NTSB doesn't have expertise in the historical construction/repair issues that are crucial to understanding the artifact.

Smithsonian?  Yes, the NASM Udvar-Hazy restoration shop has the credentials we're looking for and their concurrence with our findings would be huge, especially given the skeptical stance on TIGHAR's findings by the NASM staff downtown.  But I don't think we're ready to take it to them yet.  I want to really nail down the crucial difference between the artifact and WWII-vintage aircraft.  To help us do that I have just today been able to enlist the help of another major air museum restoration shop (which will remain nameless for the moment).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 13, 2014, 09:55:37 AM
Lockheed also comes to mind, something like "Yes, this is definitely a part we installed on Amelia's aircraft during repairs ...." (quotes are mine)
Getting a corporation to make such a statement would need a minor miracle, but a welcome one.

I don't see any way that Lockheed Martin could make such a statement unless they have repair documents we haven't seen (and I know they don't know of any such documents).  There is nobody working at Lockheed Martin now that knows one-tenth of what we know about the Model 10.  Lockheed Martin is TIGHAR-friendly and was a sponsor of the 2012 expedition.  They might possibly endorse the findings of museum experts.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 13, 2014, 10:34:48 AM
I know there's still a lot of leg work to be done narrowing in on the potential uniqueness of the item in question, but  Realistically, what can could be possibly hoped for beyond being deemed "consistent with" a particular plane?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 13, 2014, 12:07:16 PM
That depends on what, exactly is "deemed," I would think.

If the part is "deemed consistent with" a pre-WWII aircraft, that narrows it down.

If the part is "deemed consistent with" civilian vs. military aircraft construction, that narrows it down still more.

If the part is "deemed consistent with" a certain company's known manufacturing methods, that narrows it down even more.

The process of elimination usually yields a defensible answer. Of course, for whatever reason, TIGHAR's detractors have set the bar for unassailable proof very, very high.

LTM, who thrives on games of 20 Questions,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 13, 2014, 12:48:33 PM
Pre-war aluminum and a pre-war rivet found in it. The aluminum was a type used for repairs. A rivet pattern match to a specific spot in on the belly of an L-10 Electra.  AE’s Electra was repaired in this same area.  All of this matches, not just an Electra, but AE’s repaired Electra. It was found in an isolated place AE went missing.  Sure looks like smoke.

So what are the non matches to an original Electra that may actually still fit AE’s repaired Electra?  Are there photographic examples of the repair method in question used on other planes? If it is bigger rivets used on repairs, find pictures of before and after as an example or take pictures of a plane repaired with this method and one of the same type that wasn’t.  It might be used as an illustration to help people understand.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dave Ross Wilkinson on February 13, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
Pre-war aluminum and a pre-war rivet found in it. The aluminum was a type used for repairs. A rivet pattern match to a specific spot in on the belly of an L-10 Electra.  AE’s Electra was repaired in this same area.  All of this matches, not just an Electra, but AE’s repaired Electra. It was found in an isolated place AE went missing.  Sure looks like smoke.

So what are the non matches to an original Electra that may actually still fit AE’s repaired Electra?  Are their photographic examples of the repair  method in question used on other planes? If it is bigger rivets used on repairs, find pictures of before and after as an example or take pictures of a plane repaired with this method and one of the same type that wasn’t.  It might be used as an illustration to help people understand.


A great summary the puts it in perspective for me, a long time, too-ignorant-to-contribute lurker who can no longer hold back.

So ... if we postulate that 2-2-V-1 is an actual piece of Alclad used to repair AE's Electra, does its present condition say anything about how it got to be where it was found, and in its present condition? 

How might it have been removed from the rest of the Electra?  Is it part of a larger piece that was ripped off the belly of the plane on landing? 

Why wasn't it washed off the reef with the rest of the plane? 

Is there anything in the high resolution aerial photos that might hint of its presence on the reef ?

I hope I'm not going over material that's already been covered before, at least in the present context.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 13, 2014, 02:22:27 PM
As I understand from some of Ric's postings, the printed "ALCLAD" clearly seen in  this Japanese Flying Boat wreck example in New Guinea (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/MavisAlcad.jpg) was applied by machine, while the lettering found on 2-2-V-1 was stamped or stenciled by hand (please correct me if I've got that wrong), which clearly indicates the artifact was of pre-war manufacture.  Was Japan building aircraft using ALCLAD purchased from the US before the war, or was there some other way for them to get it during the war?  I'm confused by the timing of the sequence of events - when was the transition from "pre-war" hand stamping to "war-time" machine stamping "ALCLAD"?  I assume the change took place after the L-10 was repaired but before Japan stopped buying from the US. 

Papua is a long ways away from Gardner Island, but the Japanese lost quite a number of these large flying boats during the war in places much closer.  See  This Pacific Wrecks page  (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/h6k/1111.html). 

(later update -  found in  Tiger Tracks Volume 12, number2/3 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html):  "...the labeling was hand-stamped, a practice replaced by rolled-on labeling when aluminum production boomed after 1939."
Doesn't this indicate that the Japanese ALCLAD examples were produced after 1939, but before 1941?)

I found an interesting book review of  Japanese Aircraft Equipment 1940-1945 (http://www.historynet.com/japanese-aircraft-equipment-1940-1945-book-review.htm)  that might contain some information on early-war and pre-war Japanese aircraft.

Interesting piece of history, that particular ALCLAD.  That wreck apparently was a Kawanishi H6K which was inspired (if not a licensed creation of the Japanese) by a Shorts Brothers example.  The Japanese were clearly obtaining all the technology and hardware that they could in the years leading up to WWII.  I do not know for sure, but would not doubt that they would have obtained production alclad to the extent possible, for as long as possible - and perhaps (conjecture here) the ramping up of American production before the war was actually on provided a source.

Note that the H6K first flew in 1936 - a might early for "war time production build-up" perhaps, but didn't enter service until 1938.  Production followed that for some years, so newer stocks of aluminum sheet bearing 'wartime production markings' (1938 onwards as I understand it in industrial production terms) were certainly possible sources.  How can that be?  As you've pointed out, 1941 was a pivotal moment - and 'wartime production' had been underway for some time, but we were not 'enemies' with Japan and it is evident that trade was still happening. 

It is ironic that U.S. origin metal turns up that way in the Japanese air fleet - kind of like the old saying in my home county of "they're shooting the Sherwood back at us".  That was in fact speaking of how local scrap metal sold from the local defunct railroad was scooped-up by the shipload by the Japanese just before the war - and presumably used in their own wartime building.

But the telling fact is we have 'wartime production' styled markings on a Japanese HK6 seaplane wreck in the Pacific - and that the HK6 was a product largely of the time of production of such metal in the U.S., and clearly the metal was obtainable by the Japanese.  That probably actually diminishes the HK6 as a likely donor for 2-2-V-1 by its own vintage.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 13, 2014, 02:30:04 PM
It is ironic that U.S. origin metal turns up that way in the Japanese air fleet - kind of like the old saying in my home county of "they're shooting the Sherwood back at us".  That was in fact speaking of how local scrap metal sold from the local defunct railroad was scooped-up by the shipload by the Japanese just before the war - and presumably used in their own wartime building.

"e. e. cummings told him" (http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/e-e-cummings-told-him.php):

it took
a nipponized bit of
the old sixth

avenue
el;in the top of his head:to tell

him
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 13, 2014, 03:42:22 PM
Pre-war aluminum and a pre-war rivet found in it. The aluminum was a type used for repairs. A rivet pattern match to a specific spot in on the belly of an L-10 Electra.  AE’s Electra was repaired in this same area.  All of this matches, not just an Electra, but AE’s repaired Electra. It was found in an isolated place AE went missing.  Sure looks like smoke.

So what are the non matches to an original Electra that may actually still fit AE’s repaired Electra?  Are their photographic examples of the repair  method in question used on other planes? If it is bigger rivets used on repairs, find pictures of before and after as an example or take pictures of a plane repaired with this method and one of the same type that wasn’t.  It might be used as an illustration to help people understand.


A great summary the puts it in perspective for me, a long time, too-ignorant-to-contribute lurker who can no longer hold back.

So ... if we postulate that 2-2-V-1 is an actual piece of Alclad used to repair AE's Electra, does its present condition say anything about how it got to be where it was found, and in its present condition? 

Good questions, and we may never know the answers for certain.  But its battered condition suggests a hard journey to our hands - apparently separated from the host airframe by some degree of violence, whether sudden or gradual unknown to me.  It is rich with complex failure modus (if not moduli (sic)) - cracks and tensile failures abound in multiple planes, bending and stretching is evident to degree that I believe NTSB commented on some property changes in the metal (plastic state?) - and we can see edge-evidence of that where the heavier rivet line was torn-out by some force.  We also see a dimpling effect where the many #3 brazier rivets once were, so some 'blow-out' effect is there, whether by mechanical separation or some hydraulic force, as has been suggested, or 'other'.  Then we have some prospect of the sheet having been used to cook fish over a fire or coals - further compounding the possibilities of how it may have been recycled by its finders.

Where did it have to be for all that to happen?  Obviously those things could have happened in various sequences in any number of different places, but they could have also happened right there on Gardner / Niku if the metal arrived with Earhart, was found among debris in the surf and rescued, and subsequently subjected to further man-handling for various reasons of salvage / secondary use.

Quote
How might it have been removed from the rest of the Electra?  Is it part of a larger piece that was ripped off the belly of the plane on landing? 

Impossible to say for certain in my view and likely not by one neat process, but by 'worrying' in the surf, perhaps after some initial mechanically-imposed damage (impact of some sort).  It could have remained attached to a parent member, which had been detached - or been partly exposed in a storm, or washed up as a singular piece during some heavy surf event.  My personal suspicion is that foraging people found it attached to some portion of junk that might have led to the anecdotal reports we have of an airplane wreck on the reef.

Quote
Why wasn't it washed off the reef with the rest of the plane? 

Maybe it was.  The sea taketh, and the sea giveth back on occasion; or maybe it was jammed in a groove and later found or dislodged and washed ashore.  Can't know.

Quote
Is there anything in the high resolution aerial photos that might hint of its presence on the reef ?

I don't recall anything like this being found, but we're talking about something that could well be hard to see at that resolution.  I do recall TIGHAR studying some metal signatures earlier from satillite or similar images, and it could have shown up as an indistignuishable item - if on the beach when those pictures were taken.  If deep in the village - where it was found, my guess is it would have been impossible to see.

Quote
I hope I'm not going over material that's already been covered before, at least in the present context.

If you are it is worthwhile to freshen the discussion in my view - can't hurt the effort to be thorough about the reiview of this item.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 13, 2014, 03:45:28 PM
It is ironic that U.S. origin metal turns up that way in the Japanese air fleet - kind of like the old saying in my home county of "they're shooting the Sherwood back at us".  That was in fact speaking of how local scrap metal sold from the local defunct railroad was scooped-up by the shipload by the Japanese just before the war - and presumably used in their own wartime building.

"e. e. cummings told him" (http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/e-e-cummings-told-him.php):

it took
a nipponized bit of
the old sixth

avenue
el;in the top of his head:to tell

him

Delightful, Marty - thanks!  I see my home county didn't exactly invent the notion! LOL!!!

I'm also told that my great-great-grandfather refused to sell scrap before the war because of his firm belief that the Japanese were doing with it exactly what it turned out that they were doing with it... bless his soul.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 14, 2014, 09:27:45 AM
So ... if we postulate that 2-2-V-1 is an actual piece of Alclad used to repair AE's Electra, does its present condition say anything about how it got to be where it was found, and in its present condition? 

Yes, it's present condition speaks volumes about its odyssey.

How might it have been removed from the rest of the Electra?  Is it part of a larger piece that was ripped off the belly of the plane on landing?
 

We're working up a series of events to explain what appears to have happened.  Not ready for prime time yet.

Why wasn't it washed off the reef with the rest of the plane?
 

It probably was.

Is there anything in the high resolution aerial photos that might hint of its presence on the reef ?

No, not that we can see.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 14, 2014, 09:36:30 AM
I know there's still a lot of leg work to be done narrowing in on the potential uniqueness of the item in question, but  Realistically, what can could be possibly hoped for beyond being deemed "consistent with" a particular plane?

We already know it's "consistent with" Earhart's repaired Electra but that's not good enough.  We have a room full of artifacts that are "consistent with" the Niku hypothesis.

What we may have here that is different than anything else we have is the ability to conclusively eliminate all other rational sources for the artifact.  In other words, instead of proving it exactly matches NR16020 we may be able to prove that it can't be from any other airplane that was ever anywhere near Gardner Island.  Does that make it a smoking gun?  That's not for me to say.  That's for you to say.  If there is one thing I've learned in 25 years of chasing Amelia it's that smoking guns are in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Brian Ainslie on February 14, 2014, 10:36:02 AM
Have the Japanese ever been approached to assist with, at minimum, ruling out their aircraft as the source?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 14, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
Have the Japanese ever been approached to assist with, at minimum, ruling out their aircraft as the source?

No.  Neither have the Russians been approached.  The artifact is made of American aluminum and has an American rivet (as evidenced by the dimple in the center of the head.)  For the artifact to be from a Japanese aircraft there would have to be  a relatively small Japanese aircraft repaired with American aluminum and rivets that was destroyed in some location where pieces of the wreck could be salvaged and brought to Nikumaroro.  We know of no Japanese aircraft or incident that meets those requirements.  There is no reason to think that this artifact is not from an American aircraft.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Matt Revington on February 14, 2014, 11:26:10 AM
Was there any history of American aluminum/rivets being used in British aircraft, some RAF planes were produced in Canada during the war.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 14, 2014, 11:28:04 AM
Was there any history of American aluminum/rivets being used in British aircraft, some RAF planes were produced in Canada during the war.

I don't know.  What British aircraft were serving in the Pacific anywhere near Gardner Island?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dan Swift on February 14, 2014, 01:47:31 PM
Almost EVERY "was there's" and "what if's" are so easily 'shot down'. 
So frustrating is 2+2+2+2=8.  But there has to be more. 
I know it's driving you crazy because it is me and I don't live it everyday. 
And of course that is probably a much shorter 'trip' for me to drive than you. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 14, 2014, 02:16:04 PM
Almost EVERY "was there's" and "what if's" are so easily 'shot down'. 
So frustrating is 2+2+2+2=8.  But there has to be more. 
I know it's driving you crazy because it is me and I don't live it everyday. 
And of course that is probably a much shorter 'trip' for me to drive than you.

I'm not complaining.  This is a really exciting development and it just keeps getting better.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Sheryl McCallister on February 14, 2014, 02:45:18 PM
I can only imagine how exciting it is for you to be working out these firm details, even now--it's heart pounding for this complete and total observer who thought that piece of plexi you found during the early Niku III days was more than enough of a smoking gun to call Niku way more than just a hypothesis.

But then, almost unlimited patience is why y'all are the the pros and I'm just an interested observer.  ;)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 14, 2014, 06:06:40 PM
Was there any history of American aluminum/rivets being used in British aircraft, some RAF planes were produced in Canada during the war.

I don't know.  What British aircraft were serving in the Pacific anywhere near Gardner Island?


The Empire Air Mail Programme

"1938 saw the schedules of the Empire routes being accelerated, and air mail figures for the first quarter gave an idea of how well the Empire Air Mail Programme was working. In three months over 100 tons of mail had been flown on the Africa route and the same volume on the India route. This service was given a great amount of praise from the United States where only 2 tons of air mail was carried per week in 1937.

On the 28th July Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Papua, Fiji, Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island, Nauru, The Mandated Territory of Western Samoa and the Territories under the Jurisdiction of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific were brought into the Programme."

The first mail left Southampton in Imperial Airways C Class flying boat G-AEUA Calypso.

None were lost so no chance of 2-2-V-1 being related




Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 14, 2014, 10:24:14 PM
The process of elimination being undertaken here is pointing more and more towards artefact 2-2-V-1 once being a part of NR 16020, I'm impressed.
Here's another point to consider which may or may not add to the process. Yes, NR 16020 needed considerable repairs after the Luke Field incident.
Think about the Luke field crash, the eye-witness statements and the likeliest location for artefact 2-2-V-1 repair on the Electra and maybe that would give some clue as to why that particular area of the fuselage needed repairing.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldReport.htm (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldReport.htm)

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 15, 2014, 08:00:07 AM
Think about the Luke field crash, the eye-witness statements and the likeliest location for artefact 2-2-V-1 repair on the Electra and maybe that would give some clue as to why that particular area of the fuselage needed repairing.

It's not rocket science. As the aircraft ground looped to the left, the right main gear collapsed inward, slamming the right wing onto the pavement. (The entire right wing outboard of the engine had to be replaced as did all of the belly skins on the right side from the main beam back to the lavatory.)  The aircraft spun around 180° to the left and the left main gear collapsed outward.  As the aircraft slid backward, the collapsed right main separated entirely from the airframe. In the attached photo, note that the plane is resting on (and the sliding was done on) the right-hand side of the belly.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 15, 2014, 10:14:03 AM
This is interesting.  Artifact 2-8-I-1a is a section of stringer from Lockheed c/n 1024 (NC14935), a Northwest Airlines Model 10A that hit a mountain in Idaho on December 18, 1936.  The artifact was collected for research purposes by a TIGHAR team that visited the wreck site in July 2004.  (The same site was the subject of last year's TIGHAR Field School.)

Due to the jumbled nature of the debris field and extensive subsequent salvage activity, it's not possible to say from exactly what part of the wreck the stringer section came from.  What IS apparent is that the stringer section is just like the stringers in the New England Air Museum Electra c/n 1052 and the rivet holes match the size and pitch of the rivet holes in 2-2-V-1.  The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick.

Note that whereas the restored c/n 1052 has a coating of yellow-green zinc chromate corrosion inhibitor (which came into use circa 1939), the stringer section from the Idaho wreck has remnants of the original blue corrosion inhibitor used by Lockheed on Electras.

What's the significance of this match?  Not earth-shaking, but it is a part from a known Lockheed 10 that matches up with the artifact. There may be stringers from other aircraft types that would match up just as well, but we haven't found any yet.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 15, 2014, 10:20:15 AM
Any pieces of skin and/or rivets collected from the Idaho crash site too?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 15, 2014, 10:21:41 AM
Wow ... ANOTHER one of those "picture is worth a thousand words" moments ... the pile of evidence is getting a start on looking impressive.

LTM, who tries not to press his impressions,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 15, 2014, 10:29:53 AM
Another thing about those photos - It's one of those odd funny historical things that Lockheed used a blue-tinted corrosion inhibitor on the inside aircraft parts in the 1930s and pre-war; Japan used something that looked almost exactly like that on its pre-war and early-war military aircraft. It was called, I believe, aotake - which would usually have a metallic bluish tint but occasionally greenish, depending on the manufacturer.

LTM, who likes to build itty bitty planes,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 15, 2014, 10:50:04 AM
Any pieces of skin and/or rivets collected from the Idaho crash site too?

No.  There's not much aluminum there and we're very conservative about what we collect from a site.  In 2004, and even last summer, we weren't into skin and rivets.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: James Champion on February 15, 2014, 11:45:26 AM
I'm curious. In regards to Artifact 2-8-I-1a, do the ends show signs of salvage activity (cut or back-n-forth fatigue), or from breakage from the crash (ductile failure). What I'm getting at is the forces that might have pulled the rivets out. And, are the holes the size for a 3/32" #3 rivet like 2-2-V-1, or are they larger due to where it was in the aircraft? If the holes are #3 size, it implys 0.032" skin was attached.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 15, 2014, 01:36:06 PM
I'm curious. In regards to Artifact 2-8-I-1a, do the ends show signs of salvage activity (cut or back-n-forth fatigue), or from breakage from the crash (ductile failure).

One end is a finished end.  The other end (the bent-up end) was salvaged by our team.  The rivet holes show clear signs of prying on the bottom (buck tail) side of the stringer so I suspect that was also done by our team.  I wasn't there.  I can ask the guys if they remember removing this piece.

And, are the holes the size for a 3/32" #3 rivet like 2-2-V-1, or are they larger due to where it was in the aircraft? If the holes are #3 size, it implys 0.032" skin was attached.

Yep.  Definitely size #3 holes.  Exactly like the holes in 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on February 15, 2014, 01:48:37 PM
I was there, but I don't remember any of us actually prying pieces off to bring back.  We were asked to bring some samples back with the blue tint just so we could try to figure out what it was.

Keep in mind that the Idaho Electra was salvaged for the aluminum, so hardly any pieces of aluminum remain at all, and I can imagine that the salvage operations did a bit of prying and dismantling.

Andrew
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 15, 2014, 04:20:20 PM
A little background on the history of aluminum in aircraft construction.  I wrote this for a piece about 2-2-V-1 that never got published. Now that the artifact is on the front burner I thought I'd share it.


Pure aluminum is too soft for use in load-bearing airplane parts but in 1908 an alloy of aluminum was invented by German researcher Alfred Wilm that included four percent copper, one half percent magnesium and on half percent manganese.  Patented under the trade name “Duralumin”, the new metal was nearly as lightweight and significantly more robust than pure aluminum and could be heat treated for even greater strength.  In the years immediately prior to and during World War One, frames and girders of Duralumin made possible the construction of airships of unprecedented size by the Zeppelin Luftschiffbau.  Rendered as corrugated sheet, the metal had sufficient rigidity to be used in aircraft construction and, during the war, was featured in several all-metal German aircraft produced by the Junkers company. 

With Germany’s defeat, the Aluminum Company of America obtained the rights to Wilm’s patent and began producing the alloy under the designation “17S” and in its fully heat-treated form “17 S-T”.  The most notable use of corrugated ALCOA 17S-T sheet in post-war American aircraft was in the Ford Tri-motor series.   By the early 1930s the technique of “stressed skin” construction had been developed and in 1933 the Boeing 247 and Douglas DC-1 entered service with uncorrugated skins, rivets and supporting structures made of heat treated 17S-T. 

The same year ALCOA introduced an alloy that contained the same elements as the old Duralumin but in slightly different proportions. Designated “24S-T” the new product was significantly stronger and soon replaced 17S-T in most aircraft applications.  To combat corrosion, ALCOA used a previously developed technique in which a sheet of alloy was “clad” with a thin protective layer of corrosion-resistant pure aluminum bonded to each side.  The resulting sandwich was called Alclad.   Beginning in 1934, Alclad 24ST  became the most widely used material for skins on American aircraft.  Known as “2024 Alclad” since 1954, it is still commonly used in aluminum aircraft construction.  For that reason, metallurgists at ALCOA were not able to “date” samples taken from the artifact based upon its physical composition.

Lockheed’s Model 10 Electra made its maiden flight on February 23, 1934.  The following is an excerpt from the company’s 1936 sales literature:

“The principal material used in the construction of the Electra is Alclad 24ST, a high strength duralumin (aluminum alloy) with a protective coating of pure aluminum on each side 5 per cent of the total thickness of the sheet.  This is the most advanced type of aluminum alloy that has been developed. Although its aluminum coating renders Alclad highly resistant to corrosion, every part of the interior of the airplane is painted for further protection. All of the outside surface and most of the structural elements are of this material.”


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 15, 2014, 07:32:49 PM
I wondered if the location of artefact 2-2-V-1 on the fuselage might have some impact upon how it came to be separated from the aircraft. Between stations 269 and 293 in the fuselage there is the door void. Yes these areas are strengthened to compensate for the void however, metal fatigue has a tendency to begin at the edges of areas like this.
The Electra wasn’t a pressurised cabin so that wouldn’t be a factor in metal fatigue propagation so, what other action might reproduce the constant stresses needed to induce metal fatigue?
Waves?
Wave action exerting force on the tail section probably doesn’t have enough force to cause instantaneous damage to the fuselage but, a small force applied often enough? A gradual weakening of the area around stations 269 and 293 is a good candidate for giving way first as opposed to any other part of the fuselage.
How often would this small force be applied?
Wave frequency varies a lot due to a number of factors, weather, location being a couple but a good ball park figure is somewhere between 8 and 24 per minute so I’ll leave that for you to decide and just assign the letter V to this variable. Remember also that a wave action has two movements so you will need to double your chosen number and then insert it in place of the variable V.
V x 60 Mins x 24 Hrs x 365 Days
Thereby giving you the number of times annually that the area in question has been stressed. Using a wave count I did last summer at Bournemouth (whatever happened to summer?) of 7 per minute which I need to double to 14 before going any further gives…
14 x 60 x 24 x 365 = 7,358,400 times the area has been subjected to a slight stress in one year.
It’s only a theory as to why artefact 2-2-V-1 became separated from the rest of the airframe and, it’s obviously only my opinion but, open to all to comment.




Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 15, 2014, 08:45:12 PM
Finding a Fit…..

 IMHO, Artifact 2-2-V-1 may not fit the suggested area;

As mentioned;
 
A word of caution.  The overlay in that photo cannot be considered exactly to scale.  There are problems with perspective.  The photos of the artifact was taken from almost directly overhead and the photo of the belly structure of c/n 1052 is slightly oblique.  There is also the problem that the artifact was deformed when it was blown out.   The photo does show, however, that we're in the ballpark.  The actual match up might be even better.

Looking at this image, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:DSCN3623-overview-artifact.jpg it appears that the artifacts image may be roughly 75-80% of its actual size, as one can see by the tape measurements, it appears to be roughly 14-15 inches in width , in actuality the artifact  is 19 inches wide..23 inches in length , …..as noted, the image isn’t exact ,however ;if the artifacts  image were scaled to actual proportions  would not the rivet hole alignment shift?

This image http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7228;image shows us the belly pan stringer widths on the existing c/n 1052 Electra, (Lockheed technicians have in the past stated that the Earhart Electra had 3” rivet spacing here),.. note the stringers are about 4-4 1/4  inches apart outside edge to outside edge, again note that the tape shows a beginning rivet hole spacing at (half the width of the stringer)or ½” and ending at 3 and 3/4s….for a rivet hole spacing of 3 to 3 and 1/4”  inches….this evidence seems to back that statement by former Lockheed employees.

Artifact 2-2-V-1 in the image below has been described as having a 4 to 4 and1/4 rivet spacing width. This is verified by the dimensions noted.   
http://tighar.org/wiki/File:2-2-V-1_interior_CAD.png


As stated, it does not appear that there was damage to the stringers in this area, and it is assumed they were left as per original.

Any major repositioning of stringers would require special engineering drawings mentioned in the Repair Orders and approved by the Bureau of Air Commerce. Such drawings were mentioned in the Repair Orders for strengthening splices on the nacelle ribs (where the landing gear had failed) and the subject special engineering drawings are part of the repair record.  The Repair Orders call for replacement of the skin of which 2-2-V-1 seems to be a part but no drawings are mentioned, so we must presume that the stringers didn't move much, if at all.

That  said, wouldn’t we expect the replacement panel  here, to bear a 3 inch rivet spacing?
And correct me if I am wrong, but when I look at this artifact installed here on the starboard side , it seems the artifacts rivet spacing narrows at the wrong end ( if the panel were installed in that position), and if I am looking correctly at the image in its suggested position ,it seems that  the two exterior rivet lines close at the end designated as the nose end…the innermost line stays pretty consistent , as would be expected as it is almost center belly.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Adam Marsland on February 15, 2014, 10:15:46 PM
I have a question, forgive me if it's been addressed (I did look for it throughout this thread)?

I think you've got a pretty strong case that it's from AE's plane.  But does it support the Niku hypothesis directly?

I guess what I mean is:  could it have separated in a crashed-and-sank scenario and then washed up on shore?  99% of people looking at the AE controversy would agree that she most likely came to grief within, say, a 400 mile radius of Niku.  Could she have taken a dive somewhere around Baker and this bit of crash debris washed ashore, where natives scavanged and repurposed it?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 15, 2014, 11:43:01 PM
These photos of 2-2-V-1 were taken under low angle lighting to accentuate the bends, bows, wrinkles and dents.  It is one beat up piece of metal.
The notations of nose and tail reference how the piece appears to fit on NR12060.  We, of course, don't really know the nose/tail orientation of the piece but the rivet lines do taper slightly toward what was probably the tail.

The four edges of the piece have been numbered for ease of reference.
The labels on the two images are confusing. Look at the one labeled interior. The tab is on the left as viewed from what is labeled the nose edge. Shouldn't it be on the right as viewed from the nose in the interior? The tab should be on the keel right? I think the nose and tail are labeled wrong on both. See the 2 images along side the overlay you did on the upper right here (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1). Either the overlay is wrong or both of these images are labeled wrong.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
I wondered if the location of artefact 2-2-V-1 on the fuselage might have some impact upon how it came to be separated from the aircraft.

Yes, the location is probably significant but the only part of the artifact that failed from fatigue is the bent edge.  The bending back and forth that caused that edge to fail must have occurred after the other three edges fractured due to events involving great force.  In other words, the failure of three edges created a flap of skin that cycled back and forth due to either wave or humans action and ultimately failed from fatigue.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 08:43:22 AM
Could she have taken a dive somewhere around Baker and this bit of crash debris washed ashore, where natives scavanged and repurposed it?

Sheets of aluminum don't float worth a darn so in order for the piece to wash ashore anywhere it must have ended up in water shallow enough for wave action to move it - no deeper than about 50 feet would be a good guess.  Another indication that it was once in relatively shallow water are the spots of coral growth on the surface of the artifact.  Coral only grows in sunlit water.

All of the islands in the South Central Pacific are surrounded by reefs with steep slopes.  For the Electra to crash and sink in water shallow enough for non-buoyant wreckage to wash up onshore it would have to crash and sink right up tight to the island, but why would you crash and sink in the ocean right beside an island?
BTW, there were never any "natives" on Baker.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 16, 2014, 09:01:12 AM
Another indication that it was once in relatively shallow water are the spots of coral growth on the surface of the artifact.  Coral only grows in sunlit water.



So, Ric, how do you explain all that coral you see at depth 985 feet?

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 16, 2014, 09:21:11 AM
So, Ric, how do you explain all that coral you see at depth 985 feet?

This article (http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/InfoBull/SPB/SPB31_1_Baillard.pdf) explains that the volcano subsides over time (p. 9), carrying dead coral down with it as new coral grows where there is sufficient light and oxygen (the top 50 meters, p. 7).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 16, 2014, 09:43:06 AM
So, Ric, how do you explain all that coral you see at depth 985 feet?

This article (http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/InfoBull/SPB/SPB31_1_Baillard.pdf) explains that the volcano subsides over time (p. 9), carrying dead coral down with it as new coral grows where there is sufficient light and oxygen (the top 50 meters, p. 7).

Marty, I think you are completely misinterpreting what that article is saying. What subsides is that part of the volcano near the surface, not the entire cone that sits on the sea-bed. The coral then spreads inward towards where the center of the volcano was located, creating the roughly circular atoll, usually with some central lagoon.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 16, 2014, 10:05:43 AM
Marty, I think you are completely misinterpreting what that article is saying.

It's the author's fault.

He is the one who wrote, "During the volcano's period of activity, the ocean floor beneath it rose, probably as a result of the pressures associated with he fusion process which generates the lavas, but as soon as the volcano died, it started sinking under its own weight, a phenomenon called subsidence which, in this area, proceeds at a rate of 1 cm per hundred years."

You should write him and tell him that he completely misunderstands the reality of atoll formation.  Shame on him!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 10:10:16 AM
Finding a Fit…..

 IMHO, Artifact 2-2-V-1 may not fit the suggested area;

Okay.  Let's examine the facts upon which you base your opinion.

As mentioned;
 
A word of caution.  The overlay in that photo cannot be considered exactly to scale.  There are problems with perspective.  The photos of the artifact was taken from almost directly overhead and the photo of the belly structure of c/n 1052 is slightly oblique.  There is also the problem that the artifact was deformed when it was blown out.   The photo does show, however, that we're in the ballpark.  The actual match up might be even better.

Looking at this image, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:DSCN3623-overview-artifact.jpg it appears that the artifacts image may be roughly 75-80% of its actual size, as one can see by the tape measurements, it appears to be roughly 14-15 inches in width , in actuality the artifact  is 19 inches wide..23 inches in length , …..as noted, the image isn’t exact ,however ;if the artifacts  image were scaled to actual proportions  would not the rivet hole alignment shift?

Yes, but as I explained in the paragraph you quoted, scaling the photo to accurate proportions is not possible.  The overlay is an indication that the pattern is in the ballpark - nothing more.


This image http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7228;image shows us the belly pan stringer widths on the existing c/n 1052 Electra, (Lockheed technicians have in the past stated that the Earhart Electra had 3” rivet spacing here),.. note the stringers are about 4-4 1/4  inches apart outside edge to outside edge, again note that the tape shows a beginning rivet hole spacing at (half the width of the stringer)or ½” and ending at 3 and 3/4s….for a rivet hole spacing of 3 to 3 and 1/4”  inches….this evidence seems to back that statement by former Lockheed employees.

Artifact 2-2-V-1 in the image below has been described as having a 4 to 4 and1/4 rivet spacing width. This is verified by the dimensions noted.   
http://tighar.org/wiki/File:2-2-V-1_interior_CAD.png

The stringers on the Model 10 taper (converge) slightly.  The stringers between Station 269 5/8 and Station 293 5/8 are farther apart toward the nose than they are toward the tail.  So a statement by a former Lockheed employee that "the Earhart Electra had 3” rivet spacing" (presumably he meant stringer spacing) is a meaningless generalization. 

The rivet lines on the artifact also taper. Exactly how the taper of the implied stringers on the artifact compares to the taper on the Model 10 has not been reliably established due to the distorted dimensions of the artifact.  We're working on that. Comparison of the artifact to an existing Lockheed 10 by the former Lockheed employee you refer to was done from a Mylar template of the artifact we provided to Elgen Long in 1992.  We have only recently come to realize that the distorted shape of the artifact distorts any template made from it.  In short, Long's analysis of what he called "the Nikumaroro Fragment" was invalid.  We know the rivet pattern is close but we don't know how close.

As stated, it does not appear that there was damage to the stringers in this area, and it is assumed they were left as per original.

Any major repositioning of stringers would require special engineering drawings mentioned in the Repair Orders and approved by the Bureau of Air Commerce. Such drawings were mentioned in the Repair Orders for strengthening splices on the nacelle ribs (where the landing gear had failed) and the subject special engineering drawings are part of the repair record.  The Repair Orders call for replacement of the skin of which 2-2-V-1 seems to be a part but no drawings are mentioned, so we must presume that the stringers didn't move much, if at all.

That  said, wouldn’t we expect the replacement panel  here, to bear a 3 inch rivet spacing?

No, we would expect the stringer spacing on the repair to have a similar taper as the original construction.  If the artifact is part of that repair we would expect the implied stringers to have the same spacing and taper, allowing for the distortion in the artifact.


And correct me if I am wrong, but when I look at this artifact installed here on the starboard side , it seems the artifacts rivet spacing narrows at the wrong end ( if the panel were installed in that position), and if I am looking correctly at the image in its suggested position ,it seems that  the two exterior rivet lines close at the end designated as the nose end…the innermost line stays pretty consistent , as would be expected as it is almost center belly.

Here again, oblique photographs and graphics derived from tracings of the artifact are deceiving.  The measurements in the illustration at http://tighar.org/wiki/File:2-2-V-1_interior_CAD.png were done from a tracing and they don't match measurements I just made on the actual artifact.  These errors have haunted our evaluation of this artifact for years and we're just now sorting them out.

In the direct overhead photo attached you can see that the lines of rivets taper slightly from bottom to top just as they should if the bottom edge is toward the nose and the right edge is along the keel.   As you say, not much taper near the keel, more taper further out.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 16, 2014, 10:39:26 AM
Marty, I think you are completely misinterpreting what that article is saying.

"... but as soon as the volcano died, it started sinking under its own weight, a phenomenon called subsidence which, in this area, proceeds at a rate of 1 cm per hundred years."



I calculate that would be 7.6 millimeters since Earhart arrived at Niku.

And it would take that coral 3,000,000 years at that rate to reach 985 feet (300 meters).

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Chris Johnson on February 16, 2014, 10:52:16 AM
There is cold water coral that has been found growing at 3000m.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 16, 2014, 11:25:11 AM
Here is a sketch I hope helps to explain the image orientation better.
Note the nose and tail were not labeled correctly on the images and may have caused confusion.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 12:36:50 PM
Note the nose and tail were not labeled correctly on the images and may have caused confussion.


Thanks Greg.  You're right.  My bad.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Mellon on February 16, 2014, 01:04:48 PM
There is cold water coral that has been found growing at 3000m.

Sure, Chris, but I don't think anyone is seeing these at 985 feet.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The topic of this thread is Artifact 2-2-V-1. It's a serious subject.  I will remove off-topic postings and put the posters on moderation.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 01:20:29 PM
We had to cancel our trip to the New England Air Museum today due to ice covered taxiways and runways at our departure airport. 
Bummer.  I was hoping to collect more data from c/n 1052.  We'll reschedule once the Pleistocene Ice Sheet recedes north of the Canadian border.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Adam Marsland on February 16, 2014, 02:01:37 PM
Could she have taken a dive somewhere around Baker and this bit of crash debris washed ashore, where natives scavanged and repurposed it?

Sheets of aluminum don't float worth a darn so in order for the piece to wash ashore anywhere it must have ended up in water shallow enough for wave action to move it - no deeper than about 50 feet would be a good guess.  Another indication that it was once in relatively shallow water are the spots of coral growth on the surface of the artifact.  Coral only grows in sunlit water.

All of the islands in the South Central Pacific are surrounded by reefs with steep slopes.  For the Electra to crash and sink in water shallow enough for non-buoyant wreckage to wash up onshore it would have to crash and sink right up tight to the island, but why would you crash and sink in the ocean right beside an island?
BTW, there were never any "natives" on Baker.

I know that.  I wasn't suggesting natives on Baker would scavenge aluminum parts and throw them back in the water to later wash up at Niku to be scavenged again.  I just used Baker as a hypothetical area for a crashed and sank scenario.  I suppose I should have said, more precisely, settlers on Nikumaroro would have scavenged them after they washed ashore (and did, the one fact that is known).

Thanks for the clarification.  The bouyancy factor was not clear to me.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 16, 2014, 02:18:07 PM
We'll reschedule once the Pleistocene Ice Sheet recedes north of the Canadian border.

Our local paper ran a story today that this was the coldest winter in like three decades here ... I could have made it through the day without knowing that *peers outside and ice-encrusted skating rink, I mean parking lot*

LTM, who prefers ice in umbrella drinks,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

P.S. - what does that have to do with 2-2-V-1? Nothing, except to point out that TIGHAR won't even let global climate change get in the way of finding out the truth  ;D
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 16, 2014, 02:51:29 PM
There is cold water coral that has been found growing at 3000m.

Understood.

I saw information about the cold water coral.

It is not the kind of coral that creates atolls.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 16, 2014, 03:51:04 PM
Ric said, above; "...Sheets of aluminum don't float worth a darn so in order for the piece to wash ashore anywhere it must have ended up in water shallow enough for wave action to move it - no deeper than about 50 feet would be a good guess.  Another indication that it was once in relatively shallow water are the spots of coral growth on the surface of the artifact.  Coral only grows in sunlit water."
Here (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121803-Are-These-Aircraft-Parts-I-Have-Found) is a bunch of posts in a completely different aircraft forum that shows examples of crashed WWII aircraft parts that washed up onto beaches.  The ocean has the ability to move objects from deep water up onto the shore, and relatively light objects with large areas for currents to act upon, such as sheets of aluminum, are more likely to appear than dense heavy objects, although there are examples of those, too.
The point Ric makes about coral growth is a clear indication that the object definitely spent some time at shallow depth, but it also might have spent some previous time at some greater depth.
An entertaining and related book about Flotsam, Jetsam and Lagan ("Goods or wreckage lying on the bottom of the sea") is "Washed Up: the curious journeys of Flotsam and Jetsam" (S. Moody, 2006)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 16, 2014, 04:16:27 PM

  Another indication that it was once in relatively shallow water are the spots of coral growth on the surface of the artifact.  Coral only grows in sunlit water.


Would this noted coral growth present on the 2-2-V-1 panel ,... disqualify it as having been repurposed by the british colony settlement for cooking fish upon it? I don't know how long it takes for coral to form on metal, however if the colony used this perticular piece and abandoned it somewhat later , it would have had to have been repatriated with the ocean once again , and given time underwater for the growth to occur and then again wash up on shore before being once again rediscovered by Pat in the early 1990's.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 04:20:30 PM
The ocean has the ability to move objects from deep water up onto the shore, and relatively light objects with large areas for currents to act upon, such as sheets of aluminum, are more likely to appear than dense heavy objects, although there are examples of those, too.

The postings on the forum you cite do not support that statement.  They simply describe debris that has washed up on beaches.  No way to know how far they traveled or how deep they started.  I agree that objects with lots of surface area relative to their mass can travel with currents but I'm not aware of an example of a non-buoyant object being washed up on land from great depth.  Once something is down deeper than the effect of the largest waves, deep currents might move it but I don't know what force could bring it back up to thew surface. As far as I know there are no vertical currents in the ocean except maybe over volcanic vents.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 04:35:37 PM
Would this noted coral growth present on the 2-2-V-1 panel ,... disqualify it as having been repurposed by the british colony settlement for cooking fish upon it?

I don't see why.

I don't know how long it takes for coral to form on metal, however if the colony used this perticular piece and abandoned it somewhat later , it would have had to have been repatriated with the ocean once again , and given time underwater for the growth to occur and then again wash up on shore before being once again rediscovered by Pat in the early 1990's.

Thanks.  I hadn't thought of that.  That could explain why the piece shows signs of being salvaged and used for cooking but when Pat found it in 1991 it certainly gave the impression of something that had washed up in the storm that hit the island between our first and second visits.   Possible timeline - 1937; piece gets torn off aircraft:  1942 or thereabouts; piece washes up and gets put to use: 1963; when island gets evacuated the piece gets dumped back in the ocean in or just outside the landing channel:  1989 storm washes the piece back up on pan where we find it 1991.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 16, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
This is the belly of c/n 1052 in the subject area.  As far as we know this is original construction.  I believe these are all #3 rivets but I can verify that when I'm at there New England Air Museum on February 16.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7219;image

I was wondering if the skinners (crew who installed the AL clad panels) would always begin by skinning the same side of each new unit and overlap each plane the same. ...if the belly of the Electra is the same as this example, would the keel portion depicted on the artifact ( placed as thought) be the under lap layer of skin?

I was still wondering as to this....Do you have any belly pictures of existing electras that may show this laping method?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 16, 2014, 06:20:21 PM
This is the belly of c/n 1052 in the subject area.  As far as we know this is original construction.  I believe these are all #3 rivets but I can verify that when I'm at there New England Air Museum on February 16.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7219;image

I was wondering if the skinners (crew who installed the AL clad panels) would always begin by skinning the same side of each new unit and overlap each plane the same. ...if the belly of the Electra is the same as this example, would the keel portion depicted on the artifact ( placed as thought) be the under lap layer of skin?

I was still wondering as to this....Do you have any belly pictures of existing electras that may show this laping method?

I must not be understanding you. The photo you linked to is a photo of an existing Electra (c/n 1052) that shows the skins lapped at the keel.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 16, 2014, 07:42:04 PM
[I was wondering if the skinners (crew who installed the AL clad panels) would always begin by skinning the same side of each new unit and overlap each plane the same. ...if the belly of the Electra is the same as this example, would the keel portion depicted on the artifact ( placed as thought) be the under lap layer of skin?

 I didn't quite word that correctly , I meant would the remaining tab (with the three 5/32nds rivet holes) that extends accross the keel line on the artifact....would,that be under the port side panel if all electras were skinned in like manner?  In other words does the interior side of the port panel always overlap the exterior side of the starboard panel (when viewed from outside)?

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 16, 2014, 11:14:06 PM
Here is a sketch I hope helps to explain the image orientation better.
Note the nose and tail were not labeled correctly on the images and may have caused confusion.

Greg,
I tried drawing some lines down the rivet patterns to try to determine the direction of spread, whether they drift to port or starboard as they proceed aft, ... the overhead photo does prove to be a challange...inconclusive to me ....the drawing shows a merging of the rivet pattern as it proceeds aft, this is also evident along the rivet line closest to the keel line as well,....it seems confusing ,maybe a new drawing is in order? I still question the purported positioning of the panel here ,due to the rivet spacing...even allowing for the panels distorted shape , I think it would be hard to fit the artifacts 4" rivet spacing onto the stringers if they were indeed 3 " apart on center....If the rivet pattern does prove to expand outward as one moves aft , what prevents one from rotating the panel 180 degrees clockwise and moving it toward the nose?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 17, 2014, 08:36:23 AM
Here is a sketch I hope helps to explain the image orientation better.
Note the nose and tail were not labeled correctly on the images and may have caused confusion.

Greg,
I tried drawing some lines down the rivet patterns to try to determine the direction of spread, whether they drift to port or starboard as they proceed aft, ... the overhead photo does prove to be a challange...inconclusive to me ....the drawing shows a merging of the rivet pattern as it proceeds aft, this is also evident along the rivet line closest to the keel line as well,....it seems confusing ,maybe a new drawing is in order? I still question the purported positioning of the panel here ,due to the rivet spacing...even allowing for the panels distorted shape , I think it would be hard to fit the artifacts 4" rivet spacing onto the stringers if they were indeed 3 " apart on center....If the rivet pattern does prove to expand outward as one moves aft , what prevents one from rotating the panel 180 degrees clockwise and moving it toward the nose?
I noticed some dimensions strings did not click to the rivet holes in that exhibit showing dimensions for the rivet lines. I thought something was not right about it, but remember what Ric said in Reply 147
“The measurements in the illustration at http://tighar.org/wiki/File:2-2-V-1_interior_CAD.png were done from a tracing and they don't match measurements I just made on the actual artifact.  These errors have haunted our evaluation of this artifact for years and we're just now sorting them out.”

The sketch I did before was just to help clear up a conflict with an exhibit and what was being said, so we can all understand what the theory is and be on the same page in questioning it.

I did my own sketch just to check the taper. Note it is NOT TO SCALE. It’s a photo and I was not trying to determine the size of anything. Only the taper direction.
I picked the middle portion to check. (It seemed the tears on the ends could have even more distortion) Per this sketch they taper so they are closer as they go to the tail.
(The “Tail” is as oriented in the latest hypothesized location)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 08:59:36 AM
 The lines do seem to taper in the "right" direction if our hypothesis about the placement of the artifact on Earhart's Electra is correct.  If they tapered the other way it would not be possible to put the line of larger rivets and the "tab" on the keel and it's hard to see how the larger rivets would be anywhere else.  Put another way, for this artifact to come from where we think it did, the lines MUST taper in the direction they do.

Such general characteristics are important but, as we've seen, the distortion of the piece caused by the damage makes getting accurate detailed measurement of the implied stringer spacing and taper really difficult.  We're going to need better tools than we have applied so far.  The FAA's Aris Scarla tells me there is imaging software that can "undamaged" rumpled airplane wreckage.  I'll see if he can point us toward someone who can do that for us.   
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 17, 2014, 09:28:58 AM
Has 2-2-V-1 been subjected to various light wave lengths to see if there are any ghost images on it?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 09:31:43 AM
Has 2-2-V-1 been subjected to various light wave lengths to see if there are any ghost images on it?

No.  What kind of light waves and what kind of ghost images might be revealed.

(Who ya gonna call?)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 17, 2014, 09:54:37 AM
Has 2-2-V-1 been subjected to various light wave lengths to see if there are any ghost images on it?

No.  What kind of light waves and what kind of ghost images might be revealed.

(Who ya gonna call?)

Should have said light wave lengths and ghosted. - perhaps would reveal markings that have been removed  by wear or environment, potential evidence of structure to which it was attached. Don't assume that just because you can't see it that it isn't there.

The example that comes to mind is that serial numbers are visible under ultra violet light (or is it a different wave length?) on guns that have had them filed off.   
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 17, 2014, 09:57:09 AM
[I was wondering if the skinners (crew who installed the AL clad panels) would always begin by skinning the same side of each new unit and overlap each plane the same. ...if the belly of the Electra is the same as this example, would the keel portion depicted on the artifact ( placed as thought) be the under lap layer of skin?

 I didn't quite word that correctly , I meant would the remaining tab (with the three 5/32nds rivet holes) that extends accross the keel line on the artifact....would,that be under the port side panel if all electras were skinned in like manner?  In other words does the interior side of the port panel always overlap the exterior side of the starboard panel (when viewed from outside)?

My thoughts concerning this; .....If this artifact were on the starboard side and it's port side edge was tucked under it's port side neighbors starboard edge, would there be any telling marks that indicated this, such as lack of any rivet head dimpling or rivet head impression,etc. Upon separation from the larger sheet, I am trying to visualize the scenario, that would leave the remaining tab on the artifact in the manner it appears....if force from above pushed this panel out, would the tab be bent in an upwards position, would rivet holes be enlongated somewhat (port to starboard), and would the wave action on the port side of the artifact ,differ, if the overlapping of the belly panels are reversed? I believe so.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 09:57:14 AM
The example that comes to mind is that serial numbers are visible under ultra violet light (or is it a different wave length?) on guns that have had them filed off.   

Should be easy enough to get an ultra-violet light and take a look.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 17, 2014, 10:10:12 AM
Hi All

You all probably read this page before, link http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/static/media/transcripts/2011-05-21/706_ameliaearhart.pdf

I found the part about certain amounts of other metals added to strengthen alloy

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 10:26:01 AM
You all probably read this page before

Nothing new there.  Terrible show.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 17, 2014, 12:36:55 PM
What were the floor boards in AE’s plane like in the belly area near the door?
 The floor boards in this plane(see attached pdf) seem to be attached by a few screws in the keel and at a strip at the side walls. 
 If one of the floor panels or part of a floor panel exposed a small part of the exterior skin from the inside it may have allowed a wave to hit a small exposed area. Causing a center part of an aluminum panel to break out by an isolated force
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 12:47:01 PM
What were the floor boards in AE’s plane like in the belly area near the door?

As far as I know they were linoleum-covered plywood panels that were attached to the underlying structure with screws just as in other Electras.


 
 
 If one of the floor panels or part of a floor panel exposed a small part of the exterior skin from the inside it may have allowed a wave to hit a small exposed area. Causing a center part of an aluminum panel to break out by an isolated force

That seems like a possibility.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 17, 2014, 03:54:49 PM

I meant would the remaining tab (with the three 5/32nds rivet holes) that extends accross the keel line on the artifact..
Upon separation from the larger sheet, I am trying to visualize the scenario, that would leave the remaining tab on the artifact in the manner it appears....

See sketch for what I was thinking about the tab. The "tab" fails at 2nd row of rivets because the skin gets more pushed out from the keel there. The rivets farther from the center shear at the first row because the skin is tighter to the keel there. (the rivets and and deformation are exaggerated for clarity) Kind of a sketchy thought and drawing.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 17, 2014, 03:57:54 PM
Sorry for Change off subject guys

Ric have you seen this picture of Norwich City before ?

(http://reardonsmithships.co.uk/images/norwichcity1002.jpg)

Website link http://reardonsmithships.co.uk/norwichcity1002.php

If so do you know when it was took ?

Feel free to remove from discussion when you have read it

Thanks
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 04:41:47 PM
Ric have you seen this picture of Norwich City before ?

No.

If so do you know when it was took ?

She's intact, back not broken.  My guess is that the photo was taken from one of the rescue ships (SS Trongate or SS Lincoln Ellsworth) just days after the accident.
Very cool!  Great find!  But I was just reminded that Bruce Thomas posted that photo last summer.  Dunno how I missed it.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bruce Thomas on February 17, 2014, 05:51:22 PM
Dunno how I missed it.

Ric, if you check your diary for the day I posted my link to that old picture (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,557.msg25201.html#msg25201) of Norwich City (6/11/2013), you'll recall you were heavily distracted by a certain development.  ;D
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 17, 2014, 06:28:52 PM

I meant would the remaining tab (with the three 5/32nds rivet holes) that extends accross the keel line on the artifact..
Upon separation from the larger sheet, I am trying to visualize the scenario, that would leave the remaining tab on the artifact in the manner it appears....

See sketch for what I was thinking about the tab. The "tab" fails at 2nd row of rivets because the skin gets more pushed out from the keel there. The rivets farther from the center shear at the first row because the skin is tighter to the keel there. (the rivets and and deformation are exaggerated for clarity) Kind of a sketchy thought and drawing.

Greg,
Is the port side panel lapped over the starboard panel on earhart's electra?   Wouldn't one see some enlongation of the three starboard side 2nd row rivet holes that remain, ( caused by rivet shank) and possibly see the tab bent in a more upward position...of course after being scavaged it may have been bent back to it's original position, however it seems all other bends on the panel remain. Again it is assumed that the rivet heads popped off upon separation, this would include the larger 5/32nds as well?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 17, 2014, 07:44:22 PM
I don't think the edge with the larger rivets failed at the same time or in the same way as the two fractured edges. I think I know why the tab is not bent up.  I think that edge failed before any of the other edges and from an entirely different type of force.
Note the odd scalloped pattern - the little wave shapes between the torn rivet holes. Have you  ever seen that pattern in any other wreck? I have, but only once. I can show you that exact pattern of failure where two skins were lapped and stitched with a double row of rivets, and it's very apparent why it failed the way it did.
I'll put up a posting with photos tomorrow.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 18, 2014, 10:43:13 AM




Greg,
Is the port side panel lapped over the starboard panel on earhart's electra?
From looking at the picture of another Electra I think so. See sketch for my understanding to date (which may be wrong)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 18, 2014, 12:40:58 PM

Greg,
Is the port side panel lapped over the starboard panel on earhart's electra?
[/quote]
From looking at pictures I thinks so. See sketch for my understanding to date (which may be wrong)
[/quote]

Maybe this topic was covered, however; what was the original thickness of the skin in the artifacts purported position?, ( I thought someone mentioned 0.40 here ). If the port side wasn't replaced, would the procedure be to match the thickness of the adjoining overlapping/underlapping panel? As earhart's plane was repaired at Lockheed, one would assume original thickness material would be readily available.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 18, 2014, 01:14:38 PM
Maybe this topic was covered, however; what was the original thickness of the skin in the artifacts purported position?

Um, the whole excitement about 2-2-V-1 began with the recognition that the original thickness of the material and the size of the rivets matched the original thickness and size of the skin in that area.  Ric explained this in the fourth post in this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29750.html#msg29750).

Before we wander off further into fantasy about what Lockheed "would have done," let me note further that the artifact is made out of the kind of Alclad that was used by Lockheed in repairing aircraft.  "Complete examples of this same size and style of lettering (ALCLAD 24S T3) have been noted on aluminum used in repairs or modifications to two surviving Lockheed 10s: c/n 1015, recently rebuilt as a replica of Earhart’s aircraft and currently registered NX72GT, and c/n 1052 in the New England Air Museum collection" ("[L10] Aircraft Skin") (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html).

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 18, 2014, 01:57:13 PM

Note the odd scalloped pattern - the little wave shapes between the torn rivet holes. Have you  ever seen that pattern in any other wreck? I have, but only once. I can show you that exact pattern of failure where two skins were lapped and stitched with a double row of rivets, and it's very apparent why it failed the way it did.


It looks like a tensile failure within the sheet.  Specifically, it looks like the keel was fixed (in the stationary, not repaired, sense) and that the sheet was pulled laterally away from it (to starboard).  The fracture started at the front and travelled from a rivet hole back into the piece until it hit another hole or the perpendicular stresses exceeded the parallel ones and the fracture line changed direction accordingly, zigging back outward in the direction of the pull. 

Try pulling a piece of newsprint apart (top half from bottom half).  I bet you'll get some tears that are nearly right angled at the tip, similar to the sawtooth pattern at the back of the artifact.  Very different from the fatigue-looking (piecewise linear) failures on the forward and aft edges.

Given a certain combination of aircraft position, surf conditions and timing, a wave coming through an open door and impacting the interior of section 269 might load that area in such a way as to produce high tensile loads in the skin.  Enough to yank it away from the double row of #5 rivets that should have been there holding it to the keel?  Maybe.

There should have been additional material both forward and aft of the artifact for it to have reached the formers where it would have been attached.  The stringers in this area seem to have passed through the formers intact, so the repair skin might have extended forward to the next former, but the skin went to .025 thickness (as built) aft of 293, so if the repair matched the existing construction, there would only have been a couple inches of new skin aft of the tear.

Perhaps that section of the airframe was split in half early on and the artifact was then beaten out of the remains of the starboard side over time.  That gives you a tensile fracture on the keel edge and fatigue on the remainder. 

I'm still skeptical about the heads being blown off the #3 rivets without distorting the holes, but I'm more skeptical about someone removing the rivets afterward without more evidence of tool scratches or other damage.  The first one is easy to test, the second is akin to proving a negative.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 18, 2014, 03:19:46 PM
The NTSB Report referenced (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html) did note that “the fracture geometry along the line of 5/32 rivet holes is consistent with tearing separations in both directions away from the area of the intact holes” But why are there “ 3 undamaged holes in the tab” along the same line where these forces caused tearing at the other holes? Interested to see the pictures of something similar. The odd things sometimes turn into the best clues
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 18, 2014, 05:55:22 PM
You guys are really sharp. I'm impressed. Here are the photos I promised.

On May 7, 1942  New Zealand Union Airways Lockheed 10A ZK-AFE, in cloud on a routine flight from Wellington to Nelson, struck a nearly vertical rock face on Mount Richmond at the 5,100 foot level. The pilot, copilot, and three passengers died on impact.
In 2004, New Zealand TIGHAR member Howard Alldred chartered a helicopter and visited the remote and relatively untouched crash site.  Howard made an extensive photographic record of the wreckage.  One of his photos shows the upper surface of the right wing outboard of the engine (faint remnants of the last two letters of the registration number are still visible). 
During the crash, the inverted right wing apparently glanced off a rock (the scar of the impact is clearly evident) causing a tear along a double row of rivets where two skins overlap.  The similarity to the tear on 2-2-V-1 is obvious.   
So to get this kind of failure you need to impart a powerful lateral force 90° to the rivet line.  The only way I can think of for that to happen along the keel is if the airplane is on its belly and being driven forcefully sideways across a hard surface.  If the belly tears open in one area and that area is later subjected to breaking waves, the weakened skin (no longer supported along the keel) could fracture.
I think the failure pattern on 2-2-V-1 fits the independently derived hypothesis for what happened to the airplane on the reef to an uncanny degree. But that's just me.


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 18, 2014, 06:26:53 PM
So the plane is being pushed to starboard, and the overlap of the port panel snags and pulls up at the 3 rivets over what will be the tab? Maybe just before the main tearing at the double row edge?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 18, 2014, 08:03:32 PM
So the plane is being pushed to starboard, and the overlap of the port panel snags and pulls up at the 3 rivets over what will be the tab? Maybe just before the main tearing at the double row edge?

Possibly. This piece of metal is telling us a story. We just need to be sure we're hearing it right.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 18, 2014, 08:53:36 PM
"tearing separations in both directions away from the area of the intact holes" points to the tearing starting in the area of the tab and working out from there.. Seems to fit the plane sliding on the reef sideways and a spur catching the keel area at or near the tab. The same spur possibly pops off a few of the 1st row rivets so those 3 tab holes were undamaged.
The corrosion opposite the tab is interesting but it originated from the inside. Don't know if that tells us anything. It might say more if it originated on the outside. Possibly being due to its protective layer getting scratched off.
Another thought is a water blast thru a hole now in the belly could pop out a floor board.

Recently I tried to scrape off some old hard linoleum glue and it's amazing how much force can be directed up from a thin scraper edge hitting something not movable. I'm thinking that exposed edge at the port panel could direct a lot of force down the panel if it hit even an 1/8" high ledge
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 18, 2014, 09:53:01 PM
 
[?] Aluminum Comb (TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-5) 
Date Found:
Materials analysis:
Report date:
 October 1991 during TIGHAR’s NIKU II expedition.
NTSB
March 5, 1990
 
Description: The comb is crudely formed with parallel saw cuts separating the teeth. It is 3 and 7/8 inches long by 1 and 3/8 inches wide and is made from 0.032 Alclad sheet. Three 3/32 inch diameter holes are nominally spaced 1 and 7/8 inches apart.   Condition: Although broken, the comb exhibits little or no damage from corrosion. 
Commentary: The fashioning of such combs from aircraft aluminum was not uncommon in post-war Polynesia. Combs are specifically mentioned in the one account we have of the local use made of the crash at Sydney Island. When shown a photograph of this artifact, a former resident of Nikumaroro attributed it to the Sydney crash. Nowhere on a Lockheed 10 are #3 rivets found spaced 1 7/8 inches apart in 0.032 skin.   


Is this artifact of the same exact material we are seeing on artifact 2-2-V-1, .. it has been ruled out as a piece of the electra.. (in the past).... do we re-examine it?...if still dis-regarded as an electra piece where ( if not from Sydney) and from what plane did this 0.032 alclad come from?  
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 05:58:58 AM
Is this artifact of the same exact material we are seeing on artifact 2-2-V-1,

Yes, but virtually all American all-metal aircraft in the WWII period were made of that material.

.. it has been ruled out as a piece of the electra.. (in the past).... do we re-examine it?

Always willing to re-examine any artifact if there is reason to suspect there is more to learn.

...if still dis-regarded as an electra piece where ( if not from Sydney) and from what plane did this 0.032 alclad come from?

How would you propose to find out?  .032 ALCLAD is ubiquitous, as are #3 size rivet holes. The long pitch suggests non-load bearing structure.  We have no idea what style of rivet was originally in the piece.  What could we possibly learn that would be of benefit?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 19, 2014, 08:40:51 AM
Illustrations have shown a portion of the port side receiving new skin
I can’t find a copy of the Lockheed repair report. Only references to it.  Can someone direct me to it?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
Illustrations have shown a portion of the port side receiving new skin
I can’t find a copy of the Lockheed repair report. Only references to it.  Can someone direct me to it?

Attached are the best copy we have of the microfilmed repair documents (hard to read) and what we believe to be an accurate transcription of the repair orders pertaining to the fuselage. 

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 19, 2014, 11:01:53 AM
I’m not sure of how item 7 of the repair report is to be interpreted. Attached are two interpretations regarding the 8” on left side. One has the 8” a separate piece and one has the 8”as a continuation of the right side repair skin.
Since it was noted that repair directions were not followed elsewhere(near the cockpit) can this repair be verified by any photographs?
I’m wondering if it makes sense for the 2nd string of 5/32" holes to tear along the rivet line or if they were close to an edge would they tend to tear thru to the edge instead. The photo you provided seemed to show something like that in the adjacent skin.
Edit:The tab is so narrow it may not have enough support from adjacent skin to pull the 2nd row holes near it thru to an edge

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 19, 2014, 12:34:50 PM
I’m not sure of how item 7 of the repair report is to be interpreted. Attached are two interpretations regarding the 8” on left side. One has the 8” a separate piece and one has the 8”as a continuation of the right side repair skin.
Since it was noted that repair directions were not followed elsewhere(near the cockpit) can this repair be verified by any photographs?
I’m wondering if it makes sense for the 2nd string of 5/32" holes to tear along the rivet line or if they were close to an edge would they tend to tear thru to the edge instead. The photo you provided seemed to show something like that in the adjacent skin.
Edit:The tab is so narrow it may not have enough support from adjacent skin to pull the 2nd row holes near it thru to an edge

Greg,

Your interpretation is as good as any, IMHO; your realization of how these orders might have been difficult to clearly understand also illustrates something important about what we may be seeing in 2-2-V-1:

Many things are possible, hence 2-2-V-1 becomes a more likely outcome of the repairs done to NR16020, IMO.

Far from definitively telling us what 2-2-V-1 "IS", or even that it 'can't be from' the Electra, we can easily see how 2-2-V-1 could emerge as we see it (the original planform, not damaged) from such a general outline of repairs.  On the surface one can argue that it is 'clear' that certain skins should be 'replaced' - but reading carefully it is clear that the intent was not necessarily entire, original skins - but skinned material - cutting and splicing in as fairly clearly stated in some cases, but easily as 'interpreted' in others.

We also see orders to straighten or replace certain members.  That sounds straightforward enough - but in a hurried (it was hurried for such a considerable repair given that this was apparently done in little more than a week) environment, lots of license can be taken.  'Sister' members may be applied where bent members are allowed to remain, etc.

We'd all like to think that Lockheed applied a production-quality effort to the skin / underlying members repair effort, but it isn't entirely possible to do that on sawhorses and in a week's time, where damaged stuff has to be straightened or removed, and new material formed and match-drilled.  In my experience it is inevitable that some deviation from standard spacing would have occurred, and the introduction of some sister (additional) members would be no surprise.

In sum, the 'order' leaves plenty of room for the oddly-fit piece we see in 2-2-V-1.  I realize that proves nothing - but consider that we're looking at a relatively bastardized (relative to original quality build of most any airframe) hand-fit piece that was clearly adapted to make-fit to a piece-repair need on some airframe.  While that is possible on many craft, I remain struck that we know of one particular craft that bore a repair scheme that could easily iinclude what we see in 2-2-V-1 - and now we're looking at the repair order that swings that door wide-open. 

The tidy 'orders' we see may actually well be more of a 'report' written out mostly after the fact to capture what the workmen did over several days of effort: in that shop environment it is necessary to have, for the record, a clear work order by which the effort would have proceeded.  Those are not always done so thoroughly in advance as one might assume. 

The orders are tidy enough - but they are clearly not so definitive as to rule out what we see in this artifact in the least.  Nor would I expect to find that much that truly closely conformed to the order: it isn't possible because the order is just not that crisply definitive IMO. 

It is in this way that the order speaks volumes in support of 2-2-V-1 very possibly being an NR16020 artifact IMO: it has to have been from a ship that was repaired in the manner suggested by this very document.  How many such ships came anywhere near Gardner / Niku?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 02:04:47 PM

I’m not sure of how item 7 of the repair report is to be interpreted. Attached are two interpretations regarding the 8” on left side. One has the 8” a separate piece and one has the 8”as a continuation of the right side repair skin.

That's an excellent illustration that presents the question very clearly.
 
Since it was noted that repair directions were not followed elsewhere(near the cockpit) can this repair be verified by any photographs?

Not that we've been able to find.  When the plane is parked on the ground it's impossible to see or photograph that area unless you're lying on your back under the airplane. You could photograph it when the plane is up on sawhorses but nobody seems to have done that.

I'm inclined to favor your Interpretation A.  Model 10 skins were cut and formed to standard shapes.  (See attached engineering drawings with numbered fuselage skins. For each skin there's a left and a right version.)
To comply with Repair Order #5 "Replace entire right hand bottom skin from slanting bulkhead to Sta. 293 5/8" the shop merely had to bring a couple of skins (25 1/2 R and 35 R) over from the factory floor.  Complying with Repair Order #7 "Replace inboard 8 inches of left hand bottom skin from main beam to Sta. 293 5/8. Lap old and new skins at stringer" by Interpretation B would involve cutting and forming two unique right-hand skins whereas Interpretation A would only involve trimming examples of 25 1/2 L and 35 L.  Which would you do - especially if you were in a hurry?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 02:29:26 PM
We'd all like to think that Lockheed applied a production-quality effort to the skin / underlying members repair effort, but it isn't entirely possible to do that on sawhorses and in a week's time,

To be clear, the repair of Earhart's plane took more than a week.  The ship arrived in Burbank in early April and was finished May 19. 
On May 14 it was estimated that the repairs would take another ten days but they got it done and inspected in five days.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 19, 2014, 02:38:41 PM

To comply with Repair Order #5 "Replace entire right hand bottom skin from slanting bulkhead to Sta. 293 5/8" the shop merely had to bring a couple of skins (25 1/2 R and 35 R) over from the factory floor.  Complying with Repair Order #7 "Replace inboard 8 inches of left hand bottom skin from main beam to Sta. 293 5/8. Lap old and new skins at stringer" by Interpretation B would involve cutting and forming two unique right-hand skins whereas Interpretation A would only involve trimming examples of 25 1/2 L and 35 L.  Which would you do - especially if you were in a hurry?
I would choose A
But in regards to order #5, Would bringing skin from the factory floor mean they would be the type of skin commonly used in repairs?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 02:53:28 PM
But in regards to order #5, Would bringing skin from the factory floor mean they would be the type of skin commonly used in repairs?

Good point.  I wish we knew more about Lockheed's production procedures at the time.  Come to think of it, they probably didn't have stacks of Electra skins sitting around.  The skins were more likely made up for each airplane as it was built.  If that's the case, the request from the shop would be "We need skins (X, Y, & Z) to repair c/n 1055."  The factory makes up the requested skin according to the standard specs but they use Reserve Stock because it's less expensive.
It seems to me that Interpretation B would be such a departure from the approved specs that a special engineering drawing would have to be made and approved (as they did with the nacelle ribs splices).
I think we're safe in assuming the repair was done as you've shown in Interpretation A.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 19, 2014, 03:00:47 PM

I’m not sure of how item 7 of the repair report is to be interpreted. Attached are two interpretations regarding the 8” on left side. One has the 8” a separate piece and one has the 8”as a continuation of the right side repair skin.

That's an excellent illustration that presents the question very clearly.
 
Since it was noted that repair directions were not followed elsewhere(near the cockpit) can this repair be verified by any photographs?

Not that we've been able to find.  When the plane is parked on the ground it's impossible to see or photograph that area unless you're lying on your back under the airplane. You could photograph it when the plane is up on sawhorses but nobody seems to have done that.

I'm inclined to favor your Interpretation A.  Model 10 skins were cut and formed to standard shapes.  (See attached engineering drawings with numbered fuselage skins. For each skin there's a left and a right version.)
To comply with Repair Order #5 "Replace entire right hand bottom skin from slanting bulkhead to Sta. 293 5/8" the shop merely had to bring a couple of skins (25 1/2 R and 35 R) over from the factory floor.  Complying with Repair Order #7 "Replace inboard 8 inches of left hand bottom skin from main beam to Sta. 293 5/8. Lap old and new skins at stringer" by Interpretation B would involve cutting and forming two unique right-hand skins whereas Interpretation A would only involve trimming examples of 25 1/2 L and 35 L.  Which would you do - especially if you were in a hurry?

"A" makes far more sense - "B" would require more work as I see it than following the original build plan.

I am amazed at how light the structure of the L10 was - .025" belly skin aft of Sta. 293 5/8 is lighter than I would have guessed.  Now the .032" makes sense in the transition from .040" up front.  I had previously (before this string / until recently) labored under an understanding that the .040" skins reached back to 293 5/8, thence going to .032" aft - not so, obviously.

Thanks for the clarification on repair time.  This would have been a great deal of work to do in a week.  That said, that it was finished as it was after the first written estimate (5 days vs. 10 days) is still 'impressive' - and suggests much the same question as to just what the details were.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 04:42:13 PM
The following are the text and photos of an inquiry I have sent to the head of a major U.S. air museum's restoration shop who has promised to put the questions I've raised to his restoration and research staff.  None of the individuals is a member of TIGHAR and, as far as I know, neither the museum nor the shop has an agenda in the matter of the Amelia Earhart disappearance.

**********
We found a section of aluminum sheet on Nikumaroro, the South Pacific island where we think Amelia Earhart landed her Lockheed Model 10E Electra after failing to find Howland Island her intended destination.  A considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests that the plane was landed safely on the island's fringing reef - the reef is flat and smooth and dries at low tide - but after several days was washed into the ocean by rising tides and destroyed in the surf.   We think the aluminum sheet we found on shore in the wash-up from a storm may be from her aircraft.  Note that none of the edges is a finished edge.  This is a chunk of sheet measuring roughly 18 by 26 inches that was blown out of a larger sheet.  According to Walter Korsgaard, chief FAA investigator on the PanAm 103 Lockerbie case, the failure was almost certainly caused by a volume of water impacting the interior (concave) side of the sheet. (It's easy to tell which side is exterior and which is interior because there is one surviving rivet.) There is a wealth of information in this artifact about the nature of the failure but our first concern is to determine, to the extent we can, what airplane it came from.  That's where we hope you can help.
Attached photos 2-2-V-1 convex.jpg  and 2-2-V-1 concave.jpg show the artifact as found.

The sheet appears to fit a particular location on the belly of Earhart's Electra that was repaired after the ground loop in Hawaii that ended her first world flight attempt, but because nobody knows exactly how the repairs were carried out, and there are no photos of the underside of the airplane in that location, there's no way to be sure.

Another way to attack the problem is to try to find an alternative explanation for where the sheet came from.  That's where I hope you and your staff can be of help. 


First let me review what we know for certain.  The National Transportation Safety Board Lab in
Washington and the ALCOA Aluminum Lab in Pittsburgh have examined and tested the artifact. Their findings are:
• The sheet is .032 2024 (formerly known as 24ST) ALCLAD 

• The surviving rivet is a 2117 AN455 brazier head 3/3 or AN456 3/3 modified brazier head.  Attached photo NTSB-rivet.jpg is from the NTSB report.

• The underlying structure to which the rivet was attached was approximately  .06 inch thick

• The lines of 3/32nd rivet holes have a pitch of 1 inch.

• The larger rivet holes along one edge imply the presence of a staggered double row of 5/32nd rivets with a pitch of 1.25 inches except for an irregularity at the "tab" (H in the NTSB photo).

• As shown in attached photo AD-on-skin.jpg, the letters AD are faintly visible on the surface of the sheet.  They are etched remnants of the original labeling applied by ALCOA.  The unique style (font) of the letters enabled ALCOA to identify the full designation as ALCLAD 24S – T3    AN - A – 13
Incidentally, the dark greenish material on the surface of the skin has been chemically tested.  It is organic, not paint.

• The labeling indicates that the sheet was manufactured by ALCOA not earlier than 1937 (when the T3 process was introduced) and not later than 1954 (when 24ST became 2024). The “13” signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction (i.e. repairs).
• Normally, the labeling is “rolled on” automatically as the sheet is manufactured and is aligned with the edges of the sheet.  According to sources at ALCOA the non-aligned labeling on 2-2-V-1 suggests that it was applied by hand-stamping which may indicate that it was part of a very early and small production run.

 
Please let us know whether you agree or disagree.with the following statements:

• The thickness of the sheet, the number and implied strength of underlying structures (presumably stringers) and the use of low-drag brazier head rivets are reliable indicators that the artifact was once part of the external, load-bearing skin of an all-metal aircraft.

• The ALCOA labeling and the dimple in the head of the surviving rivet are reliable indicators that the sheet is from a repaired section of an American aircraft.

• The general scale of the piece - #3 brazier head rivets in a .032 skin as primary structure - is not consistent with WWII vintage construction practices for fighter, bomber, or large transport aircraft.


Below is a list of known losses at or near Canton Island, the only airfield within 300 nautical miles of where the artifact was found.  Could the artifact have come from one of these types?

Consolidated       PBY-2
            PBY-5
            PBY-5A
            B-24M
            B-24J
            C-87
North American           PBJ
Bell            P-39
            P-39Q
Martin         PBM
Curtis         C-46D
Douglas         C-47A
Lockheed         PV-1
            749-A (1962 crash of an FAA Constellation at Canton)



Please don't hesitate to email or call with questions. 

Best regards,
Ric
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 19, 2014, 06:31:52 PM
I'm sorry but I'm having a really hard time swallowing the bit about "the failure was almost certainly caused by a volume of water impacting the interior (concave) side of the sheet."  How could anybody possibly have come to that conclusion without purposely applying an agenda to the object? Was it still wet when it was examined? There are other forces and materials that can cause metal to deform like that or even pop apart things that are connected to it: ya ever see a frozen can of soda?  A bloated can of veggies? etc. I really don't think you can know for certain what caused.  Maybe they DID carry an inflatable life raft and Fred pulled the cord before throwing it out the door, it inflated and blew the bottom out of the plane. Yeah, that's it.

All this talk focused force of water blowing out the panel, well it might be plausible and maybe even probable given the possible if not likely scenarios of what may have happened, but what ACTUAL evidence is there for what did it and how it was done it? Water marks? Seriously now.  All you have is a bent piece of metal, and really, all you can say about it is something at some point acted, possibly/probably forcefully, upon it to deform it from its assumed original shape.

I know there's a lot of grasping at straws and brainstorming trying to be helpful, I've done it myself, but get back to reality and stop projecting fantasy on the thing. 

Sorry if this has already been covered. I'll gladly admit chagrin and crawl back under my rock.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2014, 08:16:00 PM
All you have is a bent piece of metal, and really, all you can say about it is something at some point acted, possibly/probably forcefully, upon it to deform it from its assumed original shape.
 

This is the "it could be anything" argument.

If all anyone could say about a bent piece of metal is that something at some point acted, possibly/probably forcefully, upon it to deform it from its assumed original shape there would be no science of aircraft accident investigation.  Metallurgical analysis metal debris a specialized skill. I can't do it.  I don't have the background in metallurgy and failure analysis.   You can't do it or you wouldn't have made a statement like that.
We wanted to know if anyone could tell us how the sheet of aluminum got bowed out.  Did somebody hammer on it?  Was there an explosion? So we took the artifact to the best expert we could find.  Walter Korsgaard was the lead FAA investigator on the 1988 PanAM 103 Lockerbie crash.  In 2004 he was recently retired so he was able to give us his opinion without bureaucratic concerns.  We showed him the artifact in his suburban Washington, DC home.  After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push.  We asked if it could have been caused by an explosion.  After looking at it with a magnifying glass he said, "No. There is none of the telltale pitting from pinpoint pyrotechnic projectiles."   We asked him what kind of accident might cause such damage.  He said, "In flight breakup of an aircraft at very high speed, but these materials are not consistent with an aircraft capable of those speeds, or an airplane that was broken apart by moving water."

I know there's a lot of grasping at straws and brainstorming trying to be helpful, I've done it myself, but get back to reality and stop projecting fantasy on the thing. 
 

Your argument isn't with me, it's with Walter Korsgaard.  Unfortunately he died in 2011.  He was not a TIGHAR member and he was not particularly interested in Amelia Earhart. He didn't write a scholarly paper on 2-2-V-1. He was just a retired gentlemen who had been a top-notch aviation accident investigator who was kind enough welcome us into his home and give us his opinion.  I don't think he was grasping at straws or projecting any fantasies.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 19, 2014, 09:59:00 PM
"I am amazed at how light the structure of the L10 was - .025" belly skin aft of Sta. 293 5/8 is lighter than I would have guessed.  Now the .032" makes sense in the transition from .040" up front.  I had previously (before this string / until recently) labored under an understanding that the .040" skins reached back to 293 5/8, thence going to .032" aft - not so, obviously.

Thanks Jeff,
                 I thought I was alone in my understanding of where the 0.040 skin ended, thus my comments previously.


Another way to attack the problem is to try to find an alternative explanation for where the sheet came from.  That's where I hope you and your staff can be of help. 

It has been established that several examples of 0.032 alclad made their way to Gardner island,.. when and from where are still to be determined, ....is the comb older/newer than 2-2-V-1, are 2-2-V-1 and the comb both from the same donor plane,? one can only guess for now ..... ( true) artifact 2-2-V-1 does have identifiable markings, however; the comb has recorded witnesses stating their view as to where the source of the material to make such came from. If the source of the comb is indeed sydney,  couldn't the source of artifact 2-2-V-1 be from as far or further away, why are we limiting the range of donors to within 300 miles of gardner?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 19, 2014, 10:14:58 PM
I’m not sure of how item 7 of the repair report is to be interpreted. Attached are two interpretations regarding the 8” on left side. One has the 8” a separate piece and one has the 8”as a continuation of the right side repair skin.
Since it was noted that repair directions were not followed elsewhere(near the cockpit) can this repair be verified by any photographs?
I’m wondering if it makes sense for the 2nd string of 5/32" holes to tear along the rivet line or if they were close to an edge would they tend to tear thru to the edge instead. The photo you provided seemed to show something like that in the adjacent skin.
Edit:The tab is so narrow it may not have enough support from adjacent skin to pull the 2nd row holes near it thru to an edge

Greg ,
As per your drawing  repair method  A....the work order states that 8 inches of skin is to be replaced,.....does one take that to mean exact width ....if exact width 8" is used , starting at the keel overlap, 2" of material would be used up,....and when going to port until the 8" is used up, one sees he has covered the overlap portion, and two stringers: however the way my math adds up, the rivet lines would be at 1/2 inch, 1 and 1/2 inches, 4 and 1/2 inchs, and 7 and 1/2 inches.. In doing so, those numbers add up to correspond with Lockheeds 3 inch rivet spacing statement. My thought is they cut the undamaged upper panel ( the panel above the area to be replaced)...on the starboard side of the stringer ( maintaining it's full coverage of the stringer) , then tucked the repair piece in undeneath. In order to maintain a 4 inch rivet spacing as per the artifact, the port side repair sheet would have to be roughly 10-11 inches in width if it duplicated the rivet pattern on the artifacts purported position on the  starboard side ... Your thoughts?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 20, 2014, 05:23:14 AM
"Underwater implosion, the rapid collapse of a structure caused by external pressure, generates a pressure pulse in the surrounding water that is potentially damaging to adjacent structures or personnel."

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/81699/860901643.pdf?sequence=1 (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/81699/860901643.pdf?sequence=1)

Were there structures inside the fuselage that might have been a candidate?




Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 07:21:07 AM
It has been established that several examples of 0.032 alclad made their way to Gardner island,.. when and from where are still to be determined, ....is the comb older/newer than 2-2-V-1, are 2-2-V-1 and the comb both from the same donor plane,? one can only guess for now .....

There is not enough information on the comb to determine its origin.  That appears to be not the case with 2-2-V-1.

( true) artifact 2-2-V-1 does have identifiable markings, however; the comb has recorded witnesses stating their view as to where the source of the material to make such came from.

Remind me what "witness" said the comb came from the Sydney crash.  If you want to start taking anecdotal recollections as fact we can talk about all the stories told to American servicemen of "the downed plane" on Gardner that was alleged to be the source of aluminum being used by the locals.

If the source of the comb is indeed sydney,  couldn't the source of artifact 2-2-V-1 be from as far or further away, why are we limiting the range of donors to within 300 miles of gardner?

We used 300 miles because that encompasses all the known losses on and around Canton, the only area of wartime aerial activity in the region.  The crash at Sydney Island was a C-47 on a joyride out of Canton.  Cast the net as wide as you please.  Bring the piece of wreckage from Melbourne or San Diego if it makes you happy - but you have to tell us what kind of airplane it came from.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 07:55:57 AM
In doing so, those numbers add up to correspond with Lockheeds 3 inch rivet spacing statement.

I say again, there IS NO "Lockheed 3 inch rivet spacing statement."  There is a statement by a former Lockheed employee recruited by Elgen Long, the patron saint of Crashed & Sank.  The stringer spacing on Model 10s in the area in question is a matter of record and can be easily determined from existing examples of the aircraft and from the original engineering drawings. You're skating dangerously close to trollism.

In the attached photo of the belly of c/n 1052 note that the stringer spacing on each side of the keel is not symmetrical.  The first stringer to the right of the keel is measurably closer to the keel than is the first stringer to the left of the keel.  What is puzzling is that replacing the inboard eight inches of skin 35L as per the Repair Order doesn't seem to match up with the second stringer.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 20, 2014, 08:03:02 AM
Have Japanese aircraft been ruled out as possible sources?  There are none on your list - only US aircraft, but we know that US forces reported shooting down lots of Japanese aircraft in the Pacific.  Japan's stocks of US-made ALCLAD were presumably only delivered before the war, and I assume they did not have access to further new sources during the war, which further implies we would see only "early" runs of ALCLAD.  The one example from a Japanese flying boat wreck in New Guinea I mentioned in an earlier posting is an example of machine-stamped ALCLAD.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 08:04:28 AM
"Underwater implosion, the rapid collapse of a structure caused by external pressure, generates a pressure pulse in the surrounding water that is potentially damaging to adjacent structures or personnel."

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/81699/860901643.pdf?sequence=1 (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/81699/860901643.pdf?sequence=1)

Were there structures inside the fuselage that might have been a candidate?

The fuel tanks, but they're all well forward of the subject area.  If the tanks broke free as the plane sank nose first and piled up in the rear of the cabin and then imploded it might cause the kind of pressure pulse described. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 08:07:26 AM
Have Japanese aircraft been ruled out as possible sources?

It's not just the American aluminum.  The rivet is an American rivet (as evidenced by the dimple in the middle of the head).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 20, 2014, 08:11:03 AM
So we need to prove or disprove whether Japan used American rivets or not.  I hate to assume they bought US aluminum but didn't buy US rivets at the same time.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 08:19:32 AM
So we need to prove or disprove whether Japan used American rivets or not.  I hate to assume they bought US aluminum but didn't buy US rivets at the same time.

What Japanese aircraft did you have in mind?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 20, 2014, 08:46:36 AM


Greg ,
As per your drawing  repair method  A....the work order states that 8 inches of skin is to be replaced,.....does one take that to mean exact width ....if exact width 8" is used , starting at the keel overlap, 2" of material would be used up,....and when going to port until the 8" is used up, one sees he has covered the overlap portion, and two stringers: however the way my math adds up, the rivet lines would be at 1/2 inch, 1 and 1/2 inches, 4 and 1/2 inchs, and 7 and 1/2 inches.. In doing so, those numbers add up to correspond with Lockheeds 3 inch rivet spacing statement. My thought is they cut the undamaged upper panel ( the panel above the area to be replaced)...on the starboard side of the stringer ( maintaining it's full coverage of the stringer) , then tucked the repair piece in undeneath. In order to maintain a 4 inch rivet spacing as per the artifact, the port side repair sheet would have to be roughly 10-11 inches in width if it duplicated the rivet pattern on the artifacts purported position on the  starboard side ... Your thoughts?

What is meant by 8” may have been more obvious to someone doing the actual repairs and could see the damaged area.  Assuming a spacing of about 4” and that they said to lap it at the stringer could mean the nearest stringer plus or minus 8” away(the second one)and allow for any overlap. 
Note The photograph with the tape measure over it can be deceiving since the tape is on top of the keel and the stringers may be a few inches below, and the picture is taken at an angle. I plan on updating the stringer spacing when we get more information on that area.

The sketch was done to study not the spacing but the work order and the likely overlap at the keel. Two reasons:
1. Overlap at the keel means 3 sets of holes to line up at a double back to back C (seems hard to work with because the top of the C blocks good access from the inside). There could be some difficulty in getting a good hole for the rivets, hence a possible reason to widen them after getting them all as close as possible.(more of a question for me/us to be educated by experts who deal with that kind of detail in repair.
2. Study what would happen if the plane was dragged 90 degrees at the overlap. It seemed like doing that could cause the edge at the overlap to dig in. Maybe the seam pulls up and it pops rivets at a weak point. Something about the rivets being different at the tab may be a weak point and failed before other rivets. If the skin was pulled out at that point it could allow something even bigger to catch there and cause the tearing.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 20, 2014, 09:56:12 AM
Code AN-A-13 would represent the Army-Navy Aeronautical Standards (AN) for Aluminum (A) with Vol. 13 covering ALCLAD materials.

This standard was issued in the early 1940s.  See Aluminum in aircraft,  Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pa., Aluminum company of America. 1943.  (http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010085632)


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 20, 2014, 11:59:27 AM
Ric asks "What Japanese aircraft did you have in mind?"

I'd start with the Kawanishi "Emily" H8K:
<quote>23 October 1943  IJN  Kawanishi H8K "Emily"    Shot down by P-40s 70 miles south of Baker. Two other Emilies had previously been shot down by F-6-Fs from the light carrier USS Princeton CV-22 in the vicinity of Howland and Baker.  <end quote> from http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro here (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro).  Ric stated back in 2012 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg8717.html#msg8717), "There were no Japanese aircraft lost within about 800 miles of Gardner Island/Nikumaroro." so this might be worth taking a second look at.

Slightly further off topic, but see also To Save A Devastator, Japanese Aircraft (http://tighar.org/Projects/Devastator/surveyjapanese.htm).  It's too far from Niku to be considered (it's in the Marshall Islands). The photo of the upside-down float about half-way down the page shocked me.

If a serious look into Japanese aircraft as a possible source of 2-2-V-1 is deemed worthy of discussion, I think it should be moved to its own thread.
(this is a photo of part of the wrecked Mavis in New Guinea I mentioned earlier:) (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/mavis/MavisAlcad.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jay Burkett on February 20, 2014, 12:05:54 PM
I have held liaison engineer positions several times during my career.  Sometimes it is difficult to record every detail concerning a repair.  Work instructions that would indicate repair of 8" long damaged area may very well turn into a complete skin replacement if the material was available and/or it was quicker.  Whether an in-situ skin repair is made, or the skin panel is replaced, the original paperwork may not get corrected.  Engineering Orders (E.O.s) usually detailed damage and instructions to repair.  It is always acceptable to return the damaged structure to the original configuration.  If that is not possible, then a "standard" repair out of the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) is acceptable.  I don't have a clue if an SRM was available for that aircraft.  In either case no further instruction from the liaison engineer (hence additional detail) is required.  Only if the original condition cannot be restored, or if a standard repair could not be accomplished, would the E.O. be revised to get into the specifics of the repair.

Some folks get more into the details than others.  Also, note that this work order was typed.  That may have been Lockheed's practice at the time.  Over the years it became readily apparent that handwritten work orders usually were far more detailed than those that were typed.  Draftsmen, designers and engineers have not always been what you would call expert typists.  When this repair would have been done typing was probably handled by (please pardon the word) "secretaries".  As late as the late '90s, at the airline where I worked, engineers were discouraged from personally typing anything more lengthy than short notes.  What usually got passed to the typists turned out to be a brief as possible.  This is because you had to dictate, or hand-write, what you wanted typed and then you had to check it.  E.O.s typed up during the normal work day might not get changed if the work was accomplished during the evening or weekend when the typists were not available.

The documentation required to perform that same level of repair today would be quite voluminous.  I'm amazed that a copy of this EO was even found!  Even so, this copy does not look like the "dirty fingers" copy that a mechanic would have signed off.  It looks more like a summary of the total work performed which was submitted to the CAA.  Note the list of companion EOs on Page 2.  If these could be found they are more likely to have details of the individual repairs.  I’ll bet those EOs are far more detailed and probably hand-written and signed off.

Just my 2¢-worth ...

Keep up the good work!     
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 02:25:04 PM
Code AN-A-13 would represent the Army-Navy Aeronautical Standards (AN) for Aluminum (A) with Vol. 13 covering ALCLAD materials.

This standard was issued in the early 1940s.  See Aluminum in aircraft,  Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pa., Aluminum company of America. 1943.  (http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010085632)

If the AN-A-13 designation did not appear until the early 1940s either our interpretation of the AD on the artifact is incorrect or the artifact dates from not-earlier-than the 1940s.  In 1996 ALCOA metallurgists examined and tested the artifact.  They agreed with our interpretation of the AD as originally being ALCLAD 24S – T3    AN - A – 13. They said the labeling indicates that the sheet was manufactured by Alcoa not earlier than 1937 (when the T3 process was introduced) and not later than 1954 (when 24ST became 2024).  Further narrowing of the date is suggested by the fact that the labeling on the artifact does not align with either axis of the sheet.  Normally, the labeling is “rolled on” automatically as the sheet is manufactured and is aligned with the edges of the sheet.  According to sources at Alcoa, the non-aligned labeling on 2-2-V-1 suggests that it was applied by hand-stamping which may indicate that it was part of a very early and small production run.

So the question is, when did the labeling first appear?   The link you provided took me to an index page but I couldn't find the document you referred to.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 02:28:26 PM
I'd start with the Kawanishi "Emily" H8K:
<quote>23 October 1943  IJN  Kawanishi H8K "Emily"    Shot down by P-40s 70 miles south of Baker. Two other Emilies had previously been shot down by F-6-Fs from the light carrier USS Princeton CV-22 in the vicinity of Howland and Baker.  <end quote>

Do you have a hypothesis for how a piece aluminum from an aircraft shot down 70 miles south of Baker ended up on Gardner island?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
Thanks Jay.  All of us are full of opinions but not many of us have your practical experience in the real world of fixing airplanes.   

Also, note that this work order was typed.

Interesting point. Based on what you say about typing, I would guess that somebody in the shop looked over the airplane and hand-wrote what needed to be done.  He then probably gave his write-up to a "girl" to be typed.  These orders are written as instructions for work to be performed in the future, not a report of work accomplished.  No report written in the past tense describing work accomplished has been found.

 
The documentation required to perform that same level of repair today would be quite voluminous.  I'm amazed that a copy of this EO was even found!  Even so, this copy does not look like the "dirty fingers" copy that a mechanic would have signed off.  It looks more like a summary of the total work performed which was submitted to the CAA.

That's right. The typed instructions describing what was to be done were submitted as the final report of what had been done (sorta).  Rush job.

  Note the list of companion EOs on Page 2.  If these could be found they are more likely to have details of the individual repairs.  I’ll bet those EOs are far more detailed and probably hand-written and signed off.   

Therein lies a tale.  FAA Regional Flight Standards Office manager Aris Scarla has search the FAA's records for them in vain.  They may not have survived some routine records destruction in the 1970s.  The Smithsonian grabbed some of the records that were scheduled for destruction as possibly being of historical interes. The engineering drawings mentioned on Page 2 ended up in the NASM Library special collection (they have to do with nacelle rib splices)  but the EOs we're looking for are not there.  Did some intern not recognize them as being associated with Amelia Earhart?  Are they in some uncataloged box?  Were they thrown out? 
Nobody knows.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: C.W. Herndon on February 20, 2014, 03:23:50 PM
Ric asks "What Japanese aircraft did you have in mind?"
I'd start with the Kawanishi "Emily" H8K:
<quote>23 October 1943  IJN  Kawanishi H8K "Emily"    Shot down by P-40s 70 miles south of Baker. Two other Emilies had previously been shot down by F-6-Fs from the light carrier USS Princeton CV-22 in the vicinity of Howland and Baker.  <end quote> from http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro here (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro).  Ric stated back in 2012 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg8717.html#msg8717), "There were no Japanese aircraft lost within about 800 miles of Gardner Island/Nikumaroro." so this might be worth taking a second look at.

John, here is an article about the history of  Baker Island. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Island)  It indicates that there was a US air base there during WW2 with B-24 and P-40 aircraft. Could be where the P-40 that shot down the H8K Emily came from. This article about the history of Howland Island  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island) indicates that there was also a small base there during WW2. It was bombed by Japanese aircraft on at least two occasions and was also shelled by a Japanese submarine. A US PBM flying boat had an engine fire and was beached there during WW2. Parts of the aircraft are still there and some of the aluminum has been cut away as shown in the photo below.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Appel on February 20, 2014, 03:31:04 PM

"If the AN-A-13 designation did not appear until the early 1940s either our interpretation of the AD on the artifact is incorrect or the artifact dates from not-earlier-than the 1940s..."

Page 9 of the document refers to "...the recently issued specification AN-A-13..." So I guess it depends in what time frame "recent" falls...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 20, 2014, 03:42:02 PM

"If the AN-A-13 designation did not appear until the early 1940s either our interpretation of the AD on the artifact is incorrect or the artifact dates from not-earlier-than the 1940s..."

Page 9 of the document refers to "...the recently issued specification AN-A-13..." So I guess it depends in what time frame "recent" falls...

Yes, AN-A-13 is mentioned several times on different pages.  One of the tables is footnoted as needed updating.  It doesn't mean older aluminum might not have met the standard, just that aluminum marked before the standard would have not had the stencil marking AN-A-13.  Also, I do not believe "AN-A-13" means anything else about the type of stock and the intended purpose other than the Army-Navy specification.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 20, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
Some B-24's had large skin panels with seven vertical rivet rows on the starboard side above the rear bomb bay doors.  A clear example is on this page http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/liberator_A72-176_walkaround.html in the image http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/Liberator_A72-176_051_med.jpg.

The panel size is approx. 2 1/2 feet x 3 feet which would place the rivet rows approx. 3 1/2" - 4" apart.  There are no crossing patterns of rivets. 

This particular example is a B-24M, and a B-24M was damaged landing at Topham Field on Canton Island in 1945.  Some sources show a similar rivet pattern on B-24Js, but I have not been able to confirm or deny.  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/)

I do not have B-24 repair/structural manuals or blueprints to identify skin thickness or rivet size, but I do have factory photographs showing at least some B-24s/C-87s used .032" skin on the fuselage sides.

This rivet pattern does not appear on all B-24s.

These photos show the same rivet pattern on original B-24s (not restorations), so the pattern is not just a mistake in restoration  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863286/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: C.W. Herndon on February 20, 2014, 04:01:36 PM
Good find Jeff. Great pictures!
Thanks.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 04:38:29 PM
Some B-24's had large skin panels with seven vertical rivet rows on the starboard side above the rear bomb bay doors.

It was a long time ago now, but I'm sure we looked at that pattern on B-24 bomb doors she we were looking for an alternative match to 2-2-V-1.  I think you'll find those are #4 or larger rivets.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 20, 2014, 04:40:38 PM
The "AN-A-13" stamp is clearly legible on the photo of the Japanese "Mavis" wreckage I posted on the previous page.  Does that help narrow the time window in which the stamp became common?  The Japanese were almost certainly unable to directly import "AN-A-13" after the start of the war, so the presence of the markings on the Japanese plane would indicate the stamp was used at least prior to December 1941.
I doubt there are sufficient records to clearly indicate when the last shipment of ALCLAD left for Japan.  Alcoa indicated to me that it could have been sold through a 2nd party distributor.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 20, 2014, 04:57:30 PM
"Do you have a hypothesis for how a piece aluminum from an aircraft shot down 70 miles south of Baker ended up on Gardner island?"
No, only guesses.  One guess is that the piece found on Niku is NOT from one of these three Japanese aircraft.  It makes more sense to me that the piece came from some aircraft that made its way to Niku at some time, and broke apart there.  Another guess is that it was salvaged from a wreck on a different island and was brought to Niku by islanders.  The presence of Japanese aircraft getting shot down in the general area was previously considered unlikely, yet here are 3 examples.   I think this is enough evidence to consider Japanese aircraft wreckage, either having crashed on Niku, or imported from islands nearer than we thought possible.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 05:05:29 PM
The "AN-A-13" stamp is clearly legible on the photo of the Japanese "Mavis" wreckage I posted on the previous page.  Does that help narrow the time window in which the stamp became common?  The Japanese were almost certainly unable to directly import "AN-A-13" after the start of the war, so the presence of the markings on the Japanese plane would indicate the stamp was used at least prior to December 1941.
I doubt there are sufficient records to clearly indicate when the last shipment of ALCLAD left for Japan.  Alcoa indicated to me that it could have been sold through a 2nd party distributor.

Although I haven't found aluminum specifically mentioned, the Export Control Act of July 2, 1940 almost certainly shut down all export of aircraft aluminum to Japan, even from 2nd party distributors.  The AN-A-13 labeling on the Mavis (Kawanishi HK6) appears to be "rolled on" (aligned with the edges of the sheet) whereas the labeling on 2-2-V-1 was (in the opinion of Alcoa engineers) was hand-stamped and probably from an early and/of small production run. 
So it looks like the AN-A-13 designation predates December 7, 1941 and probably predates July 2, 1940, and the artifact was probably hand-stamped earlier than that.  I think our hypothesis is okay. (whew!)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: James Champion on February 20, 2014, 05:13:25 PM
The AN-A-13 Alcad on the Mavis could a repair to the Mavis. The repair material could have come from stock left behind at a US or commercial airfield as the Japanese advanced. That could make the material as old as early 1942.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 05:25:43 PM
The repair material could have come from stock left behind at a US or commercial airfield as the Japanese advanced.

Yes, who's to say that could not have happened?  But how realistic is it?  Did the Japanese really have to scrounge metal from captured American airfields to repair airplanes early in the war?  I think its a good sign that we have to get that imaginative and speculative to make a case for post-Pearl Harbor metal on a Mavis.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: C.W. Herndon on February 20, 2014, 05:27:56 PM
So it looks like the AN-A-13 designation predates December 7, 1941 and probably predates July 2, 1940, and the artifact was probably hand-stamped earlier than that.  I think our hypothesis is okay. (whew!)

It sounds better with each passing day :)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 05:28:16 PM
Also, I do not believe "AN-A-13" means anything else about the type of stock and the intended purpose other than the Army-Navy specification.

What do you believe it means?  Not all 24ST ALCLAD carried that designation.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 20, 2014, 06:16:02 PM
Some B-24's had large skin panels with seven vertical rivet rows on the starboard side above the rear bomb bay doors.  A clear example is on this page http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/liberator_A72-176_walkaround.html in the image http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/Liberator_A72-176_051_med.jpg.

The panel size is approx. 2 1/2 feet x 3 feet which would place the rivet rows approx. 3 1/2" - 4" apart.  There are no crossing patterns of rivets. 

This particular example is a B-24M, and a B-24M was damaged landing at Topham Field on Canton Island in 1945.  Some sources show a similar rivet pattern on B-24Js, but I have not been able to confirm or deny.  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/)

I do not have B-24 repair/structural manuals or blueprints to identify skin thickness or rivet size, but I do have factory photographs showing at least some B-24s/C-87s used .032" skin on the fuselage sides.

This rivet pattern does not appear on all B-24s.

These photos show the same rivet pattern on original B-24s (not restorations), so the pattern is not just a mistake in restoration  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863286/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/).

I am interested in the labelled area on the attached picture (not the bomb bay doors).
(http://i.imgur.com/Eyads4z.jpg)

I am not aware of any museum B-24s in the U.S. with this pattern that could be inspected, but I admit I have not found good pictures of this area on all of them, since it is usually obscured by the shadow of the wing.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 20, 2014, 07:28:14 PM
I am not aware of any museum B-24s in the U.S. with this pattern that could be inspected, but I admit I have not found good pictures of this area on all of them, since it is usually obscured by the shadow of the wing.

There's a B-24M at the Castle Air Force Base Museum (http://www.castleairmuseum.org/consolidatedb24m) in Atwater, CA./

Multiple rows of rivets roughly 3 to 4 inches apart with no crossing line for at least 24 inches are not that hard to find on WWII aircraft.   There's an area on the underside of a C-47 wing that fit that description. What is harder to find is a .032 skin with #3 brazier rivets in lines that taper.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 20, 2014, 09:07:49 PM
Ric,
I recall you were going over the Hartford (?) museum on 2-16-2014.  Did you make it? What did you learn?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 07:08:02 AM
I recall you were going over the Hartford (?) museum on 2-16-2014.  Did you make it? What did you learn?

We had to cancel due to runway conditions.  The weather was okay but when we got to the airport we found the taxiways and runway were a sheet of ice.  You could barely stand up, let alone taxi. Bummer.  This winter has been unbelievable.  We'll reschedule.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 21, 2014, 08:26:49 AM
Sorry I'm back late, I was out with a sick 8 year old and didn't have a computer, and I know you were anxiously awaiting my reply.

If all anyone could say about a bent piece of metal is that something at some point acted, possibly/probably forcefully, upon it to deform it from its assumed original shape there would be no science of aircraft accident investigation.  Metallurgical analysis metal debris a specialized skill.
...
This is the "it could be anything" argument.
 

Ultimately it is the argument. You weren't there to see what happened, I wasn't there, Korsgaard wasn't there, and that piece of metal can't talk to tell us exactly what happened and how. To say "the failure was almost certainly caused by..." sure tries hard to give a definitive certainty to the scenario that's being put forth. Quite a leap beyond, seems to me, an informed opinion as to what could have happened. That's why I asked the question earlier if anything better that "consistent with" could be hoped for. And you gave a compelling answer.
 
We wanted to know if anyone could tell us how the sheet of aluminum got bowed out.  Did somebody hammer on it?  Was there an explosion? So we took the artifact to the best expert we could find.  Walter Korsgaard was the lead FAA investigator on the 1988 PanAM 103 Lockerbie crash.  In 2004 he was recently retired so he was able to give us his opinion without bureaucratic concerns.  We showed him the artifact in his suburban Washington, DC home.  After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push.  We asked if it could have been caused by an explosion.  After looking at it with a magnifying glass he said, "No. There is none of the telltale pitting from pinpoint pyrotechnic projectiles."   We asked him what kind of accident might cause such damage.  He said, "In flight breakup of an aircraft at very high speed, but these materials are not consistent with an aircraft capable of those speeds, or an airplane that was broken apart by moving water."

So how does this reconcile with the 1995 TIGHAR TRACKS (11/4) article which states:

"And the research continues. Recently retired FAA explosives expert Walter Korsgaard, whose successful investigations include the Pan Am 103 bombing, has determined that the type of damage sustained by the section of aircraft skin recovered on Nikumaroro in 1991 (TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1) is not consistent with the detonation of an explosive device (i.e. World War II ordnance) but was more likely caused by a fuel/air explosion (as we have suspected)."

Your argument isn't with me, it's with Walter Korsgaard.  Unfortunately he died in 2011.  He was not a TIGHAR member and he was not particularly interested in Amelia Earhart. He didn't write a scholarly paper on 2-2-V-1. He was just a retired gentlemen who had been a top-notch aviation accident investigator who was kind enough welcome us into his home and give us his opinion.  I don't think he was grasping at straws or projecting any fantasies.

My interest is not to have an argument with anyone. I just think that if this whole endeavor is going to be conducted above board, clinically, and according the rigors of the scientific method, then one shouldn’t pick and choose where and how it is applied.  Words mean things and how they’re used mean even more. Say only what you mean and mean only what you say.  I have no cause to doubt your characterization of Korsgaard and based on that I trust and applaud your reasoning to approach him on this matter. Would that his opinion (as professionally informed as it was) on the piece had been written up, even more so that his assessment of it had been done in less informal conditions than his home with a magnifying glass.

Sorry for the digression, as moot as it really is to the more important issue at hand -  that of identifying the item’s source and, hopefully, incontrovertibly associating it with AE.     
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 08:48:14 AM
Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil) collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 09:10:24 AM
We wanted to know if anyone could tell us how the sheet of aluminum got bowed out.  Did somebody hammer on it?  Was there an explosion? So we took the artifact to the best expert we could find.  Walter Korsgaard was the lead FAA investigator on the 1988 PanAM 103 Lockerbie crash.  In 2004 he was recently retired so he was able to give us his opinion without bureaucratic concerns.  We showed him the artifact in his suburban Washington, DC home.  After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push.  We asked if it could have been caused by an explosion.  After looking at it with a magnifying glass he said, "No. There is none of the telltale pitting from pinpoint pyrotechnic projectiles."   We asked him what kind of accident might cause such damage.  He said, "In flight breakup of an aircraft at very high speed, but these materials are not consistent with an aircraft capable of those speeds, or an airplane that was broken apart by moving water."

So how does this reconcile with the 1995 TIGHAR TRACKS (11/4) article which states:

"And the research continues. Recently retired FAA explosives expert Walter Korsgaard, whose successful investigations include the Pan Am 103 bombing, has determined that the type of damage sustained by the section of aircraft skin recovered on Nikumaroro in 1991 (TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1) is not consistent with the detonation of an explosive device (i.e. World War II ordnance) but was more likely caused by a fuel/air explosion (as we have suspected)."

It doesn't.  1995 was 19 years ago.  Our methodology then was not as good as it is now and, like you, I regret that we didn't approach Korsgaard in a more scholarly manner.  I had forgotten that I wrote about what Korsgaard told us in TIGHAR Tracks and at this point I have no recollection of ever thinking that the damage was caused by a fuel/air explosion (although we obviously did). It's apparent that, over the years, as evidence of what happened on the reef has grown clearer and clearer, my recollection of what Korsgaard told us has evolved.  The "push" of a fuel/air explosion is essentially the same as the "push" of a volume of water and my mind changed the memory to fit our current thinking.  In that respect my anecdotal recollections are no more reliable than those of any other Earhart "eye witness." 
The saving grace is that, while my memories may have evolved, the artifact has not.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Lange on February 21, 2014, 09:55:57 AM
Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil) collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.
Finally you are coming back to my neck of the woods! (Haven't had you come around here since we did the intro to aviation archeology class at The Henry Ford Museum WAY too many years ago!) Count me in as one who would like to attend. Never been to Wright Patterson museum and this would be a great opportunity!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 10:02:07 AM
Never been to Wright Patterson museum and this would be a great opportunity!

Oh Lordy.  You're in for a treat.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 21, 2014, 10:17:54 AM
Ric,

At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-

http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

"Aircraft Riveting; A Guide for the Student"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024027644;view=1up;seq=1
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 21, 2014, 11:06:50 AM
Has a mold been taken of 2-2-V-1?  It would allow a copy to be made to play with, without endangering the original.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Appel on February 21, 2014, 11:33:21 AM
Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil) collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio? 

Good gravy. VERY, SERIOUSLY, INTERESTED. With all the usual caveats, timing, permission from superior ranking family members etc. But yes. What a treat.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 12:14:42 PM
Has a mold been taken of 2-2-V-1?  It would allow a copy to be made to play with, without endangering the original.

I wouldn't worry about damaging the original.  It's not the least bit fragile.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 21, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil) collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.

I'd love an excuse to go back to the Air Force museum - count me in.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 01:25:43 PM
I'd love an excuse to go back to the Air Force museum - count me in.

Jeff Lange
Mark Appel
Jeff Neville

I can already see that this is going to be a great group.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 21, 2014, 01:50:17 PM
Ric,

At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-

http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

"Aircraft Riveting; A Guide for the Student"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024027644;view=1up;seq=1

The remaining rivet in the artifact could be measured for head diameter to be sure, but I think it is apparent that it is a brazier and not a modified brazier (#3).

I did scale and check the museum bird rivets (pictured upstring) again for grins, and a bit surprisingly, the rivets in that bird may actually be 'universal' AN470 replacements for the original #3 braziers because they appear to measure at about .180" across the head.  .180" is too large for a 'modified brazier' in #3 size, and too small for a 'brazier' of #3 sizing - these look like mama bear's porridge - just right for AN470s.  I say 'appear' because it is a bit hard to be precise with that photo due to shadowing.  But what I can discern there is consistent with a #3 universal AN470 head according to the data you found and linked.  And good find, by the way. 

If you are thinking "why AN470 universals" - keep in mind that replacements with AN470s really isn't a shock - AN470s would have been the normal replacement in the decades following the war if a belly skin had been replaced for some reason, and if the original holes were good there is no reason to oversize them.  Belly skin replacments are not uncommon.  Of course using #3s flies in the face of what I was taught, but given that the originals were #3... plus I've been 'corrected' where pre-war structures are concerned: use of the #3 rivet was prolific on pre-war lighter-structured airplanes like the Electra.

Now to the actual artifact 2-2-V-1 -

Even a good visual of shank vs. head tells us something: a brazier head is distincly more than 2x the shank in diameter, while the 'modified brazier' head is less than 2x the shank - very apparent.  Look at the actual artifact rivet in the photo - the head is rather flat, but still has the dimple of an "AD" rivet in evidence so it was not severely worn flat but is close to its original shape and dimension: a 'brazier' does have a relatively flat head (bigger radius) compared to the more sharply radiused 'modified brazier'.  More telling is the head diameter in the artifact rivet compared to the shank diameter: head diameter is clearly in excess of 2x the shank diameter.

The artifact rivet is clearly a 'brazier' #3, not a 'modified brazier'.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 01:55:36 PM
The artifact rivet is clearly a 'brazier' #3, not a 'modified brazier'.

And let's be careful with the spelling.  It's "brazier," never "brassiere."
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 21, 2014, 01:56:27 PM
I'd love an excuse to go back to the Air Force museum - count me in.

Jeff Lange
Mark Appel
Jeff Neville

I can already see that this is going to be a great group.

I hope the museum will cooperate - what a great chance to see some rare birds in a special way.

It is also a great idea - no other place, short of the NASM, would offer such a chance to find examples of the flying iron that found its way to the area and look for alternate parent craft to the Electra.

And as a bonus, if we find a match to 2-2-V-1 on one of the other types there, I'll sit down and eat my wool hat (still safe despite recent other attempts to have me eat it), live - in front of the TIGHAR crew - kool-aid drinkers and skeptics alike...

NOW who's in???  That ought to draw one or two more...  ;D
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 21, 2014, 02:00:56 PM
The artifact rivet is clearly a 'brazier' #3, not a 'modified brazier'.

And let's be careful with the spelling.  It's "brazier," never "brassiere."

True -

"Brassiere" should only be used with regard to the ubiquitous 'round head' rivet and comes in 'letter sizes'...  8)

Round head rivets always were a more interesting study than the flatter brazier variety...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 02:09:25 PM
I hope the museum will cooperate - what a great chance to see some rare birds in a special way.

One nice thing about NMUSAF (try pronouncing that) is that most of the aircraft are just parked out on the hangar floor with no velvet ropes or other barriers to prevent the public from getting up close and personal.  Some aircraft, but not many the last time I was there, are presented in a diorama setting so you can't get up close to them.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 21, 2014, 02:17:06 PM
I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum ...

Best case scenario, what do you suggest this could entail?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 02:24:13 PM
I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum ...

Best case scenario, what do you suggest this could entail?

I'd like for us to be able to meet with knowledgeable people from the restoration shop, show then the artifact, and get their thoughts.  That will require approval from the front office.  Apparently they keep those guys on a tight leash.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 21, 2014, 02:37:54 PM
Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil) collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.

Sounds great, but I might need some help staying focused and on task in such an environment.  Maybe a leash would work.  I'll watch for details and see if I can make it.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 21, 2014, 02:44:33 PM
Sounds great, but I might need some help staying focused and on task in such an environment.  Maybe a leash would work.

We'll probably need to rope everyone together like a kindergarten class.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Appel on February 21, 2014, 04:50:39 PM


We'll probably need to rope everyone together like a kindergarten class.
[/quote]

A small price to pay! The chance to visit the greatest air museum in the world, in the context of a seminal historical investigation is a rare privilege... Oh, and one hell of a lot of fun! Now, I'm left to figure out which title to put on my name badge... probably a hybrid: "KoolAid Drinker Aspiring to be Rivet Head" fits best.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 21, 2014, 06:13:19 PM
I've never been to Dayton either. The week of March 21-28 is wide open for me. Every museum group needs a librarian!

Willing to consider any date,
Karen Hoy
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 21, 2014, 07:47:27 PM
Hi All

I have attached this image due too the space in between rivets matching, I believe the artifact covered a T  shaped stringer joint

thanks richie
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on February 22, 2014, 09:16:47 AM
At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-
http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 22, 2014, 09:22:48 AM
This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

Well damn!  How do we deal with this?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 22, 2014, 10:02:59 AM

This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

Unfortunately the head shape is very similar, so size is about the only clue an exterior view is going to provide.  It seems like you would only use a modified brazier AN456 instead of an AN455 brazier if you were willing to sacrifice pull-through resistance to gain a low-profile head.  Drag reduction in stressed skin seems to be an area where this combo would be desirable, so we should tread carefully here.

The contemporary design manuals should have some guidance regarding the choice of head style and the results of that would be reflected in the manufacturing drawings.  Do we have any Electra drawings showing the details of skin attachment?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 22, 2014, 11:53:15 AM
Do we have any Electra drawings showing the details of skin attachment?

I haven't found anything in the engineering drawings that specifies rivet style, size or pitch.  Seems like it has to be there somewhere.  The parts manual lists all kinds of fasteners with AN designations but no rivets.  Odd.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 22, 2014, 01:40:32 PM
The [huge] Consolidated PB2Y Coronado flying boat may have to be included as another possible source for 2-2-V-1.  On July 31, 1944 a PB2Y- operated by Pan Am for the Naval Air Transport Service- crashed in the Funafuti Island lagoon, killing nearly all the passengers and crew.  The sad story is briefly told in the 2005 book "The Pan Am Journey" by Thomas Kewin.  [Search on Google books- look for page 31]

"One of the Coronado's crashed on a night take off from Funafuti lagoon when a unlit Liberty ship drifted into the seaplane area killing everyone on board except the Purser, Sam Toarmina, the Engineer, Terry Toles, and the Radio Operator, Larry Good.  Sam was thrown clear, and survived with minor injuries.  Terry went through the side of the airplane and was found floating in the water, still strapped to his seat...  Rear Admiral Charles Cecil and his entire staff were killed."

Only one PB2Y exists today, in the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL.  Photos show many areas that might match up with the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1.   

http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1361324

http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1361324/

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason4/pb2y_coronado/index.php?Page=1

[Here's an interesting bit of info about this particular plane, found on the War Bird Information Exchange.]

"The Coronado survives thanks to Howard Hughes. He bought it to learn how to handle steering a large flying boat to help him learn to fly the Spruce Goose."
http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33732
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill de Creeft on February 22, 2014, 01:58:05 PM
yeah but...wouldn't the existing hole drilled for the rivet give an indication of the rivet size?
Don't want to waste time here or divert effort...but the hole, if recent, would tell me what size drill to use.
Since 2-2-V-1 has been subject to 'wear & Tear' you might not be able to determine that but didn't I see something on here about an original part off the Electra that was retrieved from the runway in Hawaii after the first ground-loop ?
Or can the 'experienced eye' come up with an answer?

Can all this be put together and sort of balanced or figured out ?

Bill
(on the scent with the rest of the Hounds !!)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 22, 2014, 02:17:01 PM
yeah but...wouldn't the existing hole drilled for the rivet give an indication of the rivet size?
Don't want to waste time here or divert effort...but the hole, if recent, would tell me what size drill to use.
Since 2-2-V-1 has been subject to 'wear & Tear' you might not be able to determine that but didn't I see something on here about an original part off the Electra that was retrieved from the runway in Hawaii after the first ground-loop ?
Or can the 'experienced eye' come up with an answer?

Can all this be put together and sort of balanced or figured out ?

Bill
(on the scent with the rest of the Hounds !!)
Bill, I believe the rivet size in 2-2-V-1 is determined to a good degree but the problem is how to determine the size of other possible donors by looking at just the rivet head in a museum plane where the hole may not be visible. The rivet found it 2-2-V-1 had part of the shank still there, plus all the holes are visible.
I'm very close to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum (http://www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com/index.php/navcollections/navaircraft). Don't see anything relative in the colection, maybe the B-24A but I can go look if needed, it's in, and they let me. The B-29 just left yesterday. I work near the end of the runway. So cool everytime the B-24 or B-29 flies over.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 22, 2014, 02:26:42 PM
Glad to see you out here on the trail Bill.

The current discussion is about how to determine rivet size (specifically shank diameter with the number size of the rivet representing the shank diameter in 32 nds of an inch so a #3 = 3/32") by looking at a picture or at an assembled aircraft.  Unless the parts have been separated, you can't see the hole or the shank because they're all smashed together.  So you're left trying to draw conclusions  by looking at the head or at the bucked side where the shank was smashed down over the hole.  The problem is we have two different sized rivets (#3 brazier and #4 modified brazier) with virtually the same head.

X-ray vision would probably answer the questions if you had a real aircraft to look at, but it even that doesn't work on pictures and for some of the candidates we're considering, that's all we have. 

Enjoyed looking at the pictures of the lodge.  Alaska is on my bucket list.



Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 22, 2014, 02:29:07 PM
Photos show many areas that might match up with the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-1.

I say again, parallel rows of rivets are not hard to find on many aircraft. We can check the Coronado in Pensacola but I'll be very surprised if there are any #3 rivets in a .032 skin.  Flying boats had to be built like tanks to withstand the force of water landings.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill de Creeft on February 22, 2014, 04:31:41 PM
Ahhh!!
I understand the question now !

From that point of view the question makes good sense...
Thank you !

As an aside, I've got an old  DHC Beaver Engine Cowling (R985) in my back yard that is dragging me in because it is close to the right pattern, small rivet size  etc. (even to the bulge in the metal and no stringers) but of course dates from late '40's as a design...it calls me, but I know it's not relevent....but still, the pattern is correct to the point where I phoned Ric about it...so if it's not The One, we should keep in mind other parts easily installed and removed...like cowling.
(While yer standing there looking at the Electra , what does it look like !?!)

Bill
(Still on the scent, but getting distracted)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 22, 2014, 07:41:14 PM
Would you use #3 in double .032 skin ?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 22, 2014, 08:25:35 PM
The reason i ask if it is possible ?

I found this ugly repair panel after mishap on Luke runway, and it is obvious that the repair skin is slid under original skin an the hole's drilled out to match
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 22, 2014, 08:47:31 PM
I found this ugly repair panel after mishap on Luke runway, and it is obvious that the repair skin is slid under original skin an the hole's drilled out to match

That's not a repair patch.  It's a standard skin.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Randy Conrad on February 23, 2014, 01:59:21 AM
We wanted to know if anyone could tell us how the sheet of aluminum got bowed out.  Did somebody hammer on it?  Was there an explosion? So we took the artifact to the best expert we could find.  Walter Korsgaard was the lead FAA investigator on the 1988 PanAM 103 Lockerbie crash.  In 2004 he was recently retired so he was able to give us his opinion without bureaucratic concerns.  We showed him the artifact in his suburban Washington, DC home.  After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push.  We asked if it could have been caused by an explosion.  After looking at it with a magnifying glass he said, "No. There is none of the telltale pitting from pinpoint pyrotechnic projectiles."   We asked him what kind of accident might cause such damage.  He said, "In flight breakup of an aircraft at very high speed, but these materials are not consistent with an aircraft capable of those speeds, or an airplane that was broken apart by moving water."
  The "push" of a fuel/air explosion is essentially the same as the "push" of a volume of water and my mind changed the memory to fit our current thinking. 




In reference to this quote.....My biggest question for you and others Ric...is let's say for example that this piece of metal is indeed from the Electra...Will it? or Will it not float in sea water with/ without rivets? I guess the reason I am asking this and in reference to the comment of having a explosion caused by moving ater...Is it possible that pieces of airplane skin could float to the surface after the aircraft going over the reefs edge and plundering thousands of feet at a high rate of speed. Kinda of like a submarine sinking, but going beyond the pressure she can endure. Basically, what I'm asking is...can this piece of metal survive floating from great depths after being imploaded by the pressure from within the plane? Love to hear your feedback...thanks!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 23, 2014, 04:33:28 AM
I think I can state with absolute confidence that sheet metal - with or without rivets - does not float.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 23, 2014, 07:50:54 AM
I've been thinking about the rivet inspection conundrum - that being:  the head of a 3/32" AN455 brazier rivet is indistinguishable from the head of a 1/8" AN456 modified brazier. That would seem to mean that - as we stalk the hangars of the National Museum of the United States Air Force, micrometers at the ready, we won't be able to test our hypothesis that the scale of materials used in 2-2-V-1 (3/32" AN455 brazier rivets in a .032 skin) is not found on WWII aircraft that served in the Pacific UNLESS we are unable to find any rivet heads of the "right" style and diameter. 

If we do find rivets that could be 3/32" AN455s or 1/8" AN456s, we might be able to judge the thickness of the surrounding skin by a simple "thunk" test.  A .032 skin "thunks" very differently from, say, a .040 skin.  Not high science but what we're looking for is a sense of scale in how aircraft of a given time and size were constructed. 

Of course, we're also looking for more than rivet type and size.  We're looking for patterns that might match the artifact.  If we find a location on an aircraft that might match the artifact we can dig deeper and find out whether the materials actually do match.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 23, 2014, 09:12:44 AM
I've been thinking about the rivet inspection conundrum - that being:  the head of a 3/32" AN455 brazier rivet is indistinguishable from the head of a 1/8" AN456 modified brazier. That would seem to mean that - as we stalk the hangars of the National Museum of the United States Air Force, micrometers at the ready, we won't be able to test our hypothesis that the scale of materials used in 2-2-V-1 (3/32" AN455 brazier rivets in a .032 skin) is not found on WWII aircraft that served in the Pacific UNLESS we are unable to find any rivet heads of the "right" style and diameter. 


It seems like we haven't answered the question of why you would use one style over the other.  That might not be conclusive, but it should help narrow the search.  In other words, if the modified brazier was developed for a specific purpose, it should have been used in some specific applications and not used in others.  Therefore, we should be able to eliminate candidate aircraft and/or areas before we start crawling around.

To put it simply, if you're designing an aircraft in the mid-1930's, why would you specify AN455s in some places and AN456s in others? 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 23, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
Maybe the different grips of the heads make different dimples. A head that pinches more area of skin might make a wider flatter dimple and one that pinches a smaller area might make a deeper steeper dimple. Nothing that would provide a clear answer but just a theory.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 23, 2014, 12:35:41 PM
Maybe the different grips of the heads make different dimples. A head that pinches more area of skin might make a wider flatter dimple and one that pinches a smaller area might make a deeper steeper dimple. Nothing that would provide a clear answer but just a theory.

I think we have some confusion in our use of the term "dimple."  All American 2117 alloy rivets regardless of head type or shaft size are marked with a small indentation, known as a "dimple," in the center of the rivet head. We should probably use a different term to refer to the concavity in the skin on 2-2-v-1 around the holes where the rivet heads once were.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 23, 2014, 03:20:02 PM
Maybe the different grips of the heads make different dimples. A head that pinches more area of skin might make a wider flatter dimple and one that pinches a smaller area might make a deeper steeper dimple. Nothing that would provide a clear answer but just a theory.

I think we have some confusion in our use of the term "dimple."  All American 2117 alloy rivets regardless of head type or shaft size are marked with a small indentation, known as a "dimple," in the center of the rivet head. We should probably use a different term to refer to the concavity in the skin on 2-2-v-1 around the holes where the rivet heads once were.
True, I wasn’t thinking about the marker on the head when using the term dimple and it may be the wrong term for describing the concavity made in the skin.
Maybe if the light source was at a shallow angle the concavity in the skin made by different rivets may be more evident.  I doubt it will help and maybe only someone with a lot of experience could even tell something like this(to clarify this thought is applicable in looking at museum aircraft and not the artifact).  See sketch attached to help explain the thought better.
The one on left represents the 3/32" shank and the one on right the 1/8" shank
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 23, 2014, 04:14:47 PM
It seems like we haven't answered the question of why you would use one style over the other.  That might not be conclusive, but it should help narrow the search.  In other words, if the modified brazier was developed for a specific purpose, it should have been used in some specific applications and not used in others.  Therefore, we should be able to eliminate candidate aircraft and/or areas before we start crawling around.

To put it simply, if you're designing an aircraft in the mid-1930's, why would you specify AN455s in some places and AN456s in others?

Or the mid-1940s for that matter.  Intuitively it seems like the only virtue of the AN456 is lower drag, so I'd use an AN456 in places where minimizing drag is more important than "grip."  Seems like there must be guidelines for designers.
I wonder when the AN456 modified brazier was introduced. Logically it had to be later than the AN455.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 23, 2014, 06:02:33 PM
Richie asks "Would you use #3 in double .032 skin ?"
"A rivet should have a diameter of at least three times the thickness of the thickest sheet being joined." (Aircraft Rivets and Special Fasteners) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/132409480/aircraft-rivets-and-special-fasteners) appears to be much newer than 1937, but if the rule was being applied when any particular aircraft seen in a museum was made, then the "thickest sheet" joined using 1/8th inch (dash-4) rivets would be no more than 0.042 inch, and a -3 would be used for skins no thicker than 0.031 inch.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 23, 2014, 09:49:36 PM
Ric,
A whole bunch of rivet questions:

It was reported that a Mr. Bill Prymak of Broomfield, CO held the repair records for AE plane – had you contacted him?

Finch is reported to have received “detailed” drawings from Lockheed via microfilm concerning the rebuild of her aircraft.  Have we looked at these drawings?

How do the rivets on the “Dados” compare to that of 2-2-V-1?  Do they suggest that this was a common rivet size used by Lockheed in the construction of AE’s plane?  Dados were reported as being .032 thickness same as 2-2-V-1!

There is a “Google” thread out there “Walt Disney 1942 Riveting” that seems to indicate how to rivet WWII aircraft, and I am wondering if you have looked at it in light of trying to eliminate WWII sources for 2-2-V-1?

I have also found references to proper rivet selections:  i.e. rivet length = sum of material thickness (.032 + .042) + 1.5 the diameter.  Also, max dia. of rivet = max thickness of sheet to be riveted e.g. .032 and .042 you use a .042 diameter rivet.  How does this formula work with 2-2-V-1 plus the stringer section (the rivet length) found on your training trip?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Brad Beeching on February 24, 2014, 05:11:55 AM
I was just thinking of a way to accurately measure the rivet head indentation. Make a cast of one or more of the rivet holes. I use a material simular to this when casting parts for my models http://www.micromark.com/cr-900-high-strength-casting-resin-26-fl-oz,8154.html (http://www.micromark.com/cr-900-high-strength-casting-resin-26-fl-oz,8154.html) This stuff is liquid enough to find it's own level in the hole, and when cured (in minutes) yealds a nice hard absolute duplicate. All you would have to do is put a piece of tape over the back-side of whatever hole you are casting to keep the liquid from running out the bottom.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 24, 2014, 08:32:58 AM
It was reported that a Mr. Bill Prymak of Broomfield, CO held the repair records for AE plane – had you contacted him?

I've known Bill Prymak since 1989 when I turned down his application to be on our first Earhart expedition team. If he has repair records for NR16020 they're the same ones we have.  They're part of a standard Earhart file that anyone can get from the FAA. 

Finch is reported to have received “detailed” drawings from Lockheed via microfilm concerning the rebuild of her aircraft.  Have we looked at these drawings?

Finch had a set of the microfilmed engineering drawings.  We have those drawings in a digitized, cleaned-up, searchable database - far better than reels and reels of hard-to-read microfilm.

How do the rivets on the “Dados” compare to that of 2-2-V-1?  Do they suggest that this was a common rivet size used by Lockheed in the construction of AE’s plane?  Dados were reported as being .032 thickness same as 2-2-V-1!

Attached is the section of the NTSB Lab report relating to Artifact 2-1-18, known at that time as the "Dado" but now thought to be a heat shield.  Another extremely complex artifact and far more fragile than 2-2-V-1. This was an internal, non-load bearing structure.  The rivets, now badly corroded, were 3/32nd Round Heads.

There is a “Google” thread out there “Walt Disney 1942 Riveting” that seems to indicate how to rivet WWII aircraft, and I am wondering if you have looked at it in light of trying to eliminate WWII sources for 2-2-V-1?

Thanks.  I had never seen that.  It's a great example of how the country responded to wartime demands. 


I have also found references to proper rivet selections:  i.e. rivet length = sum of material thickness (.032 + .042) + 1.5 the diameter.  Also, max dia. of rivet = max thickness of sheet to be riveted e.g. .032 and .042 you use a .042 diameter rivet.  How does this formula work with 2-2-V-1 plus the stringer section (the rivet length) found on your training trip?

The skin is .032" and the tail on the existing rivet indicates that it was riveted to a structure .06" thick (which also happens to be the thickness of the stringer from the Idaho Electra), so the total thickness would be .092.  3/32nds is .0935" so it looks like #3 rivets would be okay.  Any idea when this guideline dates from?

This seems to be a different guideline than the line quoted by John Ousterhout:

"A rivet should have a diameter of at least three times the thickness of the thickest sheet being joined." (Aircraft Rivets and Special Fasteners) appears to be much newer than 1937, but if the rule was being applied when any particular aircraft seen in a museum was made, then the "thickest sheet" joined using 1/8th inch (dash-4) rivets would be no more than 0.042 inch, and a -3 would be used for skins no thicker than 0.031 inch."

In which case, a #3 rivet in a .032" skin would NOT be okay.  Is this the change in guidelines we're looking for?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 24, 2014, 10:30:48 AM
Regarding the Oct 1996 Tighar Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html) that noted “The peaked wave shapes in the ”tab” protruding from the edge where the sheet tore along the line of 5/32 rivet holes indicates the presence of another row of similarly sized and spaced rivets approximately 2 inches away”
The keel looks to be about 1 ½” wide consisting of two ¾” wide channels.(estimated from picture with tape measure)
It appears if the first row is centered on one of the keel channels and the other row of rivets was 2” away it would miss the keel and the next stringer.
How do we know for sure if the rivets in the next row were 5/32”(“similarly sized) and if they existed? Could a repair method be to put the 2nd row thru just the skin and not thru the keel?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 24, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
Attached is a hypothetical repair detail
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 24, 2014, 11:24:53 AM
This may help.  The attached is a screen shot of a detail from Lockheed engineering drawing 40500 "Fuselage Structure Assembly." It specifies the riveting to the keel in the subject area.  This is what we see in New England Air Museum airplane.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 24, 2014, 11:38:50 AM
From the Lockheed drawing, it looked like the two rows of #3 rivets at the keel are 6/8ths of an inch apart.  The implied distance between the two rows of #5 rivets on the artifact is more like 1.5" - which tends to support your hypothesis. In your drawing, the #5 rivets are used in places where the rivet must pass through three surfaces, hence the need for a bigger rivet.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 24, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
From the Lockheed drawing, it looked like the two rows of #3 rivets at the keel are 6/8ths of an inch apart.  The implied distance between the two rows of #5 rivets on the artifact is more like 1.5" - which tends to support your hypothesis. In your drawing, the #5 rivets are used in places where the rivet must pass through three surfaces, hence the need for a bigger rivet.
That makes sense to me.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 24, 2014, 02:33:51 PM
If the 2nd  5/32” rivet row is closer to 1-1/2” instead of 2” it suggest a stiffener was added right next to the keel.

 Possibly at Luke Field, the bottom leg(flange) of the keel was bent or buckled on the port side and they added a stiffener. Also the starboard side could be buckled a bit there too. That could explain the extra rivet spacing at the tab. They may have had to adjust the spacing of a rivet at that area because the keel was damaged.
See sketch.
Note the direction of the tearing suggests an impact point where there is a gash.
It seems like some reef projection could have dragged the skin, and when it got to the point on the keel that was bent in the Luke Field accident, it tore thru and impacted the stiffener that was added. The stiffener being pulled away then tears the skin in the pattern we see in 2-2-V-1

Edit:also look at two stringers to the right. There is another possible impact point in line with the one at the keel. Almost like that stringer skipped on the projection
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 24, 2014, 04:27:03 PM
If the 2nd  5/32” rivet row is closer to 1-1/2” instead of 2” it suggest a stiffener was added right next to the keel.

It all works.  Note that the hole is always to the left of the "peak" in the tear pattern.  The second row really does appear to have been 1 1/2" from the first row - not 2".

Would the addition of a stiffener have required an approved engineering drawing or just an E.O.?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jay Burkett on February 25, 2014, 10:53:20 AM
At that time probably just an E.O.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 25, 2014, 02:04:20 PM
I am not aware of any museum B-24s in the U.S. with this pattern that could be inspected, but I admit I have not found good pictures of this area on all of them, since it is usually obscured by the shadow of the wing.

There's a B-24M at the Castle Air Force Base Museum (http://www.castleairmuseum.org/consolidatedb24m) in Atwater, CA./

Multiple rows of rivets roughly 3 to 4 inches apart with no crossing line for at least 24 inches are not that hard to find on WWII aircraft.   There's an area on the underside of a C-47 wing that fit that description. What is harder to find is a .032 skin with #3 brazier rivets in lines that taper.

http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/Douglas%20Aircraft/Douglas%20C-47%20C-47A%20C-47B%20C-47D%20AC-47%20C-117%20A%20C-117B%20R4D-1%20R4D-5%20R4D-6%20Handbook%20Structural%20Repair%20Instructions%20T.O.%201C-47-3%20Revised%2015%20November%201954.pdf

Here is a link regarding the skins/rivets on the Douglas C-47A ...the plane that crashed on Sydney....looks like a lot of 0.032 skin on the fuselage/wings/ nacelles.... however ; not sure if any rivets/ rivet pattern would match 2-2-V-1.  ....An alcoa ink stamp matching the stamp on 2-2-V-1 was found on a repair panel of a C-47A ... Tighar research has noted that some aluminum ( including the comb artifact) may have been brought over to Gardner from this C-47A.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 25, 2014, 05:04:12 PM
Here is a link regarding the skins/rivets on the Douglas C-47A

A wealth of information there.  Thanks.

...the plane that crashed on Sydney....looks like a lot of 0.032 skin on the fuselage/wings/ nacelles.... however ; not sure if any rivets/ rivet pattern would match 2-2-V-1.

I am. The C-47 was one of the first types we checked way back when we were first researching 2-2-V-1.  There's an area of parallel rows of rivets on the underside of the outboard wing but the rivets are bigger - at least #4s. We'll double check that when we go to Dayton.

  ....An alcoa ink stamp matching the stamp on 2-2-V-1 was found on a repair panel of a C-47A ...

Yeah, I found it.  The airplane is in the Dover AFB Museum collection. D-Day veteran. Cool airplane. I have a soft spot for Goonies. the labeling was on a patch in the skin beside the pilot-side rudder pedals. We have a photo somewhere.

Tighar research has noted that some aluminum ( including the comb artifact) may have been brought over to Gardner from this C-47A.

It's a possibility but none of the aircraft aluminum we've found on Nikumaroro is identifiable as having come from a C-47.  The few parts that are identifiable from stamped-in part numbers are from a B-24.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 25, 2014, 05:21:16 PM
Let's see if we can set a date for the Dayton trip.  I've checked with Aris Scarla (Manager, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Grand Rapids, MI) and he's free the last week of March.  Karen Hoy also suggested that time frame.  Sounds like stars aligning.
Any time from Saturday the 22nd to Saturday the 29 would work. Is a week day or weekend better for you guys?  We'd probably figure on arriving the day before, having dinner together at a local hotel, and hitting the museum first thing in the morning.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 25, 2014, 05:24:51 PM
Let's see if we can set a date for the Dayton trip.  I've checked with Aris Scarla (Manager, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Grand Rapids, MI) and he's free the last week of March.  Karen Hoy also suggested that time frame.  Sounds like stars aligning.
Any time from Saturday the 22nd to Saturday the 29 would work. Is a week day or weekend better for you guys?  We'd probably figure on arriving the day before, having dinner together at a local hotel, and hitting the museum first thing in the morning.  Thoughts?

Time frame sounds workable; weekend preferred.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 25, 2014, 05:58:51 PM
I have to be back at work on Saturday the 29th. Anything before that is great for me.

Karen
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Appel on February 25, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
Let's see if we can set a date for the Dayton trip.  I've checked with Aris Scarla (Manager, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Grand Rapids, MI) and he's free the last week of March.  Karen Hoy also suggested that time frame.  Sounds like stars aligning.
Any time from Saturday the 22nd to Saturday the 29 would work. Is a week day or weekend better for you guys?  We'd probably figure on arriving the day before, having dinner together at a local hotel, and hitting the museum first thing in the morning.  Thoughts?

Sounds workable. Love to take as much of the time as possible over a weekend, but will adjust to reality... (that may not jive with museum staff schedule). Look forward to it very much!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 25, 2014, 06:13:22 PM
*ponders* A weekend. Dayton's not all that far away, but I've got to keep close rein on my vacation days this year.

We're going to be inside or outside? If it's outside, I'm gonna bring a raincoat, because I remember field school at College Park (as does Karen Hoy, I am sure).

LTM, who had fun grubbing in the mud,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 25, 2014, 06:39:54 PM
The museum website says they are open 9-5, 7 days a week.

Should we arrive in Dayton on Friday the 21st/Saturday the 22nd and visit the museum on Saturday or Sunday?  ;D
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 25, 2014, 06:47:05 PM
They list a behind the scenes tour (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/events/index.asp) on Fridays.  I'd like to catch that as part of the trip. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 25, 2014, 07:22:23 PM
They list a behind the scenes tour (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/events/index.asp) on Fridays.  I'd like to catch that as part of the trip.

We should do that.  It will get us into the restoration area where it will be easier to connect with the people we want to talk to without a lot of bureaucratic red tape.

Karen says, "Should we arrive in Dayton on Friday the 21st/Saturday the 22nd and visit the museum on Saturday or Sunday? "

Aris Scarla wouldn't be able to do Friday the 21st.  Could everyone do Friday March 28?  We'd get in the day before, have dinner together, and be there when they open the doors on Friday.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 25, 2014, 07:25:23 PM
I can be there Friday the 28th.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 25, 2014, 07:27:24 PM
The website says the behind the scenes tours begin at 12:15 pm on Fridays. Advance registration is required.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/visit/tours.asp
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 25, 2014, 07:30:22 PM
Just noticed that registration for the March 28 tour is closed. A "limited" number of standby spots may be available.

Does the museum ever do special tours for unique groups (like TIGHAR?)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 25, 2014, 07:31:28 PM
The website says the behind the scenes tours begin at 12:15 pm on Fridays. Advance registration is required.

I could get us all registered (assuming they have room) if everyone can make that date.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 25, 2014, 07:32:55 PM
Just noticed that registration for the March 28 tour is closed. A "limited" number of standby spots may be available.

Does the museum ever do special tours for unique groups (like TIGHAR?)

I'll call the museum tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 25, 2014, 09:44:15 PM
Ric,
I am working on three of us here in GA.  We'll fly up in my bird if we can agree.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Lange on February 26, 2014, 09:50:39 AM

Aris Scarla wouldn't be able to do Friday the 21st.  Could everyone do Friday March 28?  We'd get in the day before, have dinner together, and be there when they open the doors on Friday.

I can make that timeframe work. Being self employed, my boss lets me have time off just about anytime! :-)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 26, 2014, 01:39:13 PM
The same online source for the Douglas C-47 manual posted on Feb. 25th also has the repair manual for the Consolidated PBY-5.  It's a bit of a surprise to learn that virtually all the skin plating above the chine on the PBY-5 hull was .030" Alcad, or thinner material than might be expected.  That's not the same as 2-2-V-1 and .032 I realize, but the manual does call for repairs to damaged .030 hull skin to be made with .032 material [...and AN456-4 rivets- the 1/8" shank rivets with the same head as the AN455-3 rivet.  See page 94 of 182.]

Look under "Other Airframes"

http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/

Consolidated 01-5M-3 (PBY-5 , 5A, 6A - Handbook of Structural Repair Manual)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 26, 2014, 04:02:14 PM
I've been back and forth today with Roger Deere, head of the restoration shop at NMUSAF. Their shop works a "compressed" work week.  Not many of his people are around on Fridays (just enough to do the tours).  We're trying to set up something that will work for everybody.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 26, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
The same online source for the Douglas C-47 manual posted on Feb. 25th also has the repair manual for the Consolidated PBY-5.  It's a bit of a surprise to learn that virtually all the skin plating above the chine on the PBY-5 hull was .030" Alcad, or thinner material than might be expected.  That's not the same as 2-2-V-1 and .032 I realize, but the manual does call for repairs to damaged .030 hull skin to be made with .032 material [...and AN456-4 rivets- the 1/8" shank rivets with the same head as the AN455-3 rivet.  See page 94 of 182.]


Nice work Mark.  That's the kind of language and level of detail I would like to find in the Lockheed library, but military customers are more likely to be willing to pay for the fancy documentation and the 10E was a commercial product at the time.

I looked at a small flying boat (http://www.carolinasaviation.org/civil/smarchetti) a couple of weeks ago and was surprised at how light the hull construction appeared to be.  I wasn't able to touch or measure, so no hard data, but I'll post a picture if I can find a good one.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 26, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
That's the kind of language and level of detail I would like to find in the Lockheed library, but military customers are more likely to be willing to pay for the fancy documentation and the 10E was a commercial product at the time.

I think the lack of fancy documentation on the Model 10 is more a function of the state of the industry in 1934-38.  Building airplanes was still almost a cottage industry.  No illustrated how-to manuals were needed by small factories that turned out one or two airplanes at a time. Part numbers were not stamped into parts, etc. 
War in Europe changed everything. Government contracts for thousands of aircraft meant thousands of new employees had to be trained - and fast.  The writing and illustrating of manuals attracted the best talent.  Many of the wartime manuals are better written than anything produced today.

1939-1942 saw a huge change in aircraft manufacture.  Our artifact seems to be telling us that it dates from before that watershed.  If we can prove it with regulations, guidelines or manuals we'll have eliminated WWII aircraft as candidates for the source of 2-2-V-1. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 26, 2014, 06:03:33 PM
What kind of schedule do the restoration employees work? What days might be available?

Thanks,
Karen
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 26, 2014, 06:07:14 PM
What kind of schedule do the restoration employees work? What days might be available?

I don't know yet.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 26, 2014, 08:40:28 PM
Ric,
Is there anyway we can lay our hands on a pre WWII piece of Alcad and then do a spectro analysis comparison of a known sample and 2-2-V-1?

Can Alcoa suggest any processing changes we could look for on 2-2-V-1, such as flat plate rolling process marks, heat treatment, rockwell hardness, anodizing chemicals, coefficent of expansion specifications, chemical properties i.e. tin, lead, aluminium content, etc., tensile/shear strength or other physical properties we might be able to test in order to get a date range on 2-2-V-1?

Can we chemically compare 2-2-V-1 to a known original Lockheed 10E sheet metal fragment?

Let's see if we can narrow the field of possibilities!

Ted Campbell

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 07:22:08 AM
Is there anyway we can lay our hands on a pre WWII piece of Alcad and then do a spectro analysis comparison of a known sample and 2-2-V-1?

In 1996 ALCOA cut three large "coupons" out of the artifact (broke my heart) and ran analyses to determine the makeup of the metal. They found it to be identical to the pre-war, wartime, and post-war makeup of 24ST ALCLAD (since 1954 known as 2024 ALCLAD).

Can Alcoa suggest any processing changes we could look for on 2-2-V-1, such as flat plate rolling process marks, heat treatment, rockwell hardness, anodizing chemicals, coefficent of expansion specifications, chemical properties i.e. tin, lead, aluminium content, etc., tensile/shear strength or other physical properties we might be able to test in order to get a date range on 2-2-V-1?

I don't know.  We'd have to start over with ALCOA.  I doubt that any of our contacts from 18 years ago are still around.

Can we chemically compare 2-2-V-1 to a known original Lockheed 10E sheet metal fragment?

We already know that it's the right stuff in the sense that it's 24ST ALCLAD.  A technique known as Neutron Activation Analysis could identify trace minerals in the alloy which, if compared to a known sample of metal from NR16020, could tell us that the two samples came from the same "batch" of aluminum.  But even then we run into a couple of problems:
• How big was a "batch"of aluminum in 1936/37?  Big enough for metal from the same batch to be sold to several manufacturers?
• According to ALCOA, the labeling on 2-2-V-1 indicates it is "reserve stock."  The only known surviving example of metal from NR16020 are souvenir scraps from the Luke Field accident and, therefore, from the original construction, not the repair.  Was the "reserve stock" used in the repair from the same batch of aluminum as the metal used in the original construction a year earlier?
• Neither of the individuals who own fragments of metal from NR16020 is TIGHAR-friendly.

Bottom line: Neutron Activation Analysis wouldn't reliably narrow the field.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 08:08:21 AM
Just got off the phone. The Air Force Museum front office is being very supportive and cooperative.  They're still working out the procedures and details but I fully expect we'll be able to have a private tour of the restoration shop and meet with the shop foreman on Friday, March 28.  We'll need to hold it down to around a dozen people more or less and I'll need everybody's name to finalize everything.
The restoration shop is about a mile from museum and, unlike the museum, it is on the Air Force Base proper so we have to go through base security.  Everyone will need photo ID and it will simplify things greatly if everyone is an American citizen.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on February 27, 2014, 08:10:36 AM
Will you be bringing 2-2-V-1 to show them?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 08:11:08 AM
Will you be bringing 2-2-V-1 to show them?

You betcha.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 09:17:08 AM
I've been thinking about the rivet inspection conundrum - that being:  the head of a 3/32" AN455 brazier rivet is indistinguishable from the head of a 1/8" AN456 modified brazier. That would seem to mean that - as we stalk the hangars of the National Museum of the United States Air Force, micrometers at the ready, we won't be able to test our hypothesis that the scale of materials used in 2-2-V-1 (3/32" AN455 brazier rivets in a .032 skin) is not found on WWII aircraft that served in the Pacific UNLESS we are unable to find any rivet heads of the "right" style and diameter. 

If we do find rivets that could be 3/32" AN455s or 1/8" AN456s, we might be able to judge the thickness of the surrounding skin by a simple "thunk" test.  A .032 skin "thunks" very differently from, say, a .040 skin.  Not high science but what we're looking for is a sense of scale in how aircraft of a given time and size were constructed. 

Of course, we're also looking for more than rivet type and size.  We're looking for patterns that might match the artifact.  If we find a location on an aircraft that might match the artifact we can dig deeper and find out whether the materials actually do match.

Actually I believe you will find that an AD455 and AD456 are distinguishable due to height vs. diameter of the head - the AD456 has a more sharply radiused head (smaller diameter to similar height for a given size).  Hence while a #4 AD456 head may be similar in diameter to a #3 AD455, the head height would be noticeably higher.

As an 'inspection tool', it might be useful to prepare coupons with samples of #3 and #4 rivets of both types for comparison to what might be observed on the museum floor.  It would be nice to also have #3 and #4 AD470 types thereon.  #5 as well - all types - though advisible to double the coupon thickness to allow for normal tail development, etc.

I would be happy to help with preparing such coupons, if useful for this idea of visual comparison.  I do not possess any AD455 or AD456 rivets or the rivet sets for them but I'm sure I can get them.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
The same online source for the Douglas C-47 manual posted on Feb. 25th also has the repair manual for the Consolidated PBY-5.  It's a bit of a surprise to learn that virtually all the skin plating above the chine on the PBY-5 hull was .030" Alcad, or thinner material than might be expected.  That's not the same as 2-2-V-1 and .032 I realize, but the manual does call for repairs to damaged .030 hull skin to be made with .032 material [...and AN456-4 rivets- the 1/8" shank rivets with the same head as the AN455-3 rivet.  See page 94 of 182.]

Look under "Other Airframes"

http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/

Consolidated 01-5M-3 (PBY-5 , 5A, 6A - Handbook of Structural Repair Manual)

That is an interesting find and I am a bit surprised at such light skins for the belly of a seaplane, even in the after hull.

Considering this and having looked at the Coronado example and considering the wreck of one of those in the region, I believe we should consider the Coronado carefully.  What was described by way of that accident was violent and might have produced something like we see in 2-2-V-1.  But to be sure, the Coronado would have to be shown to have used #3 rivets in those 'similar' areas, and if that were to bear out, it would really help to know more about the wrecked bird: had it been subjected to some previous repair?  No mistaking - 2-2-V-1 is a repair/alteration piece of metal, that is not factory stock stuff - the altered rivet pattern / sizing is evident and persuasive of that.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 27, 2014, 10:35:00 AM
Thinking about the artifact (dangerous, I know), and the pending Dayton Expedition - Is there a way we can make a reasonably accurate, flexible template of the part? For comparison purposes with every aircraft we can crawl over, under or through? Something flexible and tough like Mylar, Tyvek, something like that?

That, and having good tape measures handy!

LTM, who flunked sewing class,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 27, 2014, 01:28:47 PM
That is an interesting find and I am a bit surprised at such light skins for the belly of a seaplane, even in the after hull.

Considering this and having looked at the Coronado example and considering the wreck of one of those in the region, I believe we should consider the Coronado carefully....

Agreed.  Following that reasoning, the PBM wreck on Howland Island should also be carefully considered. 
A large wing panel can be seen in the background of this photo

http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/c/c1/Plane_wreckage.jpg

Here's another surprise- WW2 wreckage found in 2006 in the Marshall Islands and alleged to be from a PB2Y Coronado.  Take a look at those rivets surrounding the inspection plate-  what do you think?   Could they be 3/32" or 1/8"?  AN455 or AN456??

http://pacaeropress.websitetoolbox.com/post/unidentified-wing-section-RoiNamur-6162613?trail





Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 01:36:33 PM
Following that reasoning, the PBM wreck on Howland Island should also be carefully considered. 
A large wing panel can be seen in the background of this photo

That's a wingtip float, not part of the wing.

Here's another surprise- WW2 wreckage found in 2006 in the Marshall Islands and alleged to be from a PB2Y Coronado.  Take a look at those rivets surrounding the inspection plate-  what do you think?   Could they be 3/32" or 1/8"?  AN455 or AN456??

No way to tell scale, but I don;lt think those are braziers or modified braziers.

FWIW, I'm aware of no traffic either during or after the war between Howland or the Marshals and the settlement on Nikumaroro.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 27, 2014, 01:52:06 PM
That's a wingtip float, not part of the wing.

A wing panel [with skin sections missing] is in the background- closer to the beach.  Click the image for a larger view.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 02:04:47 PM
That is an interesting find and I am a bit surprised at such light skins for the belly of a seaplane, even in the after hull.

Considering this and having looked at the Coronado example and considering the wreck of one of those in the region, I believe we should consider the Coronado carefully....

Agreed.  Following that reasoning, the PBM wreck on Howland Island should also be carefully considered. 
A large wing panel can be seen in the background of this photo

http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/c/c1/Plane_wreckage.jpg

Here's another surprise- WW2 wreckage found in 2006 in the Marshall Islands and alleged to be from a PB2Y Coronado.  Take a look at those rivets surrounding the inspection plate-  what do you think?   Could they be 3/32" or 1/8"?  AN455 or AN456??

http://pacaeropress.websitetoolbox.com/post/unidentified-wing-section-RoiNamur-6162613?trail

Interesting finds.  Can't say for sure what the rivets are - I compared visually to some AN470s and they don't seem to have the characteristic 'flat' spot on top of the head of the universal, but I really can't be certain.

Also can't be certain of scale off-hand, but that appears to be a 5" diameter inspection plate.  If so, we could be looking at a mix of #3 and #4 rivets, maybe some #5's.

Following that reasoning, the PBM wreck on Howland Island should also be carefully considered. 
A large wing panel can be seen in the background of this photo

That's a wingtip float, not part of the wing.

Here's another surprise- WW2 wreckage found in 2006 in the Marshall Islands and alleged to be from a PB2Y Coronado.  Take a look at those rivets surrounding the inspection plate-  what do you think?   Could they be 3/32" or 1/8"?  AN455 or AN456??

No way to tell scale, but I don;lt think those are braziers or modified braziers.

FWIW, I'm aware of no traffic either during or after the war between Howland or the Marshals and the settlement on Nikumaroro.

Rick,

Look in the background (way out, near shore) beyond the tip float - looks like a wing hulk.  Also a scattered field of debris that I first took to be building ruins - but looking closer I see fuselage frames and what may be corrugated bracing metal (not sure if this bird had that, like a C-47, etc. - but it was common) - also other metal that could relate to a hull.  It is badly torn.

What was the story on this loss at Howland?  Was there a fire involved?

I don't know the 'traffic pattern' for how stuff might or might not have migrated and respect if we have no knowledge of it, but it isn't terribly far away in the sense of the regional reach.  Of course I realize that Howland would have been far from an afternoon outing in the family dugout...

That said, seems like the PBM ought to be considered among the possible donors.

No matter what we find - I remain convinced that we're looking at a unique piece in 2-2-V-1 regardless of what accident of circumstances produced it: that is not production quality stuff, it is clearly a repair with some degree of overcoming bad / elongated holes and misplaced / bent or straightened stiffeners - likely with some degree of laid-in sistering behind the original flanges. 

In short, 2-2-V-1 is clearly a repair and / or alteration piece of material - so whatever ship contributed it ought to either bear or have some record of such work.  We happen to know that Earhart's Electra did have that.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 27, 2014, 02:20:02 PM
What was the story on this loss at Howland?  Was there a fire involved?

"Plane wreckage on Howland Island." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland#Plane_wreckage_on_Howland_Island_.281944.29)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 02:21:16 PM
That is an interesting find and I am a bit surprised at such light skins for the belly of a seaplane, even in the after hull.

Considering this and having looked at the Coronado example and considering the wreck of one of those in the region, I believe we should consider the Coronado carefully....

[bold]Agreed.  Following that reasoning, the PBM wreck on Howland Island should also be carefully considered. 
A large wing panel can be seen in the background of this photo [/bold]

http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/c/c1/Plane_wreckage.jpg


As to the float - note a couple of things:

- fairly large sections of skin have been cut from the vertical side nearest the camera - mostly cut roughly away / between frames.  Not much in way of longitudinal stiffeners along the sides - but look through the holes where material was 'harvested' - you can see internal bracing - stiffeners - where they are gusseted to the bulkheads, or former-frames.  Sea-bearing surfaces are reinforced that way - we are seeing evidence of stiffeners running fore-and-aft along the bottom skin of this float.

ADDED: One can also see evidence of non-original repairs on the float - most clearly nearest the camera toward the front, on the side.  That is a simple doubler made fast with border rows of rivets only - and may simply cover badly dented material, or a hole - who knows.  Other areas are suggestive of old repairs as well.  One can imagine these floats may have gotten a beating now and then in service and rapid repairs may have been the case.  Had a repair been necessary on the float bottom, we can see that stiffeners would be involved as well.

Is this junk still sitting around on Howland?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 02:22:53 PM
What was the story on this loss at Howland?  Was there a fire involved?

"Plane wreckage on Howland Island." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland#Plane_wreckage_on_Howland_Island_.281944.29)

Thanks Marty - was about to go look as I was recalling something of this from the past - you saved me the trouble!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 27, 2014, 02:54:17 PM

FWIW, I'm aware of no traffic either during or after the war between Howland or the Marshals and the settlement on Nikumaroro.

About the PB2Y wreckage found in the Marshal Islands- I was only commenting on the 'unexpected' nature of its discovery by a beach-stroller in 2006, not that it was a likely source for 2-2-V-1.   

The PBM wreck on Howland on the other hand is - IMHO - a potential source.  The detailed story of how that PBM came to its end can be found here-

http://www.vpnavy.com/vp16_mishap.html

Scroll down to "MISHAPs: 10 JUN 44"

Here is a better view of the PBM wing [and float #2].  I'd like to think this stuff is still sitting there today, awaiting a close inspection. 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/tinpis/images_temp_4_200809171813_1_Howlan.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-376650.html&h=600&w=450&sz=67&tbnid=kVQSTLiM7kvU3M&tbnh=259&tbnw=194&zoom=1&usg=__EhaI_N75zrJr2Xd8_QBD-75tiVE=
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 03:54:51 PM
Here's an interesting side-piece that I found on war-time aircraft repair in the Pacific  (http://www.usmm.org/felknorivory.html) while ruminating over how such stuff was done.  Sounds like the scheme included airlifting repair crews to do field repairs at the site of trouble in many cases.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 04:53:06 PM
The PBM wreck on Howland on the other hand is - IMHO - a potential source.

I'm trying to envision a rational scenario where a piece of the Howland PBM would end up on Nikumaoro - and not having much luck.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on February 27, 2014, 06:46:41 PM
The PBM wreck on Howland on the other hand is - IMHO - a potential source.

I'm trying to envision a rational scenario where a piece of the Howland PBM would end up on Nikumaoro - and not having much luck.

How about via Canton? Could have there been US military traffic between Howland and Canton, bringing a piece of the Howland PBM to Canton, and then from there to Niku by a colonist working at Canton?...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 27, 2014, 06:54:44 PM
I'm trying to envision a rational scenario where a piece of the Howland PBM would end up on Nikumaoro - and not having much luck.

Just to flesh out the doubts a little bit:
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 07:29:20 PM
How about via Canton? Could have there been US military traffic between Howland and Canton, bringing a piece of the Howland PBM to Canton, and then from there to Niku by a colonist working at Canton?...

This is one of those can't-say-it-couldn't-happen things but ...   as Marty pointed out, the only people on Howland during the war were a lonely outpost of Marines. (Hard to imagine why they were there. The place is worthless.). If the Marines were ever taken to Canton, why would they bring a hunk of airplane wreckage with them?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 27, 2014, 08:34:08 PM
Great! I'm going to book my flight.

The closest hotel (less than a mile away) is the Comfort Suites-Wright Patterson. Do we want to stay there or somewhere else?

Thanks,
Karen Hoy
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on February 27, 2014, 09:36:31 PM
How about via Canton? Could have there been US military traffic between Howland and Canton, bringing a piece of the Howland PBM to Canton, and then from there to Niku by a colonist working at Canton?...

This is one of those can't-say-it-couldn't-happen things but ...   as Marty pointed out, the only people on Howland during the war were a lonely outpost of Marines. (Hard to imagine why they were there. The place is worthless.). If the Marines were ever taken to Canton, why would they bring a hunk of airplane wreckage with them?

I was merely suggesting an possible answer for your question about how a PBM part might have moved from the Howland PBM to Niku (and, I suppose the part could have made the trip without an accompanying marine). It’s not clear to me why anybody would have bothered to scavenge parts from that particular plane, so I don't actually feel very strongly that parts from the Howland PBM made it to Canton.

But what is interesting about what Mark has dug up, if I am understanding it, is that the right thickness aluminum, and the right kind of rivets (to match 2-2-V-I) were found in some WWII-era aircraft. If that's true, then 2-2-V-I seems a lot less exotic than it did at the start of this thread.

 I should sheepishly confess, should I have missed anything, that this thread is waaaay too down in the weeds for me so I'm going to excuse myself from any further posts here and wait for somebody to wrap it all up with a nice clear definitive conclusion (fat chance!!! ::))

----
note added: according to the Howland Island wiki, the PBM's crew was rescued by the USCG Balsam and transferred to a sub chaser which took them to Canton Island. Now, I'm not saying they brought a piece of their wrecked PBM with them as a souvenir, I'm just pointing out that it isn't so farfetched to think stuff from Howland could end up at Canton; and again let me say that I'm agnostic on the odds of that actually having happened.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 28, 2014, 08:26:56 AM
Now, I'm not saying they brought a piece of their wrecked PBM with them as a souvenir, I'm just pointing out that it isn't so farfetched to think stuff from Howland could end up at Canton; and again let me say that I'm agnostic on the odds of that actually having happened.

So, someone arranges to blast a piece off of some part of the PBM, carries it as a souvenir to Canton, then decides it isn't such a good souvenir, and gives it to someone headed toward Gardner, because ... 

Uh, I don't see a great because there.

I'm not saying that this is impossible.  This is one of the kinds of negatives that can't be proven.  If you show that there is a source for the rivet pattern on the PBM in question, then I guess I'll have to give this more credence.  For the moment, it seems to me to be an extremely unlikely sequence.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on February 28, 2014, 08:44:17 AM
Now, I'm not saying they brought a piece of their wrecked PBM with them as a souvenir, I'm just pointing out that it isn't so farfetched to think stuff from Howland could end up at Canton; and again let me say that I'm agnostic on the odds of that actually having happened.

So, someone arranges to blast a piece off of some part of the PBM, carries it as a souvenir to Canton, then decides it isn't such a good souvenir, and gives it to someone headed toward Gardner, because ... 

Uh, I don't see a great because there.

I'm not saying that this is impossible.  This is one of the kinds of negatives that can't be proven.  If you show that there is a source for the rivet pattern on the PBM in question, then I guess I'll have to give this more credence.  For the moment, it seems to me to be an extremely unlikely sequence.

I would think re-purposed item or adapted material source would be a better way to look at it than souvenir. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 08:53:28 AM
But what is interesting about what Mark has dug up, if I am understanding it, is that the right thickness aluminum, and the right kind of rivets (to match 2-2-V-I) were found in some WWII-era aircraft. If that's true, then 2-2-V-I seems a lot less exotic than it did at the start of this thread.

We've always known that 3/32" rivets and .032" skin were not uncommon in WWII aircraft.  What seems to make 2-2-V-1 "exotic" is the use of 3/32" rivets in a .032" skin for primary load-bearing structure. There may be examples of that combination in WWII aircraft but nobody has found any yet.  Maybe we'll find examples when we visit the Air Force Museum.

To find an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need to find 3/32" brazier rivets in a .032" skin in a pattern that matches, or even comes close to matching, the pattern on 2-2-V-1.

I should sheepishly confess, should I have missed anything, that this thread is waaaay too down in the weeds for me so I'm going to excuse myself from any further posts here and wait for somebody to wrap it all up with a nice clear definitive conclusion (fat chance!!! ::))

You've hit the nail (or rivet) on the head.  2-2-V-1 is an extraordinary artifact that, to several of us, at least approaches smoking gun status - but the "why" is, as you say, waaay too down in the weeds for most people.  Our hope is that we can document the artifact's "exoticness" by showing that it meets guidelines that were obsolete by the time WWII aircraft were built and repaired.  Failing that, we'll have to show that criteria for being a source for 2-2-V-1 do not exist on any aircraft that served in the Central Pacific region.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 28, 2014, 09:24:06 AM
Now, I'm not saying they brought a piece of their wrecked PBM with them as a souvenir, I'm just pointing out that it isn't so farfetched to think stuff from Howland could end up at Canton; and again let me say that I'm agnostic on the odds of that actually having happened.

So, someone arranges to blast a piece off of some part of the PBM, carries it as a souvenir to Canton, then decides it isn't such a good souvenir, and gives it to someone headed toward Gardner, because ... 

Uh, I don't see a great because there.

I'm not saying that this is impossible.  This is one of the kinds of negatives that can't be proven.  If you show that there is a source for the rivet pattern on the PBM in question, then I guess I'll have to give this more credence.  For the moment, it seems to me to be an extremely unlikely sequence.

I'm probably a strong number 2 candidate for "most believes that 2-2-V-1 is a likely Electra artifact" right behind Ric here by what I've already publicly said, so I hope this is not taken as poking holes.  I just also believe we have to be thorough about eliminating other potential sources for 2-2-V-1, and a potential 'donor' 350 miles away is strong, IMO.

Now lies this PBM wreckage with a stiffener arrangement of some sort (similar 'standard' pattern - may be a fit, maybe not) visible through a gaping hole cut in the side of a PBM wing float where metal was removed, said remains lying at Howland Island.  We have no clear lines of victualization between that place and Niku.  But, said float bears obvious evidence of old repairs in at least one location near foward end, on the side skin.  In the background lies a wing from that same PBM; in the more immediate background lies a junkyard of what may be fuselage remains, or something else - but by appearances "aviation wreckage". 

The history of this wreck is colorful - deliberately beached on coral and destroyed by fire - and by the old repairs visible on the float, 'hard service' suggests a history of dings and patches.  Any part of those remains could prove a 'fit', however unlikely we think it that a portion could have got to Niku later - or 'not a fit'.  Or maybe there is a PBM we can look at more expediently to see if a match occurs. 

While later than the Electra, the PBM is arguably of appropriate vintage (entered service September 1940) as we now understand the decline of the brazier-head rivet to be about a decade later than previously thought, and that some of these seaplanes had surprisingly thinner metal on the hull skins that previously believed (see links up-string).

I recognize the burden of transport and that we don't know of any direct paths by history's record and realize that the governance of Howland vs. Gardner / Niku and others is different (U.S. vs. then-UK, now Kiribati), and what that suggests regarding access.  I also realize that metal does not float, and that it is unlikely that any metal lying about got swept up with Dorothy and Toto to be deposited later at Gardner.  But someone 'cut' metal from the side of that float - and a bit crudely, look at the jagged edges - and must have gone to some trouble to do so, for some reason.

So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains; the structure has a traditional belly-stiffener arrangement visible through a gaping hole where metal was removed by someone after the ship was destroyed.  These remains are from an airplane which was destroyed with at least some interaction of its lower elements with the reef at Howland, and we know that a fire played some part in its destruction.  2-2-V-1 is one mechnically and possibly thermally-abused artifact, which bears evidence of forcible removal from its host aircraft. 

I concede that we have no known mode of transport and that there are jurisdictional challenges - but we have these other things and reasonable proximity within which many strange and unrecorded things could have easily happened over some period of time when the official world was not looking.  My belief is that we cannot ignore this hulk as a possible source anymore than we'd shy from visiting the AF museum for a comparison. 

While I view 2-2-V-1 as a very strong Electra candidate because of its unique character and place where found, we still have a vexacious fitment issue and other sources are possible - especially anything of similar vintage and repair history lying within a few hundred miles of 'home'.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 10:02:32 AM
So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains; the structure has a traditional belly-stiffener arrangement visible through a gaping hole where metal was removed by someone after the ship was destroyed.  These remains are from an airplane which was destroyed with at least some interaction of its lower elements with the reef at Howland, and we know that a fire played some part in its destruction.  2-2-V-1 is one mechnically and possibly thermally-abused artifact, which bears evidence of forcible removal from its host aircraft. 

Did I miss something?  Do we have any indication that there are #3 braziers in a .032 skin on a PBM, let alone a rivet pattern anything like we see on 2-2-V-1?  There was undoubtedly airplane wreckage all over the Central Pacific: a PBM at Howland, B-24s on Funafuti, a C-47 on Sydney, and several different types on Canton. 

The only surviving PBM is at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson.  We can certainly check it out.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 11:05:46 AM
At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-
http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

To check this apparent quandary I asked the Univair Aircraft Corporation (http://www.univair.com) (they specialize in old style rivets for restorers) to sell me examples of AN455 braziers, sizes 3/32 (aka #3), 1/8 (aka #4), and 5/32 (aka #5); and examples of AN456 modified braziers in the same sizes.  I didn't tell them why I wanted the rivets except that it was for historical research.  They were kind enough to send the rivets at no charge.  The AN455 braziers are pure aluminum, no dimple - and the AN456s are AD rivets with a dimple. That should make no difference in the size.

As you can see from the attached photos:
•  the existing rivet in 2-2-V-1, although looking a bit worse for wear, is clearly an AN455 AD #3.
•  the heads of the AN455 #3 rivet and the AN456 #4 rivet are not even close in diameter, let alone identical.

Somebody must have misread something.  We should be able to identify #3 brazier rivets on aircraft by examining the shape of the head and measuring its diameter.

 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John B. Shattuck on February 28, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
Quote
You've hit the nail (or rivet) on the head.  2-2-V-1 is an extraordinary artifact that, to several of us, at least approaches smoking gun status - but the "why" is, as you say, waaay too down in the weeds for most people.  Our hope is that we can document the artifact's "exoticness" by showing that it meets guidelines that were obsolete by the time WWII aircraft were built and repaired.  Failing that, we'll have to show that criteria for being a source for 2-2-V-1 do not exist on any aircraft that served in the Central Pacific region.

Ric, did you ever see that documentary of Ballard finding the Titanic?  In it, their ROV is following a non-descript debris trail as tension in the control room mounts.  Then, into the view projected in the monitor is a large round image; "that's the boiler!" someone shouts, and to the assembled experts in maritime engineering they know they have just found the resting place of the Titanic.  To the rest of us, it is simply another piece of debris rusting on the ocean floor.  Of course, from there Ballard goes on to bring home the ghostly images of Titanic in her final resting place and wins popular acclaim as the "finder of the Titanic". 

Is 2-2-V-1 our boiler?  The piece of debris that indicates to the experts in historic aircraft engineering that they have found the location of the aircraft...  If so, does our problem of proof remain?  Consider if Ballard's expedition had run out of money just at the point they found the boiler, and they returned to Wood's Hole with nothing more than their footage of the boiler.  I imagine that experts would have agreed, but in the end the public would hardly have taken note; or it simply would have begged the question "where's the rest of it".  Ballard truly "found" the Titanic when he brought us the image of her on the bottom.  2-2-V-1 may prove to be the smoking gun that proves our hypothesis, but will it be enough for the public at large?  I would caution that it may not; we may have to bring back some definitive image that the public identifies with and concludes that we have found them.

You got me churning on these thoughts earlier in the thread when we discussed what agencies would be so unimpeachable as to be the legitimate arbiters of discovery.  Perhaps the unassailable opinion is in combination with an image from the bottom that becomes the smoking gun once combined.  Here's hoping Ritchie's anomoly; or other find ultimately delivers the "yep, that's her plane" moment.

Hope my thoughts are of some assistance...

JB
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 11:36:36 AM
Is 2-2-V-1 our boiler?  The piece of debris that indicates to the experts in historic aircraft engineering that they have found the location of the aircraft...  If so, does our problem of proof remain?  Consider if Ballard's expedition had run out of money just at the point they found the boiler, and they returned to Wood's Hole with nothing more than their footage of the boiler.  I imagine that experts would have agreed, but in the end the public would hardly have taken note; or it simply would have begged the question "where's the rest of it".  Ballard truly "found" the Titanic when he brought us the image of her on the bottom.  2-2-V-1 may prove to be the smoking gun that proves our hypothesis, but will it be enough for the public at large?  I would caution that it may not; we may have to bring back some definitive image that the public identifies with and concludes that we have found them.

I've been having the same thoughts and I think the Titanic boiler analogy is a good one.  We need to look as closely as possible at our boiler but, for the public, the Earhart mystery will be solved when we find "the rest of it" whatever that may prove to be. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 28, 2014, 01:11:45 PM
 
There was undoubtedly airplane wreckage all over the Central Pacific: a PBM at Howland, B-24s on Funafuti, a C-47 on Sydney, and several different types on Canton.
 

Aircraft wreckage is reported to be on Baker Island also. Can it be eliminated as a potential source for 2-2-V-1 before knowing - for certain - what it consists of?  I'm with Jeff N., who says above-  "...we have to be thorough about eliminating other potential sources for 2-2-V-1, and a potential 'donor' 350 miles away is strong, IMO."

From Wikipedia- "Baker Island"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Island

"....The Ruins and artifacts"

"Debris from past human occupation is scattered throughout the island and in offshore waters. Most is from the U.S. military occupation of the island from 1942 to 1946. The most noticeable remnant is the 150-foot (46 m) wide, 5,400-foot (1,600 m) long airstrip. It is completely overgrown with vegetation and is unusable. In the northeast section, apparently the main camp area, are the remains of several buildings and heavy equipment. Five wooden antenna poles about 40 feet (12 m) in height remain standing in the camp. Debris from several crashed airplanes and large equipment such as bulldozers is scattered around the island. Numerous bulldozer excavations containing the remnants of metal, fuel and water drums are scattered about the north central portion and northern edge of the island. The Navy reported the loss of 11 landing craft in the surf during World War II."
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 28, 2014, 02:16:31 PM
So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains; the structure has a traditional belly-stiffener arrangement visible through a gaping hole where metal was removed by someone after the ship was destroyed.  These remains are from an airplane which was destroyed with at least some interaction of its lower elements with the reef at Howland, and we know that a fire played some part in its destruction.  2-2-V-1 is one mechnically and possibly thermally-abused artifact, which bears evidence of forcible removal from its host aircraft. 

Did I miss something?  Do we have any indication that there are #3 braziers in a .032 skin on a PBM, let alone a rivet pattern anything like we see on 2-2-V-1?  There was undoubtedly airplane wreckage all over the Central Pacific: a PBM at Howland, B-24s on Funafuti, a C-47 on Sydney, and several different types on Canton. 

The only surviving PBM is at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson.  We can certainly check it out.

I'll jump in with you and say I think we MAY have missed something - it is possible, given what we've learned about the date that braziers and other types gave way to the universal head rivet.  We also have upstring a report of thinner skins (.030" with .032" recommended for repair) in the hull bottom of a large seaplane than I would have thought.  Also, the stringer / stiffener pattern in the 'floor' of the float is apparent and may be a match - we won't know unless we check.

I do not know for certain the details of the PBM's construction, but given these things it needs checking out, IMO.  Pima would be a great source, agreed.  If I could stand on my previous understandings of 'WWII period' construction I'd brush the PBM off, but we now seem to have reason to look at it.  I still hold that 2-2-V-1 is unique in character - but the question now is whether it may also fit certain WWII types after all.

Don't get me wrong - I remain excited about 2-2-V-1 and what it may be.  I also stand by what I said earlier that challengers to that possibiltiy need to put up substance about where the source may be, and that has happened; of course it isn't a 'see, a definite fit on the PBM' kind of challenge, but enough is in front of me to realize I would have to take it up for serious consideration, or be less than thorough.  I appreciate your thought about Pima and hope they can help us (a lot cheaper than bobbing out to Howland to scrape the bird crap off of that old float and stuff...).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dan Swift on February 28, 2014, 02:23:37 PM
Titanic situation is different in my mind.  Everyone knew it sank, not exactly where, but it sank.  No one was trying to prove it sank rather than picked up by an alien vessel or disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle. 
The Tighar - AE situation is, Tighar needs only to prove it's hypothesis.  ANY piece or part that can only be from AE's Electra will prove that.  Yes, finding the entire plane would be nice.  But keep in mind, it may be in shreds.  So in this case, finding the boiler would be....well the end.  And the beginning of so many other things for Tighar. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 28, 2014, 02:26:48 PM


Jeff, 
        It would help if one could narrow the time frame down as to it's possible import to Niku, ....To me it seems plausible that it could have arrived on Niku anywhere from the time of it's manufacture and subsequent serpartion from it's parent structure, to it's discovery.....that is a span of possibly 50-54 years ....during the latter mobility may have improved somewhat....( more likely in the timeframe of occupation of course ) however; can we rule out the 70',...80's as well?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on February 28, 2014, 02:39:55 PM
Hi All

Sorry if these are of no use, first link is to a page on rivets

 http://avstop.com/ac/Aviation_Maintenance_Technician_Handbook_General/5-56.html

Second link is to some Earhart pics in a auction i haven't seen before,

 http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,244326782,var,Album-SENEGAL-GUINEE-AVIATION--Amelia-Earhart--Ethnographie--Elephantiasis--Militaires--Gouverneur--Hydravion,language,E.html

on some of the images you can see the area that 2-2-V-1 may be from

Thanks

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 02:42:14 PM
We're all set for a private tour of the Air Force Museum restoration shop on Friday, March 28 from 9:00AM to 10:15AM after which we will meet with Roger Deere, head of the shop.  It will be much easier to get everyone on and off the base if we're in one vehicle so we'll rent a van.  I'll need the names of everyone who plans to go so drop me a confirming email at Ric@tighar.org.
Also, please let me know if you're retired military (believe it or not it simplifies things for the Air Force). 

We need to decide whether it's more convenient to have a hotel close to the museum/air base or close to the commercial airport.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 02:44:44 PM
on some of the images you can see the area that 2-2-V-1 may be from

Not that I can see.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 28, 2014, 03:20:36 PM
At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-
http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

To check this apparent quandary I asked the Univair Aircraft Corporation (http://www.univair.com) (they specialize in old style rivets for restorers) to sell me examples of AN455 braziers, sizes 3/32 (aka #3), 1/8 (aka #4), and 5/32 (aka #5); and examples of AN456 modified braziers in the same sizes.  I didn't tell them why I wanted the rivets except that it was for historical research.  They were kind enough to send the rivets at no charge.  The AN455 braziers are pure aluminum, no dimple - and the AN456s are AD rivets with a dimple. That should make no difference in the size.

As you can see from the attached photos:
•  the existing rivet in 2-2-V-1, although looking a bit worse for wear, is clearly an AN455 AD #3.
•  the heads of the AN455 #3 rivet and the AN456 #4 rivet are not even close in diameter, let alone identical.

Somebody must have misread something.  We should be able to identify #3 brazier rivets on aircraft by examining the shape of the head and measuring its diameter.

 

Excellent getting those examples from Univaire.  Dimple or no dimple makes no difference in shape and dimensions, true - it merely denotes material type; the 'no dimple' is a 'soft' 1100 series rivet, if memory serves.

That actually looks like a pair of AN455s, one #3 and the other #4 - the head is too large on both examples relative to shank diameter for a 'modified' brazier AN456, I believe, so suggest checking to see if mislabled.  A #4 AN455 would have a head height of .062" and diameter of .312" (constant radius of .227") - which appears to be the case as I look at your scale against the #4 example; conversely, a #4 AN456 ("modified brazier") would have a head height of only about .047" and diameter of .235" - diminutive compared to the AN455. 

Where the comparison gets interesting (when just looking at the head-end on a skin surface) is the #3 'brazier' head vs. the #4 'modified brazier': the former is fully .234" in diameter and .047" high, vs. the latter example at a nearly identical .235" diameter / .047" height... see-whut-ah-mean?  :P 

It is almost literally as if the engineers simply reached down one size on the head for a given shank size to create the 'modified' rivet, hence the two would appear to be essentially identical as seen from the air passage side.  I think I quoted a difference in head radius earlier, but I see now that that would not be the case - the heads of the #3 AN455 and #4 AN456 would appear identical to the human eye.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 28, 2014, 03:56:31 PM


Jeff, 
        It would help if one could narrow the time frame down as to it's possible import to Niku, ....To me it seems plausible that it could have arrived on Niku anywhere from the time of it's manufacture and subsequent serpartion from it's parent structure, to it's discovery.....that is a span of possibly 50-54 years ....during the latter mobility may have improved somewhat....( more likely in the timeframe of occupation of course ) however; can we rule out the 70',...80's as well?

TIGHAR found the artifact in the village very early on in her expedition history on October 18, 1991 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf?wwparam=1393626543).  Given that date and that it was found in (or near) the village, and in the context of other 'craft' items from aircraft metal that were apparently 'worked' by those folks, the strong suggestion is to me that humans brought it to that place from somewhere.  For that to happen logically, the humans must have been inhabitants at Niku, and those were in attendance from 1940 until 1963 when abandonment of the island was decided upon.  Only a few residents remained "to be moved" for a 1964 visit from the Smithsonian Institution  (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/paradise.pdf) to study bird and plant life. 

If it got there via NR16020 then these things matter little, excepting possible harvest from the reef area and brought to the village by humans.  I'm not certain of it being found 'in the village' - what is described is among brush near the reef edge - so it could have washed up naturally for that matter from a local wreck (of you-know-what).

So if from the 1944 loss of the PBM, for example, there is a rational twenty-year window for harvest from Howland and transport to Niku by someone.  That gets us to 'how, and by whom?'  It didn't float there by itself, and Dorothy and Toto are not reported as having dropped in, so...

Oddly enough, in chasing down "PBM crash at Howland Island" I got to the dreaded Wiki article via one of my nonsense tangents (sort of like 'other interesting words found while looking something else up) - and there's detail of the PBM crew being rescued by the USCGC Balsam  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island) -

Quote
No aircraft is known to have ever landed there, although anchorages nearby could be used by float planes and flying boats during World War II. For example, on July 10, 1944, a U.S. Navy Martin PBM-3-D Mariner flying boat (BuNo 48199), piloted by William Hines, had an engine fire and made a forced landing in the ocean offshore of Howland. Hines beached the aircraft and although it burned, the crew escaped unharmed, was rescued by the USCGC Balsam (the same ship that later took Unit 92 to Gardner Island), transferred to a sub chaser and taken to Canton Island.

It's not clear to me that any of the PBM crew would have harvested metal for that voyage, as in "hey Charlie - let's sneak over to the wreck with some cutting tools and grab some scraps to trade later - we might just get to Gardner where some of those babes would love to have it...", but the world is strange.  At the very least, it turns out we do have at least one Howland-Gardner 'pipeline' at that moment in history.  It would be highly circumstantial to point out that islanders might have found the notion of a field of ruined metal irresistable enough to paddle after, but then I have not had to ply my trade on an isolated island with few resources lying about for me to tinker with either - Home Depot is too easy for me to get to.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on February 28, 2014, 03:59:17 PM
We're all set for a private tour of the Air Force Museum restoration shop on Friday, March 28 from 9:00AM to 10:15AM after which we will meet with Roger Deere, head of the shop.  It will be much easier to get everyone on and off the base if we're in one vehicle so we'll rent a van.  I'll need the names of everyone who plans to go so drop me a confirming email at Ric@tighar.org.
Also, please let me know if you're retired military (believe it or not it simplifies things for the Air Force). 

We need to decide whether it's more convenient to have a hotel close to the museum/air base or close to the commercial airport.

Outstanding!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on February 28, 2014, 04:43:33 PM
Has the best belly photo post Luke Field repairs been studied by Jeff Glickman ( somewhat in the same way as the Bevington object) ? As regards the overlap at the keel, Greg and I discussed this somewhat , but, could you once again post the best belly photo post Luke Field repairs....I am still unable to determine  keel lap of earhart's electra...the photo I recently viewed of earhart sitting in the nose of the Electra looks as if the lap would be starboard over port ....if this pattern continued down the length of the keel the whole of the plane , our (Port over starboard) diagram and understanding of the panel seperation may be changed...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
could you once again post the best belly photo post Luke Field repairs....

I'm not aware of a "belly photo" either pre or post the repairs.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bruce Thomas on February 28, 2014, 07:25:31 PM
It's too bad that the second photo in a certain blog by someone named Nate Maas (http://www.natemaas.com/2011/01/fred-noonan.html), captioned "Noonan and Earhart boarding their Lockheed Electra in Puerto Rico", which shows a lot of the belly of NR16020, lacks the clarity to see the necessary detail.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 28, 2014, 07:58:46 PM
This photo in the purdue archives (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=336&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=3076&DMY=1968&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=334&y=335) shows something odd under it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. The photo is taken from the opposite side but something seems to be protruding from the skin close to that area maybe a little rear of the suspected location?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 28, 2014, 08:03:09 PM
This photo in the purdue archives (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=336&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=3076&DMY=1968&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=334&y=335) shows something odd under it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. The photo is taken from the opposite side but something seems to be protruding from the skin close to that area maybe a little rear of the suspected location?

I see what you mean, but that photo was taken at Burbank in early March before the first world flight attempt, so it was before the wreck and the repairs.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on February 28, 2014, 08:15:13 PM
This photo in the purdue archives (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=336&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=3076&DMY=1968&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=334&y=335) shows something odd under it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. The photo is taken from the opposite side but something seems to be protruding from the skin close to that area maybe a little rear of the suspected location?

I see what you mean, but that photo was taken at Burbank in early March before the first world flight attempt, so it was before the wreck and the repairs.
I wonder if that could have something to do with repair order #9? Something that was damaged later and thought to be a 3rd mast
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Karen Hoy on February 28, 2014, 08:30:58 PM
Hotels near Dayton International Airport


http://www.airporthotelguide.com/dayton/airporthotels.html

Karen Hoy
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Walter Runck on February 28, 2014, 09:15:46 PM


Somebody must have misread something.  We should be able to identify #3 brazier rivets on aircraft by examining the shape of the head and measuring its diameter.

 

I agree, but I think it was whoever put those rivets in the bag.  Every commercial and military spec I can find shows the heads of a #3 brazier and #4 modified brazier to be virtually identical.  There's only a couple thou variability in the acceptable size ranges and you can't see that kind of difference by eye.  Relatively speaking, there's more difference between your right and left thumbnails than those specs.  I doubt even fabbing up some profile gauges would help.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 28, 2014, 09:26:21 PM
This may or may not be of some use but, in wondering how a sheet of aircraft skin ended up on the Western? shore of the island from theoretically some? depth off of the reef. I was reading up on the Gilbert islands when I came across this article from the WHOI.

"At the equator, trade winds push a surface current from east to west. About 100 to 200 meters below, a swift countercurrent develops, flowing in the opposite direction. This, the Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC), is cooler and rich in nutrients. When it hits an island, like a rock in a river, water is deflected upward on the island's western flank and around the islands. This well-known upwelling process brings cooler water and nutrients to the sunlit surface, creating localized areas where tiny marine plants and corals flourish."

https://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases?tid=3622&cid=135429 (https://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases?tid=3622&cid=135429)

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on February 28, 2014, 11:14:26 PM
Here is evidence of 3/32" rivets being used in the B-17.

"Loda woman awaits B-17 visit, talks about time in factory"
07/07/2008

LODA – The upcoming visit of a B-17 aircraft to Willard Airport on July 11-13 has sparked memories for Loda resident Caroline Helregel.... Some reports say that women were even better at rivet work than men and perhaps that had something to do with the size of the rivets.  "Those rivets were so small, you can't believe it," she said. "We did the plates that held the wing flaps (on the B-17) with little bitty (3/32-inch) rivets..."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_rrHMxcZ7dwJ:www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008-07-07/loda-woman-awaits-b-17-visit-talks-about-time-factory.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
----------------------------------

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...This design analysis article was originally published in the December, 1944, issue of Industrial Aviation magazine,"

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads and is laid with the corrugations running spanwise of the wing."

Much more on the B-17 here-
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_articles_index.html

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 01, 2014, 08:02:40 AM
A thousand pardons if already discussed but forum search didn't find anything...wondering about possible sources for correct vintage aircraft parts in the broad vicinity other than "crash" wreckage....meaning suppose there was a plane that was battle (or otherwise) damaged but makes it back to base or nearest available base, makes a clean landing but air frame is assessed as not worth repairing so pushed to the side and abandoned and/or used for parts.
1. Would this plane show on the "loss" list (per Ric page 14 of this thread) since it technically wasnt crashed? If not, I assume there would be another list to record a "retirement" or "attrition" such as this hypothetical case.
2. What would be the most likely utimate destiny of the air frame post hostilities? ie Never available for local salvage, available for local salvage for some period of time until dumped at sea, bulldozed/buried, fully available for local salvage at any time?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on March 01, 2014, 08:16:07 AM
Are detailed records extant for the facility that did the repairs after the ground loup?  Perhaps useful to track down other aircraft (if they still exist) that passed through before or after AE's Electra if only to compare materials?  I know it's a rediculous long shot, but it's a thought anyway.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 01, 2014, 09:12:30 AM
This photo in the purdue archives (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=336&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=3076&DMY=1968&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=334&y=335) shows something odd under it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. The photo is taken from the opposite side but something seems to be protruding from the skin close to that area maybe a little rear of the suspected location?

I see what you mean, but that photo was taken at Burbank in early March before the first world flight attempt, so it was before the wreck and the repairs.

But it could tell us something of an alteration, if present.  That may be a standard belly vent - or maybe something else. 

Were belly stiffeners altered in placement to accommodate some piece of equipment?  We have at least one notable offset to deal with in the artifact if it came from this area of the Electra - a found alteration might help explain that.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 01, 2014, 09:36:04 AM
...What would be the most likely utimate destiny of the air frame post hostilities? ie Never available for local salvage, available for local salvage for some period of time until dumped at sea, bulldozed/buried, fully available for local salvage at any time?


Interesting question Doug. In January 1955 National Geographic ran an article titled;

"Air Age Brings Life to Canton Island: Planes Spanning the South Pacific Transform an Uninhabited Mid-ocean Coral Reef into a Busy Base,"

Part of the text reads;

"...burning of wartime eyesores affords fire-fighting practice and improves Canton's landscape.  But ugly reminders remain: old plane wrecks, junk piles of rusting military equipment, snapped-off wireless poles, grown-over artillery posts and ammunition storage bunkers, hundreds of useless fuel drums, abandoned buildings plundered for lumber..."

Nikumaroro settlers were employed on Canton Island following the war, and most likely were working there at the time this article was published.  It makes sense to believe they brought the B-24 parts and maybe other odds and ends found on Nikumaroro back from Canton Island's trash heaps.

See http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_IIII_(2001)

"...Divers and waders examined and metal-detected the shallows of the northern lagoon... A truck wheel and tire were recorded, and a stainless steel exhaust manifold of a B-24 was recovered. Both are interpreted as trash from the later colonial village period; the Loran Station was equipped with a truck, and we have found other B-24 parts in the village, probably from a crash site on Canton Island, where some of the Nikumaroro colonists were employed in the 1940s and 50s."
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 01, 2014, 07:18:58 PM
Ric,
What year was the "wheel of fortune"?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 01, 2014, 07:32:11 PM
What year was the "wheel of fortune"?

2002
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on March 01, 2014, 09:27:35 PM
Ric,
What year was the "wheel of fortune"?
Ted Campbell

"Wheel of Fortune." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Wheel_of_Fortune)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 02, 2014, 09:24:47 AM
This photo shows what may be a patch on the hull of a PBY [just aft of the wing strut, bottom of photo.] 

If done "by the book", the patch would be made with .032" sheet, the same material as 2-2-V-1. 

(http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/hans-hermann_buhling/pby-5a_433915/images/pby-5a_433915_59_of_87.jpg)

More photos can be seen here-
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/hans-hermann_buhling/pby-5a_433915/index.php?Page=3

Here is a direct link to the PBY repair manual-  Hull plating diagram is on page 92 of 182.
 
http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/Other%20Airframes/Consolidated%2001-5M-3%20(PBY-5%20,%205A,%206A%20-%20Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Manual).pdf

The "Hull Skin Repair Rivet Table" also gives "Damaged Skin Gage and Repair Sheet Gages"
See page 94 of 182.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 03, 2014, 07:53:25 AM
This photo shows what may be a patch on the hull of a PBY [just aft of the wing strut, bottom of photo.] 

If done "by the book", the patch would be made with .032" sheet, the same material as 2-2-V-1. 

(http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/hans-hermann_buhling/pby-5a_433915/images/pby-5a_433915_59_of_87.jpg)

More photos can be seen here-
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/hans-hermann_buhling/pby-5a_433915/index.php?Page=3

Here is a direct link to the PBY repair manual-  Hull plating diagram is on page 92 of 182.
 
http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/Other%20Airframes/Consolidated%2001-5M-3%20(PBY-5%20,%205A,%206A%20-%20Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Manual).pdf

The "Hull Skin Repair Rivet Table" also gives "Damaged Skin Gage and Repair Sheet Gages"
See page 94 of 182.

Mark,

I was finally able to view the PBY picture on iPhone, not ideal), but not other PBY link or B-17 details yet (won't open in my current venue), but will.  Interesting.

I was able to peruse the PBY manual, also very interesting - but it shows heavier riveting in the areas that would be likely hosts: #4 AD456 (modified braziers) seem to be the smallest there.  By all I could see about the PBY I have to say it does not look like a strong contender as a potential parent to 2-2-V-1.  The hull and wing do have some .032" 24ST skins, for sure - but again, the smallest rivet called out was a #4.  The floats were even more heavily built - .040" skins and the smallest rivet I found was #5.  Also, the modified brazier, not the original brazier, seems to have been the norm in air-passage areas.

Of course that doesn't tell us anything directly about a PBM (different airplane), but it does suggest to me that the structure on the more modern PBM are likely at least as heavily built as those of the PBY, so if anything this might diminish the odds of that Howland wreck being a contender.  But there it lies and I still favor learning more about the PBM if we can.

As to the Canton junk heap, sounds interesting but I think more needs to be known about specific types and their construction before it could be 'ruled in' as a likely source.  The proximity and mixing of Niku folk there are of course strong things to consider - but I still see 2-2-V-1 as having a very unique signature that speaks of a certain type of structure - not so commonly found.

Thanks for your work on this - good information.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 03, 2014, 12:11:32 PM

Mark,

I was finally able to view the PBY picture on iPhone, not ideal), but not other PBY link or B-17 details yet (won't open in my current venue), but will.  Interesting.... Thanks for your work on this - good information.

You are welcome Jeff.  I believe the greatest revelation lately is to find the B-17G had 3/32" rivets in the stressed skin wings.

See reply #369 above.

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

Silver clecos - sized for 3/32 rivets - can be seen in many on-line photos of B-17 restoration projects.  By chance, this story about the project in Urbana, Ohio appeared just yesterday.

http://www.timesnews.net/gallery/9073929/photo-gallery-ohio-museum-volunteers-building-vintage-b-17

One picture in the photo gallery [at the bottom of the page] shows silver clecos in an aileron undergoing repair.  This restoration group BTW, has a complete set of plans for the B-17, [supplied by Boeing I believe.]  Maybe someone in Urbana would be willing to look over the plans [and the plane] for areas that match up with 2-2-V-1.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 03, 2014, 01:08:49 PM
This photo in the purdue archives (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=336&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=3076&DMY=1968&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=334&y=335) shows something odd under it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. The photo is taken from the opposite side but something seems to be protruding from the skin close to that area maybe a little rear of the suspected location?

I see what you mean, but that photo was taken at Burbank in early March before the first world flight attempt, so it was before the wreck and the repairs.

But it could tell us something of an alteration, if present.  That may be a standard belly vent - or maybe something else. 

Were belly stiffeners altered in placement to accommodate some piece of equipment?  We have at least one notable offset to deal with in the artifact if it came from this area of the Electra - a found alteration might help explain that.
If I understand the scenario for a possible fit right, after the Luke Field repairs, the starboard half of the keel was able to take rivets but the port half of the original keel for some reason could not take rivets and they added either a stiffener or another stringer next to it to provide adequate structure for the second line of rivets where the skins overlapped. What is a little odd is the starboard side of the plane, in general, had more damage but the port side of the keel at 2-2V-1 is the half that needed additional structure added. There could be several reasons for this but one reason might be that when the plane’s belly hit the tarmac, whatever that protrusion (http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=336&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=3076&DMY=1968&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=334&y=335) is, caused a concentrated load to the port half of the keel and bent it up. See attachment.

Another note:
If the skin extended over another ¾” then prototype panels off the factory floor would be too small.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 03, 2014, 02:15:56 PM
Here's a good photo of a B-17 wing at the Air Force Museum.  I believe this may be a wing from the Memphis Belle. Or it may be from the "The Swoose."  Rivets out by the tip could be 3/32" braziers- AN455's.  Something to look for on the trip to Dayton. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swoose_(B-17D)

(http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070313-F-1234P-023.jpg)

http://www.pbase.com/jmhoying/restoration
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 03, 2014, 02:48:06 PM
Maybe I'm just being dense today (nothing new about that), but why are we looking at aircraft types that were not lost in the area of interest, as possible artifact candidates?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 03, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
Maybe I'm just being dense today (nothing new about that), but why are we looking at aircraft types that were not lost in the area of interest, as possible artifact candidates?

Because if we don't somebody will claim that we should have.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 03, 2014, 03:03:27 PM


Maybe I'm just being dense today (nothing new about that), but why are we looking at aircraft types that were not lost in the area of interest, as possible artifact candidates?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Consider all the aircraft activity that took place on Canton Island.  It must have been a busy place-  before, during, and after the war.  Pan Am was operating from there starting in 1938 [... and up until Dec. 7th, 1941 I believe.]

"...The airport was used as a military airfield during World War II by the United States Army Air Forces in 1942 and 1943, initially being used by the 40th Ferrying (later Transport) Squadron, Ferrying (later Air Transport) Command as an airfield for moving combat aircraft to forward combat units. The airfield saw various aircraft, including A-20s, B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, P-38s, P-40s, C-46s, and C-47s transit the base. In February 1943, the long-range B-24 Liberator Bombers of the 392d Bombardment Squadron were sent to the airfield."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_Island_Airport
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 03, 2014, 03:04:58 PM
Right ... quadruple redundancy. Good point.

LTM, who ruminates on redundancy,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on March 03, 2014, 07:33:01 PM
OK, I was going to keep out of this because I’m way over my head but this has become a really interesting thread. So, I’m willing to take one for the team of people like me who don’t know the difference between an AN455-3 rivet and a thumbtack, and dare to ask a few general, not-in-the-weeds questions:

From what Mark Pearce has found, at this point we should consider PBYs as possible sources of the ‘right’ kind of aluminum, with the ‘right’ kind of rivets and rivet holes?… If so, then one of the PBYs that Tighar lists as having crashed or destroyed by bombing on Canton (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro) should at this point be considered a possible the source of 2-2-v-1?…

Should we consider, based on what is seen of the PBM wreck on Howland, that that type of plane, e.g. the PBM tha Tighar lists as having ‘hit reef while taxiing’ is a possible source of 2-2-v-1?…

I’m also wondering about the PV-1 that Jeff Carter asked about at reply #46 on this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29823.html#msg29823). It certainly looks like a good candidate to me, as without-weight as that assessment is.  Perhaps someone with knowledge of a surviving example or a wreck (possible contact) (http://www.nassanfordmemorial.com/ventura_restoration.htm) would have an informed opinion? Or maybe some nice Forum reader has $19.95 to spend on a PV-1 maintenance manual (http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/PV.html) to see what it has to say about skins and rivets?

Its probably a long shot, but I’m even wondering if a crashed P-39 on Canton is a possible donor? And, even if not, according to this interesting account of Canton Island (http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.Canton.html) during WWII the P39D that crashed in November 1942 was involved in a two plane crash:

Pacific airfields were mostly named for the first man killed on them. When the night patrol returned at dawn, they were under orders to buzz the field at 3 feet off the deck. 2nd Lt. John H. Topham died buzzing it in a spectacular two plane crash: it became Topham Field.

What was the other plane involved in the crash? It doesn’t show up on the Tighar list of Canton plane crashes?

Finally, there is much here  on Canton as an an airbase during WWII (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html)  indicating that it was a fairly significant airbase. One thing I read here is that bombers based at Canton stopped at Baker on prior to proceeding to their targets; I point this out because of earlier discussions here about possible modes of transport of objects to Canton from other islands. (again, I don’t know why anyone would carry wrecked plane parts between islands, but this does indicate a potential ‘pipeline’  for transport of wreck parts Baker and Canton…
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 03, 2014, 08:03:05 PM
To keep it simple:

To be a candidate for a source for 2-2-V-1 and aircraft must:
1. Have #3 brazier rivets in a .032" skin
2. The rivets must be in a pattern identical or very similar to the pattern seen on 2-2-V-1.
3. If there is such an aircraft (other than a Lockheed Model 10) the aircraft must be shown to have been present or transited through the Central Pacific.
4. To be a serious contender, it must be shown that an aircraft of that type was lost somewhere in the Central Pacific.

As far as I know, no one has yet identified an aircraft that meets the first criterion.  Lots of airplanes had #3 rivets.  Lots of airplanes used brazier rivets.  Lots of airplanes had .032" skins.  We need to look at any aircraft that might meets all four criteria but at this point nothing looks even close.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on March 03, 2014, 08:41:14 PM
To keep it simple:

To be a candidate for a source for 2-2-V-1 and aircraft must:
1. Have #3 brazier rivets in a .032" skin
2. The rivets must be in a pattern identical or very similar to the pattern seen on 2-2-V-1.
3. If there is such an aircraft (other than a Lockheed Model 10) the aircraft must be shown to have been present or transited through the Central Pacific.
4. To be a serious contender, it must be shown that an aircraft of that type was lost somewhere in the Central Pacific.

As far as I know, no one has yet identified an aircraft that meets the first criterion.  Lots of airplanes had #3 rivets.  Lots of airplanes used brazier rivets.  Lots of airplanes had .032" skins.  We need to look at any aircraft that might meets all four criteria but at this point nothing looks even close.

Have surviving models of the specific types wrecked on Canton PBY, PBM, PV-1, been checked as possible matches the rivet pattern on 2-2-V-I?  What about the rivet patterns on B-17s?


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on March 03, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Some B-24's had large skin panels with seven vertical rivet rows on the starboard side above the rear bomb bay doors.  A clear example is on this page http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/liberator_A72-176_walkaround.html in the image http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/Liberator_A72-176_051_med.jpg.

The panel size is approx. 2 1/2 feet x 3 feet which would place the rivet rows approx. 3 1/2" - 4" apart.  There are no crossing patterns of rivets. 

This particular example is a B-24M, and a B-24M was damaged landing at Topham Field on Canton Island in 1945.  Some sources show a similar rivet pattern on B-24Js, but I have not been able to confirm or deny.  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/)

I do not have B-24 repair/structural manuals or blueprints to identify skin thickness or rivet size, but I do have factory photographs showing at least some B-24s/C-87s used .032" skin on the fuselage sides.

This rivet pattern does not appear on all B-24s.

These photos show the same rivet pattern on original B-24s (not restorations), so the pattern is not just a mistake in restoration  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863286/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/).

Here are two additional photos which show this section of the B-24M with the seven vertical rivet rows, both from the inside and the outside:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/87791108@N00/2953297685/sizes/l/
(the darker aluminum panel in the mid-background)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canvaswings/8553395708/sizes/l/
(the vertical stringers in the back of the bomb bay on the left and right sides)

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 03, 2014, 10:32:56 PM
B-17 lost in the vicinity of Gardner Island...


B-17D Flying Fortress Serial Number 40-3089   
USAAF
13th AF
5th BG
11th BS
Pilot  Captain William Cherry, Jr.
Co-Pilot  Lt. Whittaker
Navigator  Lt. De Angelis
Crew  Sgt Reynolds
Crew  Private John Bartek
Crew  Sgt Alex (died 13th day)
Crew  Lt. Whitaker
Passenger  Col. Hans C. Adamson
Passenger  Captain Edward V. Rickenbacker
Ditched  October 21, 1942
MACR  900 and 802
Aircraft History
Built by Boeing at Seattle. Assigned to the USAAF, 13th Air Force, 5th Bombardment Group, 11th Bombardment Squadron. No known nose art or nickname.
Mission History
Edward V. "Eddie" Rickenbacker was sent on a tour of the Pacific theater to review conditions, operations, and to personally deliver a secret message to General MacArthur.
Took off from Hawaii, bound for Canton Airfield. Went off course due to a navigation error due to an out-of-true octant. damaged in a pre-take off incident. The bomber ditched at sea.
The Rickenbacker Web site is about a bomber that went down in the central Pacific ocean on its way from Hawaii to Port Moresby, New Guinea, (yes, New Guinea, as it was in those days) via Canton (Kanton, Phoenix Group, Republic of Kiribati). The first part of the journey should have ended on Canton, however, the B-17 carrying Eddie Rickenbacker, his aide Col. Hans Adamson, and their flight crew, overshot Canton Island by at least 100 miles to the southwest. Out of fuel and hundreds of miles off-course, the pilot ditched his plane in the central Pacific Ocean. The survivors were finally located on Nukufetau, Ellice Islands (Tuvalu), some 500 miles away from Canton.

http://www.navworld.com/navcerebrations/rickenbacker/braingame1.htm (http://www.navworld.com/navcerebrations/rickenbacker/braingame1.htm)

The B-17D Rickenbacker was flying in was a second choice aircraft which was previously damaged at Hickam Field, Pearl harbour....
"The 5th Bombardment Group suffered devastating casualties and equipment damage during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hickam Field and other targets on the island of Oahu on 7 December 1941."

An example of a B-17D 'The Swoose'. If you take a look at the Swoose restoration project you might get a look at some of the rivet patterns and panel sizes.




Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 04, 2014, 12:48:17 AM
Keep looking toward Canton Island- the major hub in that area of the Pacific, before, during and after the war.
The 'Swooze' was there. 

(http://airpower.callihan.cc/wp-content/gallery/2011-nmusaf-restoration-tour/2011-nmusaf-b17swoose-2.jpg)

When the Niki Islanders worked there, and gathered up B-24 parts to take home, chances are they picked up other odds and ends too.  Those parts could have been 'non-standard' repair pieces. 

The distance between rivet rows and the rivet pitch on 2-2-V-1 deviates enough from the standard Lockheed design to cause problems with a positive ID.  Better dimensions and drawings would be helpful.   

Someone has made a great web page with old Canton Island photos  - said to be from 1951-1953 -  and comments from people who had been there over years.  One is pasted below.

http://www.world-airport-codes.com/kiribati/canton-island-1231.html

My Time On Canton Island
Jack Fenimore, April 29, 2009

"I was a pilot flying P-39s off of the strip on the northwest side of Canton island in 1943. We used to take a jeep and drive around to the Pan-Am facility on the south side to get a good meal. Pan-Am had a few personnel manning their facility including a kitchen crew, even though Pan-Am had not had one of their Clippers come in since the war had started. We were over 600 miles from the nearest japs, but one lone Jap bomber would come over once a month on the night of the full moon to try to bomb us. Their bombs either hit out in the sea or in the lagoon! The only shade on our base was under the wings of our planes. It averaged over 100 degrees every day!"
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 08:21:57 AM
Keep looking toward Canton Island- the major hub in that area of the Pacific, before, during and after the war.
The 'Swooze' was there. 

(http://airpower.callihan.cc/wp-content/gallery/2011-nmusaf-restoration-tour/2011-nmusaf-b17swoose-2.jpg)

When the Niki Islanders worked there, and gathered up B-24 parts to take home, chances are they picked up other odds and ends too.  Those parts could have been 'non-standard' repair pieces. 

The distance between rivet rows and the rivet pitch on 2-2-V-1 deviates enough from the standard Lockheed design to cause problems with a positive ID.  Better dimensions and drawings would be helpful.   

Someone has made a great web page with old Canton Island photos  - said to be from 1951-1953 -  and comments from people who had been there over years.  One is pasted below.

http://www.world-airport-codes.com/kiribati/canton-island-1231.html

My Time On Canton Island
Jack Fenimore, April 29, 2009

"I was a pilot flying P-39s off of the strip on the northwest side of Canton island in 1943. We used to take a jeep and drive around to the Pan-Am facility on the south side to get a good meal. Pan-Am had a few personnel manning their facility including a kitchen crew, even though Pan-Am had not had one of their Clippers come in since the war had started. We were over 600 miles from the nearest japs, but one lone Jap bomber would come over once a month on the night of the full moon to try to bomb us. Their bombs either hit out in the sea or in the lagoon! The only shade on our base was under the wings of our planes. It averaged over 100 degrees every day!"

I believe part of the interest in the upcoming USAF Museum visit is to review as many of the types that visited Canton as possible for this very reason - we're not overlooking the possibility of a 'mother ship' for 2-2-V-1 among those types.

The B-17 construction methods you pointed out earlier are appreciated as well, for sure.  As to the Rickenbacker ship, I wondered - but apparently it can safely be regarded as 'lost at sea' with little hope of depositing artifacts on Niku.  Nonetheless, B-17s visited Canton and I'm sure will be considered.

No mistake - these other possibilities have to be reviewed.  But 2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Caton, etc. 

IMHO, 2-2-V-1 remains far more than a "could be anything" part because of its peculiar characteristics - it is trying hard to tell us much, we just have to interpret it correctly.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 08:36:32 AM
Nonetheless, B-17s visited Canton and I'm sure will be considered.

We will indeed take a close look at "The Swoose" (B-17C/D), "Memphis Belle" (B-17 F), and "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" (B-17G) but I'm not aware of any B-17s, other than Rickenbacker's, that came through the Canton area.  Very early in the war (January of '42) a dozen B-17Es were ferried from Hawaii to Townsville, Australia burt they didn't go through Canton and none were lost or damaged.  One of them, 41-2446, later became famous as "Swamp Ghost."
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 08:51:49 AM
Sounds like a plan - and a good one.

We can keep 'looking toward Canton' but not just as a heap of prospects if we'd answer these things.  If anyone really believes there was a donor there we need the specifics.  Many of these types have already been reviewed and the chances of vintage .032" Alclad attached with 3/32" braziers (full headed AN455, not small-headed modified AN456) needs to be understood for what it is and what it is telling us.  That is a very specific creature, it is NOT a 'could show up anywhere' artifact. 

I'm not sure what it takes for folks to appreciate that, but it really needs to be grasped by those who want to challenge the search in a productive way - it is not a common combination as we've learned by looking at PBY details, etc.  I'm all for exhausting every other type that we can - but we need hard focus, not just gazing toward the horizon.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 04, 2014, 09:03:35 AM
... but it really needs to be grasped by those who want to challenge the search in a productive way - it is not a common combination as we've learned by looking at PBY details, etc.  I'm all for exhausting every other type that we can - but we need hard focus, not just gazing toward the horizon.

What Jeff said. TIGHAR is now going through what will result in an exhaustive "due dilligence" so that we can confidently say that no stone/rivet/Alclad sheet has gone unturned.

What is frustrating for me is that even though we are doing that, there will be the inevitable person who will loudly say, and with only the volume of their voice to back them up, "But what about THIS???"

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 09:23:56 AM
Let's get serious.  We need to draw the boundaries of the search for an alternative source for 2-2-V-1. We need a list, preferably as an Excel spreadsheet, of every aircraft type that needs to be checked.  Then we'll identify examples of those types that can be checked.  Many, but not all, will be in Dayton.  Some, like the B-24M, the Coronado and the PBM, are sole survivors at other museums. There may be a few types that are now extinct. 

The spreadsheet should include:
•  The manufacturer
•  The manufacturer's type number ( example: the B-24 was Consolidated Model 32)
•  The various military designations (example: Army B-24, Navy PB4Y)
•  Surviving example(s) and their locations.
•  Date of TIGHAR inspection
•  Name of TIGHAR inspector(s)
•  Result of inspection

What else?


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Matt Revington on March 04, 2014, 09:40:31 AM
One thing that puzzles me is that if this piece was salvaged and brought to Niku from Canton or somewhere else how come it was never re-purposed.

Have any other comparable pieces of aircraft metal been found on Niku that weren't turned into combs or decorative items or something useful?   Given how resource starved the colonists were it seems uncharacteristic to haul this back from wherever and never use it (I assume it shows no signs of a secondary use).   
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 09:40:47 AM
Let's get serious.  We need to draw the boundaries of the search for an alternative source for 2-2-V-1. We need a list, preferably as an Excel spreadsheet, of every aircraft type that needs to be checked.  Then we'll identify examples of those types that can be checked.  Many, but not all, will be in Dayton.  Some, like the B-24M, the Coronado and the PBM, are sole survivors at other museums. There may be a few types that are now extinct. 

The spreadsheet should include:
•  The manufacturer
•  The manufacturer's type number ( example: the B-24 was Consolidated Model 32)
•  The various military designations (example: Army B-24, Navy PB4Y)
•  Surviving example(s) and their locations.
•  Date of TIGHAR inspection
•  Name of TIGHAR inspector(s)
•  Result of inspection

What else?

If 'Result of Inspection' means principally "match" or "no reasonable match", then an additional 'remarks' column where we can note particular features of construction that are similar - or note that original construction differs distinctly; also where we can note any odd characteristics like old repairs or apparent alterations that might include deviations.  This could be kept orderly with a key for these various attributes.  Also a column / way to key tabular information to a master file in case we accumulate photographs or more written detail for detailed files, if that is desirable for any reason.

Wanna do it or want to assign this task?  I can take a crack at the spread sheet if you like.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 09:47:12 AM
One thing that puzzles me is that if this piece was salvaged and brought to Niku from Canton or somewhere else how come it was never re-purposed.

Have any other comparable pieces of aircraft metal been found on Niku that weren't turned into combs or decorative items or something useful?   Given how resource starved the colonists were it seems uncharacteristic to haul this back from wherever and never use it (I assume it shows no signs of a secondary use).

That's a darn good question.  In fact, the way 2-2-V-1 was found could suggest that it was never harvested at all, but swept up into the brush by natural action long ago.

Maybe a look at the navigator's bookcase will tell more - I don't recall it having been scalped for recycling yet either, so maybe they just never got to these pieces.  Or maybe it was low in priority being heavily abused already.

Can you imagine the liability in today's world - innocents gathering and working metal that was laden with carcinogenic zinc chromate, etc... egad.  For that one found piece (the bookcase), one suspects the state of California would put a hurricane fence around the island... with a concrete moat.  ;)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 04, 2014, 09:58:53 AM

We will indeed take a close look at "The Swoose" (B-17C/D), "Memphis Belle" (B-17 F), and "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" (B-17G) but I'm not aware of any B-17s, other than Rickenbacker's, that came through the Canton area.  Very early in the war (January of '42) a dozen B-17Es were ferried from Hawaii to Townsville, Australia but they didn't go through Canton and none were lost or damaged.  One of them, 41-2446, later became famous as "Swamp Ghost."


According to the book "Fighting for America: Black Soldiers- the Unsung Heroes of World War II" by Christopher Moore, B-17s were the very first 'land' planes to arrive on Canton.  [Parts can be read on Google Books.]

"...In early November 1941, a squadron of forty-three engineers was assigned to build shipping facilities and runways on Canton capable of handling B-17's... A supervisor's report expressed confidence that the runway would be ready for medium and heavy bombers by January 15, 1942- to thwart any possible attack from Japan.... By January 16, the field was ready for the first combat patrols by aircraft in the South Pacific.  Two days later, six B-17 aircraft landed at Canton.  On Friday, February 13, more than 1,100 reinforcements arrived aboard the troop carrier USS President Taylor to continue developing the island. "

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/kiribati/canton/ ....has more about B-17's operating from Canton Island.

"Canton Airfield was an important refueling stop for aircraft being ferried from Hawaii to Canton then onward to Palmyra, Fiji and Australia. Canton was used for some combat missions and photographic reconnaissance flights. On January 17, 1942 B-17's of Task Group 8.9 arrive from Palmyra. During the month, B-17's conduct antisubmarine search from Canton, departing on January 21 and 25 for Nandi then returns to Canton then depart on January 29. On July 23, 1942 three B-17s fly via Canton to fly a photo reconnaissance of Makin."

Bill Yenne's book "B-17 at War" includes...

[B-17s flying from Canton Island and Fiji] " ...were the first USAAF patrol operations conducted over vast areas in the Pacific, and they identified lessons in navigation and maintenance that needed to be learned for future operations." [page 29]

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 10:14:43 AM
That's good research Mark.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 10:20:56 AM
One thing that puzzles me is that if this piece was salvaged and brought to Niku from Canton or somewhere else how come it was never re-purposed.

It may well have been re-purposed.  ALCOA found that some sections of the piece had been exposed to heat.  Not hot enough to melt the metal but hot enough to cause it to lose some of its ductility (bendableness).  We have an anecdotal account by one of the former Niku residents living in the Solomon Islands os a piece of sheet metal with rivet holes being used to cook fish.  The puzzling thing is that, when found in 1991, the definitely piece gave the impression of having been washed ashore in a storm.  It wasn't there (or at least visible) in 1989.  It's possible that it was originally salvaged from wherever, used to cook fish, then discarded right there in the landing channel*when the island was abandoned only to wash up later.

Have any other comparable pieces of aircraft metal been found on Niku that weren't turned into combs or decorative items or something useful?

We have a few smaller pieces of sheet aluminum that weren't cut up or at least not entirely cut up, but 2-2-V-1 is the only piece that looks like a section of airplane skin. When I get time I should put up photos of the various pieces of aircraft aluminum found in the village.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 10:23:18 AM
Wanna do it or want to assign this task?  I can take a crack at the spread sheet if you like.

Go for it.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Thanks.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 04, 2014, 11:05:10 AM
That's good research Mark.  Thanks.

Glad to be of assistance.   I really believe the B-17 needs to be investigated carefully, along with the PBY.   

The people working on the Urbana, Ohio B-17 're-creation' project might be very interested in helping out here.  They have racks full of original plans- photos can be seen in the last link here.  Urbana is about forty miles from Dayton.  I bet it would be worth a side trip for some of you, before or after you go to the Air Force Museum.

http://www.champaignaviationmuseum.org/

[They have also have a B-25, and a C-47.]

On the link below you can see that someone has asked,  "Just out of curiosity, what thickness is the fuselage skin?"

Answer-  "The aluminum sheets we use are measured in thousandths of an inch. The Boeing drawings we have specify materials in thousandths as well... The guys who skinned the aircraft would have used the specified thickness. I am pretty sure it would have to be .032 or .040."  "...I measured the thickness with a digital calipers. I also checked a few drawings and the skin thickness varied between .020, .032 and .040"

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/505151-Urbana-B-17-Update-Feb-2010/page2?s=38f049e494d2938be63a808b10377226
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 11:35:52 AM
We have a B-17G at the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force in Pooler (near Savannah), GA.  Also useful to inspect and undergoing restoration by some excellent local talent.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 11:44:47 AM
Wanna do it or want to assign this task?  I can take a crack at the spread sheet if you like.

Go for it.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Thanks.

Draft sent - please check email / review.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 12:06:16 PM
How many surviving examples of any given type do we need to inspect?  If we inspect three B-17s at the Air Force Museum, do we need to travel 40 miles to inspect a fourth?
 
Most surviving WWII aircraft have been "restored" (meaning "rebuilt").  Rebuilders usually try to replicate original construction but expedient variations are not uncommon.  For example, the cowling on the San Diego Air & Space Museum's Grumman F3F is from a DC-3 and the replica of Earhart's Electra recently acquired by Seattle's Museum of Flight has North American T-6 cowlings.  You won't find a Lockheed 10 in any museum that has the blue corrosion inhibitor used by Lockheed.  Bottom line: In inspecting "restored" aircraft we need to make sure that we're looking at original construction or that the rebuild was done to original specs.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 12:19:43 PM
Wanna do it or want to assign this task?  I can take a crack at the spread sheet if you like.

Go for it.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Thanks.

Draft sent - please check email / review.

Jeff's template looks good.  If Forum members would nominate candidates I'll add them to the spreadsheet. Remember, the aircraft has to be documented as having served in or transited through the Central Pacific.  We need:
•  The manufacturer
•  The manufacturer's type number (example: the B-24 was Consolidated Model 32)
•  The various military designations (example: Army B-24, Navy PB4Y)
•  Surviving example(s) and their locations.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 04, 2014, 12:27:31 PM

I believe part of the interest in the upcoming USAF Museum visit is to review as many of the types that visited Canton as possible for this very reason - we're not overlooking the possibility of a 'mother ship' for 2-2-V-1 among those types.

The B-17 construction methods you pointed out earlier are appreciated as well, for sure...
 
No mistake - these other possibilities have to be reviewed.  But 2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Canton, etc.


This official history, written in the 1950's I believe, makes it clear Canton Island was extremely important as a repair station/depot during the war. 
['Canton' turns up 25 times in the text.]
 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html

"Army Air Forces in World War II- Vol. IV the Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan; August 1942 to July 1944"

Chapter 9: The Gilberts and Marshalls

"...The field at Baker, built by the 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion of the Seventh Air Force, had one 5,500-foot runway covered with steel mat, together with hardstands and parking mat to accommodate twenty-five fighters and twenty-four heavy bombers... In planning to base air units on these outlying islands, as much in some instances as 2,000 miles from the Hawaiian Air Depot, the Seventh Air Force faced difficult problems of service and maintenance. The individual bomber and fighter squadrons could supply first and second echelon maintenance within their organization, for the ground crews would accompany the flight echelons, but they hardly could be expected to perform third and minor fourth echelon service. In the forward area, anything approaching standard service facilities could be expected only at Canton, where the 422d Sub-Depot and a detachment of the 17th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron were located after July 1943.
Page 294
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 01:43:02 PM

I believe part of the interest in the upcoming USAF Museum visit is to review as many of the types that visited Canton as possible for this very reason - we're not overlooking the possibility of a 'mother ship' for 2-2-V-1 among those types.

The B-17 construction methods you pointed out earlier are appreciated as well, for sure...
 
No mistake - these other possibilities have to be reviewed.  But 2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Canton, etc.


This official history, written in the 1950's I believe, makes it clear Canton Island was extremely important as a repair station/depot during the war. 
['Canton' turns up 25 times in the text.]
 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html

"Army Air Forces in World War II- Vol. IV the Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan; August 1942 to July 1944"

Chapter 9: The Gilberts and Marshalls

"...The field at Baker, built by the 804th Engineer Aviation Battalion of the Seventh Air Force, had one 5,500-foot runway covered with steel mat, together with hardstands and parking mat to accommodate twenty-five fighters and twenty-four heavy bombers... In planning to base air units on these outlying islands, as much in some instances as 2,000 miles from the Hawaiian Air Depot, the Seventh Air Force faced difficult problems of service and maintenance. The individual bomber and fighter squadrons could supply first and second echelon maintenance within their organization, for the ground crews would accompany the flight echelons, but they hardly could be expected to perform third and minor fourth echelon service. In the forward area, anything approaching standard service facilities could be expected only at Canton, where the 422d Sub-Depot and a detachment of the 17th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron were located after July 1943.
Page 294


Mark, I read the article with particular attention to the references to Canton, and other than the rather general statement you cited above didn't find anything that set me on fire about Canton being a heavy maintenance depot.  What I get from all this was that Canton was better off than most other outposts - grant you that.

Nonetheless, in addition to the types we already knew of, it appears to me that we ought to add the P-40 and A-24 ("SBD Dauntless" in fact) for review as potential hosts to 2-2-V-1.  Those were mentioned as transiting / guarding from Canton at one time or another.

That's not to demean the excellent research in your finding and sharing these things - just that we have to focus on the meaningful details and not just point to the general condition of a fairly busy but remote island / airfield. 

A fitment problem and other hosts being possible is realized; however, just as critical, a fitment to an alternate type must be shown reasonable or Cinderella should get her shoe back after the dance.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 02:24:58 PM
For a bit more enlightenment on the character of the swingin' Canton base during the war, read Jeff Victor Hayden's post #13 from "Japanese Aircraft" in this same panel -

The 333rd was dumped on Canton in September, 1942. Things hadn't improved much. If the US sent prisoners to such a place today, they would sue the government. The 333rd  settled in. The first thing you did there was trade your  helmet for one that was painted white to match the coral background. There were 4 P-39s: the other 15 came in big crates. Each had to be wrestled ashore and assembled. Planes were refueled by hand and facilities were very primitive. There were still millions of rats. There was a rat killing contest, no firearms allowed, with a bottle of scotch as a prize and a Sergeant named Warburton killed over 500 in a week on his spare time. There was dysentery and the bad diet did nothing to help it.  For fun, one could periodically forage on the wreck of the transport SS President Taylor, which had grounded months earlier, losing 80% of it's needed supplies in the process. (On the other hand, working in the flooded holds under equatorial sun attempting supply salvage was no fun at all.)  A 10 foot high seawall had been bulldozed around much of the island so enemy submarines couldn't see anything to shoot at. Drums of water and gasoline were stored in it. Until some industrious 333rd soul borrowed a bulldozer and successfully dug a well, everyone was bathing in sea water. The well was a big improvement. It wasn't drinkable, but at least it wasn't salty. Porcelain fixtures and mirrors from the President Taylor went into the first permanent shower and latrine. The planes went on alert or on patrol around the clock.
Pacific airfields were mostly named for the first man killed on them. When the night patrol returned at dawn, they were under orders to buzz the field at 3 feet off the deck. 2nd Lt. John H. Topham died buzzing it in a spectacular two plane crash: it became Topham Field.  The enemy had a uncanny knack for approaching Canton and turning away at just the point where a P-39 couldn't intercept them. It was wonderful training and over water flying practice, but the 333rd got no kills.  In mid deployment, they moved from 18th Group to the 318th Group, and the original "Coral Cobra" patch was created by pilot Bob Rieser during that time. One highlight (low light?) came when Canton got in on the search for Eddie Rickenbacker. Somebody sent America's  leading World War 1 ace around the atoll circuit for either a morale boosting tour or fact finding tour depending on your source. His  B-17 went missing. Many years afterwards, MSGT. Harry  Double recalled . . .

“... so they sent Eddie Rickenbacker out to help boost our morale. Hell, our morale was fine; there was nothing wrong with our morale on Canton. But then his plane went missing, and as if we didn't have enough on our plate already with what little we had to work with, we had to screw around searching for Eddie Rickenbaker”.

By now, the main focus of the fighting was in the Guadalcanal area; about 2,000 miles away from Canton. Still, Canton knew they were in a war. Canton was a key link in the supply line. The enemy kept Canton under surveillance with long range flying boats out of the Gilbert Islands to the west. Around January 1943, enemy submarines put a blockade on, and food and supplies got scarce. Everyone's shoes wore out. Coral is a living thing, so you couldn't just walk about with holed shoes as coral would grow in any cut on your foot. Or anywhere else with moisture including the ear canal. Chunks of old inner tubes were used as shoe liners. The food situation went from bad to worse; the once discarded bread with grubs became part of the diet. Everyone's clothing was falling apart and there was barely gas for the planes to fly patrols. The Navy finally broke the blockade, but things got tight before they did.
On January 30, 1943, a Japanese sub surfaced before dawn and shelled the island for 30 minutes. It did no damage, but 333rd  planes that scrambled with depth charges didn't sink it either. There were night raids by Japanese patrol bombers on March 19th, 22nd, and 26th, 1943. The 333rd scrambled planes, but the enemy came in at high altitude  in ones or twos and, without radar, interception was a long shot. Only the last raid caused any real damage including 3 destroyed barracks, a Navy PBY Catalina, and holes in the water tank the 333rd had built. (Contrary to one published account, the mess hall was not hit.)  But everyone got a good laugh as Tokyo Rose claimed great damage, including 2 hits that "sunk" the rusting derelict  SS President Taylor.

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.Canton.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.Canton.html)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 04, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
One thing that puzzles me is that if this piece was salvaged and brought to Niku from Canton or somewhere else how come it was never re-purposed.

Have any other comparable pieces of aircraft metal been found on Niku that weren't turned into combs or decorative items or something useful?   Given how resource starved the colonists were it seems uncharacteristic to haul this back from wherever and never use it (I assume it shows no signs of a secondary use).

That's a darn good question.  In fact, the way 2-2-V-1 was found could suggest that it was never harvested at all, but swept up into the brush by natural action long ago.


And that is probably the strongest reason that hints that 2-2-V-1 wasn't harvested from a wreck/repair shop in order to make primitive combs/fishing tackle. It was found washed up on the Western shore on October 18th 1991 but wasn't there 2 years earlier...

"The aircraft skin was lying amid the debris of beachfront vegetation torn out and washed up by huge waves which had hit the island’s western shoreline sometime between our visit in 1989 and our return two years later. The corrugated metal visible in the upper right of the photo is the collapsed roof of a wooden frame building with “Gardner Co-Op Store 1940” painted over
what was once the doorway. In 1989 the building stood intact, surrounded by a jungle of coconut and pandanus
trees which extended westward (toward the bottom of the photo) about 50 feet. Beyond, open beach continued
another 100 feet to the high tide line. The seaward side wall of the structure was pushed inward by the storm surge and most of the vegetation between the building and the beach was obliterated by the same force. On the first expedition we had thoroughly searched the old store (empty except for a bed frame, some rats, and a very dead cat) as well as the area around it. There was certainly no big chunk of airplane skin lying about at that time."

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 08:23:58 PM
I don't pretend to know the answer to whether 2-2-V-1 was ever used by the locals.  There are marks that strongly suggest that a few surviving rivets, presumably holding tattered remnants of stringers, were pried off.  A portion of the piece has lost some of its ductility due to exposure to heat.  We have an anecdotal account of a piece of aluminum that sounds a lot like 2-2-V-1 being used to cook fish.

BUT, it is certainly the case that the location and the circumstances under which it was found strongly suggest that it came from the sea with the post-1989 storm.  It is also the case that there are patches of discoloration on the surface of the artifact that test positive for calcium carbonate (coral).  This artifact spent a considerable amount of time underwater in relatively shallow water.  It is also a fact that the edges of the artifact are worn smooth.  As any aviation accident investigator can tell you, aluminum aircraft wreckage - even old wreckage - is dangerously sharp.  Not 2-2-V-1.  You couldn't cut yourself if you tried, except where ALCOA cut out "coupons" for testing in 1996.  How did the edges get worn smooth?  It had to be from years of abrasion against sand and coral.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 05, 2014, 06:12:43 AM
As you see with pebbles on the beach, the sharp edges are worn smooth. Which drew my attention to the reef analysis photos analysed by Photek.

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf)


1953 photographs of four pieces of what appears to be light coloured metal roughly four feet square

Roughly the size of 2-2-V-1?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 05, 2014, 06:44:20 AM
I had not realized the smooth edged qualities of the sheet.  It takes quite a bit of natural exposure to do what is described.  Given where this piece was found and its character that it well may have been in the wild (surf areas) and banged around in the sands for a long time.

Do any of the other found sheet metal artifacts bear this kind of character (worn smooth edges, etc.)?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on March 05, 2014, 07:52:52 AM
It is also the case that there are patches of discoloration on the surface of the artifact that test positive for calcium carbonate (coral).  This artifact spent a considerable amount of time underwater in relatively shallow water.  It is also a fact that the edges of the artifact are worn smooth.  As any aviation accident investigator can tell you, aluminum aircraft wreckage - even old wreckage - is dangerously sharp.  Not 2-2-V-1.  You couldn't cut yourself if you tried, except where ALCOA cut out "coupons" for testing in 1996.  How did the edges get worn smooth?  It had to be from years of abrasion against sand and coral.

In the alternate case that 2-2-V-I came from Canton, I suppose it could have been naturally 'polished' on a Canton beach, then beachcombed by a Niku worker on Canton who then brought it home with him.


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 05, 2014, 09:41:32 AM
Or simply lost to the sands of Niku for decades.  There's no way to know for certain - many things are possible. 

But at least one of those possible things includes that we're seeing something that was deposited by an event other-than migration by canoe and later coughed-up by mother nature.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 05, 2014, 10:15:51 AM
1953 photographs of four pieces of what appears to be light coloured metal roughly four feet square

Roughly the size of 2-2-V-1?

Four feet square is much larger than 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 05, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
1953 photographs of four pieces of what appears to be light coloured metal roughly four feet square
Roughly the size of 2-2-V-1?

Four feet square is much larger than 2-2-V-1.

2ft X 2ft = 4sq ft.

(24 inch X 24 inch)

The sheet was a comparatively large piece (23 inch x 19 inch)

 5 sq inches out, close?

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 05, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
A quick but important matter, concerning one of the 'riveting' questions we deal with here-

It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.  The War Department's  "Technical Manual: Aircraft Hardware and Materials, June 11, 1942"  recommends that brazier head rivets be used when making repairs.  For this reason, I don't believe the AN-455 rivet can help date the artifact to the pre war era. 

See pages 34-5 here-

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3241791;view=1up;seq=5

"The brazier head rivet is also used on external surfaces of aircraft, and for patching."
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 05, 2014, 11:14:20 AM
It takes quite a bit of natural exposure to do what is described.  Given where this piece was found and its character that it well may have been in the wild (surf areas) and banged around in the sands for a long time.

I agree.


Do any of the other found sheet metal artifacts bear this kind of character (worn smooth edges, etc.)?

No.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 05, 2014, 11:18:17 AM
Four feet square is much larger than 2-2-V-1.

2ft X 2ft = 4sq ft.

(24 inch X 24 inch)

The sheet was a comparatively large piece (23 inch x 19 inch)

 5 sq inches out, close?

The pieces on reef appear to be about 4 feet square (4 feet on each side), not 4 square feet.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 05, 2014, 11:19:58 AM
It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.

Agreed.  It will be interesting to see how many brazier head rivets we find on WWII aircraft in Dayton.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 05, 2014, 12:24:08 PM


It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.

Agreed.  It will be interesting to see how many brazier head rivets we find on WWII aircraft in Dayton.

They must be there.... somewhere.  Here's evidence they were used on some [or all?] B-17s.  It's a forum post of all things... linked below.

Post by DryMartini » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:57 pm

"I also found something interesting in the Y1B-17 drawings.
The fuselage skin was riveted with "Ice Box" rivets - AN455DDx-x 2024 alloy.
I couldn't believe it! When I get back from my business trip, I'll post a
snippet of the drawing."


http://aerovintage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=647&p=2839&hilit=3%2F32+rivets#p2839

http://www.aerovintage.com/b17news.htm


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 05, 2014, 12:30:59 PM
A quick but important matter, concerning one of the 'riveting' questions we deal with here-

It's been suggested that AN-455 brazier head rivets were phased out early on in WW2, but that appears not to be the case.  The War Department's  "Technical Manual: Aircraft Hardware and Materials, June 11, 1942"  recommends that brazier head rivets be used when making repairs.  For this reason, I don't believe the AN-455 rivet can help date the artifact to the pre war era. 

See pages 34-5 here-

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3241791;view=1up;seq=5

"The brazier head rivet is also used on external surfaces of aircraft, and for patching."

It had been my impression that braziers were phased out in favor of universal heads earlier than we've found was the case - already stated here.

This manual is a good find, thanks Mark.  It also carries the clear caveat -

Quote
1. Purpose.-a. The purpose of this manual is to provide aircraft maintenance personnel with general information about the principal materials and hardware used in aircraft construction and repair.  The subject matter is not to be construed as supplementing or replacing information contained in specificaions or the Air Corps Standards Book.  Requirement for various aircraft materials and specific items of hardware must conform to existing specification when used in the maintenance and repair of aircraft. (Ref: Section / Paragraph 1)

This is typical of such general guidance material and one needs to use care not to rely on it as overarching other more specific material, such as the maintenance and repair manual for the PBY, recently cited here.

To elaborate on just how general this information really is, consider the entire content of paragraph 32 a. -

Quote
Solid shank rivets (fig. 7(1)) are commonly used for sheet metal fastenings.  Most of the rivets used on aircraft are of this type and are designated according to the various head designs: countersunk head, brazier head, round head, and flat head.
(1) The countersunk head rivet is adaptable for use on external surfaces of the aircraft.
(2) The round head rivet is used inside the aircraft where projecting heads are not objectionable..
(3) The flat head rivet is used in fuel tank construction.
(4) The brazier head rivet is also used on external surfaces of aircraft, and for patching.  An application for this type of rivet is shown in figure 7(3).

Note the rather 'absolute' statement here about flat head rivets being used in fuel tank construction: were we to take that literally we'd not expect to find it elsewhere, and yet these were called out specifically in other structural areas on the PBY.  Meaning: this is 'useful information' - essentially for general training in fact, but it does not even truly rise to hard guidance.

That said, it is useful - and demonstrates that the brazier was certainly around and still in use in 1942 when this was published.  And perhaps to your point, I take from it that the brazier would have been a desireable replacement even on flush skins where dimpling or countersinking to original specs might not have been possible in the field: the brazier is a relatively low-profile / low drag protruding head fastener and requires no special hole preparation as would the flush type rivet.  So lots of things are possible, and as Ric has agreed, it will be interesting to see what turns up on WWII types in Dayton.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 05, 2014, 12:46:47 PM

Mark,

I was finally able to view the PBY picture on iPhone, not ideal), but not other PBY link or B-17 details yet (won't open in my current venue), but will.  Interesting.... Thanks for your work on this - good information.

You are welcome Jeff.  I believe the greatest revelation lately is to find the B-17G had 3/32" rivets in the stressed skin wings.

See reply #369 above.

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

Silver clecos - sized for 3/32 rivets - can be seen in many on-line photos of B-17 restoration projects.  By chance, this story about the project in Urbana, Ohio appeared just yesterday.

http://www.timesnews.net/gallery/9073929/photo-gallery-ohio-museum-volunteers-building-vintage-b-17

One picture in the photo gallery [at the bottom of the page] shows silver clecos in an aileron undergoing repair.  This restoration group BTW, has a complete set of plans for the B-17, [supplied by Boeing I believe.]  Maybe someone in Urbana would be willing to look over the plans [and the plane] for areas that match up with 2-2-V-1.

It should be easy enough to learn from the B-17's that we're going to see up close.

As to the silver #3 clecos, I have to take anything pictured under repair or restoration with a grain of salt - new metal is commonly first fitted up by drilling undersized pilot holes before re-drilling full-sized for the actual riveting.  Not to say there aren't #3 rivets in the B-17, just can't judge from silver clecos sticking out hither and yon.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 05, 2014, 01:01:18 PM
Need I point out that the Boeing Model 299 (B-17) was contemporary with the Lockheed Model 10.  Both aircraft were designed in 1934.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 05, 2014, 01:26:35 PM
Need I point out that the Boeing Model 299 (B-17) was contemporary with the Lockheed Model 10.  Both aircraft were designed in 1934.

Good point.  By what I can tell too the B-17 used #3 braziers in limited areas, apparently mostly where thin sheet was backed by corrugated metal if I've read the analysis correctly - which better assures a shear condition and helps prevent tensile loading of the diminutive #3 (rivets in tension are a no-no anyway).

As to when the AN470 Universal showed up in the mix -

I've finally just located the earliest reference found (by me) to-date acknowledging "old types vs. universal head" rivets, e.g. meaning "eureka - the 470 universal head rivet is with us" - it is in the 1949 CAM 18 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgCCAB.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameset) (click on CAM 18 links and find 1949 version), section 18.20-3(e)(4)(ii) -

Quote
REPLACEMENT OF ALUMINUM ALLOY RIVETS.  All protruding head rivets (round-head, flat-head, and brazier-head) may be replaced by AN-470 Universal-head rivets.  Flush-head rivets should be used to replace flush-head rivets.

Which does not tell us when the AN470 really showed up, it merely tells us that it was in production and regarded as a suitable substitute for the other protruding head types by then.  It did not appear in the 1943 CAM 18, so it apparently showed up sometime between 1943 and 1949.  FAA nor its forebear CAA are known to have rushed to the presses for new things like this, so it could have been around for years before going to print.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 05, 2014, 02:57:19 PM

There is a fuselage skin 'plating' diagram at the link below- showing the areas of .032 skin on the B-17.  A copy may be helpful to have at hand while at the Air Force Museum. 

The second of the two diagrams can be enlarged. 

http://s197.photobucket.com/user/B17_Dry_Martini/library/?view=recent&page=1
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on March 05, 2014, 10:10:33 PM
If I had to chose a plane on Tighar’s list of Canton airplane wrecks (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro) as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I’d put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30357.html#msg30357) that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as ‘hit reef on takeoff’ , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30364.html#msg30364) a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 06, 2014, 06:48:58 AM
If I had to chose a plane on Tighar’s list of Canton airplane wrecks (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro) as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I’d put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30357.html#msg30357) that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as ‘hit reef on takeoff’ , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30364.html#msg30364) a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.

Why not the example of 27 March 1943 - USN  PBY-5A of VP-54 - Destroyed in Japanese bombing attack on Canton -

2-2-V-1 also bears evidence of severe trauma in terms of forced removal from the mother structure and signs of heat damage (loss of ductility) in some areas.  It does not bear the tell-tale pock-marks of explosive damage per one expert who looked at it (upstring - the gent who worked TWA 800 before being retired from NTSB), but perhaps another modus of explosive force, e.g. gasoline creating a rupturing scenario, etc. could have done it (whew - run on...).

Oddly enough, BTW, given the heat damage and suggestion of explosive force, I've found myself wondering a bit lightly whether Hooven might have been right (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html)...  8)

That said, the main problem I have with the PBY is that we've already looked at the manual for it and the fastener size and type is wrong, unless somebody put a really light, down-scale patch on something for some reason I cannot imagine: the entire structure uses heavier fasteners than what we see in 2-2-V-1.

But that's not to disclaim it away - if we get to examine one I'd happily clambor all over it to see what can be learned (a bit tongue in cheek... no worries Ric, I realize the museum will have some limits on how much touch is allowed and I won't embarrass the family...  ;D).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 07:16:22 AM
We have the following from Paul Squires of the Ventura Memorial Flight Association  (http://www.rcafventura.ca).  Apparently a Mr. Beck wrote to him asking about the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a PV-1 Ventura.  The Lockheed Model 18 (Navy PV-1, Army C-60, civilian "Lodestar") was one of several later derivatives of the Model 10 and we have a known PV-1 loss on Canton.  I've look at the C-60 in the NMUSAF collection in Dayton. My recollection is that there are some small non-flush rivets in the fuselage under the horizontal stabilizer but I think they're bigger than #3.  We'll look at the airplane again later this month.

Paul Squires is correct that we have (or at least had) a photo of the wrecked PV-1 on Canton but I'll be darned if I can find it now.  I'll keep looking.

***************
Hi Mr. Beck,

I got your e-mail from Tony Jarvis with the VMFA, as I am familiar with
the Ventura and TIGHAR, indeed I met Ric and Pat in Newfoundland as part
of the search for Nungessor & Coli's missing White Bird, and also took
their Aircraft Archeology course in Dayton.  I also brought the presence
of the Ventura on Canton to Ric's notice, although I may not have been
the first to do so.

I have also met Frank Kesseler, one of the crewmen on board that
Ventura.

Please also note that the Ventura Memorial Flight Association has no
official comment to make on whether the artifact TIGHAR 2-2-V-1 might be
part of a PV-1 aircraft.  The following comments are just mine.

The aircraft written off on Canton Island was USN BuAer 48809, with
VB-146, on a deployment flight from Hawaii to Morotai to cover the
invasion of the Philippines (although the crew did not know about that
at the time).

In brief, here is what we have in our database:

48809 US Navy

12/08/43        accepted
12/08/43        delivered

06/15/44        lost (VB-146), but Squadron records have "flew into     
                        thunderhead and surveyed Canton 9 June 44".
07/12/44        stricken

This is the aircraft Frank Kessler was navigator on.  On transit flight,
at night, flew into thunderstorm.  Was violently thrown about, dived and
climbed at least twice.  Controls locked.  Regained using trim tabs.   
All antenna wiped off, as well as external cover on door with liferaft 
and emergency exit over cockpit.  Wings bent back and up, and tail bent 
15º to one side.  All control surfaces jammed.

Flew approximate course until daylight, then followed C-47 aircraft.   
Passed it several times, and orbited until past, then followed again.

On arrival at Canton Island lined up on runway, dropped flaps and gear 
and landed.  Aircraft written off at Canton.  Crew continued to Morotai 
on other VPB-146 a/c.

TIGHAR has photo of aircraft on Canton as part of search for Amelia 
Earhart.

Oral history of flight from Frank Kessler in VMFA records.

Flight was written up in Colliers Magazine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a later flight to Canton to investigate an aircraft engine TIGHAR
found that the Ventura, and other material, had been pushed into a pit
and buried, prior to the mid 1960's, when the missile range operation
was closed down.

Between it's loss in 1944 and it's scrapping at an unknown date we have
no information on this aircraft or it's condition, except that it was on
the airfield.  Parts were probably removed by many people, for many
purposes.

We have looked for possible matches with 2-2-V-1, but not really
intensively, more just eyeballing.  The reason is that the exterior of
the Ventura is all flush riveted.  The only "exterior" panels that have
non-flush head rivets are the areas of the under surface of the wing
enclosed by the nacelles.  As well the lower parts of the Ventura have
rivets on stringers and formers, forming "box" patterns, with no long
rows of rivets as displayed on 2-2-V-1.  That includes the bomb bay
doors as well as the fuselage skin.  It's a pretty rugged aircraft.

The rivet found on the artifact is described in the discussion page as
an AN455AD3-3 Rivet.  We've created a large database of every part on a
Ventura, including AN/AC rivets and bolts, etc., from the microfilmed
blueprints we obtained from the US Public Archives.  We have only 2
parts that use the AN455AD3 rivet in any form, 10640 CHANNEL-Engine
Control Stand, and 117219, replaced by 118628, STRUCTURE Assembly-Wing
Rear, which lists 10 AN455AD3 rivets.  This is the rear part of the
outer wing panels.

As well, the TIGHAR artifact shows markings that indicate it was
produced pre-1939.  48809 was built in August 1943, and is unlikely to
have pre-war aluminium in the structure, unless it was repaired.  Prior
to the ferry flight VB-146 had put in several months of patrols in
Hawaii, Johnson Island and Midway, after being established at Whidby
Island.  A repair might have been done at these points, but we have no
way of knowing.

So, we do not dismiss that TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1 may have come from a
Ventura, but feel that it is very unlikely.  I personally think that the
work TIGHAR puts in to identifying each of the artifacts found has been
detailed and verifiable, to a very high standard, and open. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 06, 2014, 07:29:58 AM
This PV-2's story is compelling - can you imagine landing such a bent-up airplane?

Worth the look of course, and I realize from yesterday's reading of technical material that one use of the brazier head rivet might be for a patch where flush-riveting means were not available (perhaps remote field locations, for example).  But I think that is at best an outside chance - and am wondering if the PV-2 - bigger and heavier than the L10 - would have used such tiny rivets so much.

Looking will tell us much, it will be a good trip.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 06, 2014, 08:21:30 AM
Wow ... talk about tough! They don't make 'em like that anymore.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 06, 2014, 08:54:59 AM
Wow ... talk about tough! They don't make 'em like that anymore.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

And yet you couldn't certify that airplane in today's world - "unsafe" by modern standards.

If the bent stuff weren't bad enough, consider locked controls and having to fly with the tabs only... one tough airplane and one gutsy crew.  Kind of a shame that one wound up buried out there - ought to be sitting in a museum, bent but proud, as testiment to one of aviation's truly noble moments.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 06, 2014, 09:23:39 AM
Here are two more Canton Island accidents/losses that turn up on the web.     

Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express
7 February 1943
"...The C-87 rolled and dived into the water while turning on finals to Canton Island. The flight was being operated by United Airlines under contract to the Army Air Transport Command. It was deemed possible that an asymmetric flap deployment caused the accident."
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19430207-3
-------------------------------

Consolidated B-24M-35-CO Liberator
Apr 23, 1945.
42473 damaged in landing accident at Topham Field, Canton Island,
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1944_4.html

[The same accident is listed here-]
April 23, 1945    B-24M   44-42473   Edward A. Dibler, Jr. Pilot.
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/AARmonthly/Apr1945O.htm
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 06, 2014, 12:13:24 PM
One thing we should probably look for and document while at Dayton (and during any other studies of museum articles) are repairs that may be in evidence.  I realize that restorations often eliminate that possibility, but just in case.  It would be good to note, for instance, details like whether brazier head rivets were applied at some point in lieu of flush, etc. if we're lucky enough to find old field repairs still intact.  Seems it would be good to have a sub-catalogue of repair characteristics.

As an aside -

Another thing I noted regarding repairs in Earhart's time was a dirth of information on sheet metal repair per CAM 18 of 1937 (FAA's RGL site) (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgCCAB.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameset).  What was in there was strong information to use the manufacturer, or the manufacturer's endorsed repair agency for stressed skin repairs.  Apparently the state of the art was still new enough at the time for there to be little general information lying around and for the authorities to have a strong reliance on the original designers for specifics. 

One might think this would mean that repairs would always be highly standardized, but we don't know that.  At that stage it may have still been very much an art form on the shop floor to have to restore a damaged machine, whereby the engineers themselves may have used a fair bit of license to make things work out quickly.  Just sayin'...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 06, 2014, 01:24:46 PM

...2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Canton, etc.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html

"Army Air Forces in World War II- Vol. IV the Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan; August 1942 to July 1944"

"...In planning to base air units on these outlying islands, as much in some instances as 2,000 miles from the Hawaiian Air Depot, the Seventh Air Force faced difficult problems of service and maintenance. In the forward area, anything approaching standard service facilities could be expected only at Canton, where the 422d Sub-Depot and a detachment of the 17th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron were located after July 1943.
Page 294

Mark, I read the article with particular attention to the references to Canton, and other than the rather general statement you cited above didn't find anything that set me on fire about Canton being a heavy maintenance depot.  What I get from all this was that Canton was better off than most other outposts - grant you that.

That's not to demean the excellent research in your finding and sharing these things - just that we have to focus on the meaningful details and not just point to the general condition of a fairly busy but remote island / airfield. 


Jeff,
Meaningful details can be found in unexpected places- see for example this huge web page devoted to the history of the 465th Sub Depot.  It gives a great picture of what went on at these repair stations- interesting excerpt pasted below.  Chances are the 422d Sub Depot on Canton Island found it impossible at times to find 'correct' rivets for their repair jobs too.  :)

http://www.b24.net/support/465thSubDepot.htm

"The Sheet Metal shop under M/Sgt Donald Leahy is one of the busiest shops in our Sub Depot.  No matter what time or day it is, whenever you go inside you can see men working and usually there is a lot of noise.  Most of the work in this department is patching up battle-damaged ships, flak holes causing most of the headaches.  Sometimes a ship will make a tail skid landing and this usually tears up one to three bulkheads.  In the last six months, this department has repaired twelve such ships.  Four ships which landed on the nose were repaired.  Near the end of May 1944, a B-24, No 41-28862, landed lop-sidedly and consequently all the weight was put on the right landing gear.  This ripped out the auxiliary spar and required replacing the whole spar assembly.    The boys of the Sheet Metal Shop got to work and removed the broken spar and procured another spar from a salvaged wing.  The removing of the spar entailed removing sixty rivets that were heat-treated in the factory and were impossible to get at this station. Consequently, the holes had to be reamed out most carefully to avoid having off-size holes for over-sized bolts.  The bearing surface of the bolts had to be the same the whole way round or else the wear on the bolts in landing would soon cause the landing gear to collapse again.  However, the boys took great pain to see that the complete assembly lined up and was as secure as the original one.  It took the men four weeks to complete this ticklish job.  To date the plane has flown three missions, once landing with a full load of bombs and the landing gear is still as good as new."

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Hal Beck on March 06, 2014, 04:14:40 PM
We have the following from Paul Squires of the Ventura Memorial Flight Association  (http://www.rcafventura.ca).  Apparently a Mr. Beck wrote to him asking about the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a PV-1 Ventura.  The Lockheed Model 18 (Navy PV-1, Army C-60, civilian "Lodestar") was one of several later derivatives of the Model 10 and we have a known PV-1 loss on Canton.  I've look at the C-60 in the NMUSAF collection in Dayton. My recollection is that there are some small non-flush rivets in the fuselage under the horizontal stabilizer but I think they're bigger than #3.  We'll look at the airplane again later this month.


I finally gather enough material for a post and he steals my thunder. Sigh :'(
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 04:24:20 PM
We have the following from Paul Squires of the Ventura Memorial Flight Association  (http://www.rcafventura.ca).  Apparently a Mr. Beck wrote to him asking about the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a PV-1 Ventura.  The Lockheed Model 18 (Navy PV-1, Army C-60, civilian "Lodestar") was one of several later derivatives of the Model 10 and we have a known PV-1 loss on Canton.  I've look at the C-60 in the NMUSAF collection in Dayton. My recollection is that there are some small non-flush rivets in the fuselage under the horizontal stabilizer but I think they're bigger than #3.  We'll look at the airplane again later this month.


I finally gather enough material for a post and he steals my thunder. Sigh :'(

Know all men by these presents.  All credit for my posting on the PV-1 goes to Hal Beck.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on March 06, 2014, 05:11:00 PM
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/files/2012/07/Earharts-Lockheed-Electra-Repair-5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/2012/07/02/amelia-earharts-disappearance-75-years/2089/&h=1065&w=1400&tbnid=3D5lxQKXPDiGVM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=118&zoom=1&usg=__r_UT4DPDWWaqEY7YrQVxCE5zO-0=&docid=d9r2wDuSttMNWM&sa=X&ei=Hg0ZU-6MLoj4yQGDiYDICw&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAg

Probably been covered before, however ....Where would the panel that is leaning on the stand supporting the starboard wing fit? Would it provide any more insight on the repair procedure?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on March 06, 2014, 06:25:00 PM
Hi All

Here is a link i found of interest  http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200074.html only the passenger cabin was covered in 24st 0.32 skin

I also found a site relating to sometime between 1934 and 1937 the aluminum used in Lockheed Electra landing gear and tail wheel design were beefed up to prevent similar collapse on impact situations.

Will attach link soon as i find it.

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Steve Lee on March 06, 2014, 07:05:50 PM
If I had to chose a plane on Tighar’s list of Canton airplane wrecks (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro) as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I’d put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30357.html#msg30357) that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as ‘hit reef on takeoff’ , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30364.html#msg30364) a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.


Why not the example of 27 March 1943 - USN  PBY-5A of VP-54 - Destroyed in Japanese bombing attack on Canton -

2-2-V-1 also bears evidence of severe trauma in terms of forced removal from the mother structure and signs of heat damage (loss of ductility) in some areas.  It does not bear the tell-tale pock-marks of explosive damage per one expert who looked at it (upstring - the gent who worked TWA 800 before being retired from NTSB), but perhaps another modus of explosive force, e.g. gasoline creating a rupturing scenario, etc. could have done it (whew - run on...).

Oddly enough, BTW, given the heat damage and suggestion of explosive force, I've found myself wondering a bit lightly whether Hooven might have been right (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html)...  8)

That said, the main problem I have with the PBY is that we've already looked at the manual for it and the fastener size and type is wrong, unless somebody put a really light, down-scale patch on something for some reason I cannot imagine: the entire structure uses heavier fasteners than what we see in 2-2-V-1.

But that's not to disclaim it away - if we get to examine one I'd happily clambor all over it to see what can be learned (a bit tongue in cheek... no worries Ric, I realize the museum will have some limits on how much touch is allowed and I won't embarrass the family...  ;D).

Jeff,

I was just trying to connect Ric's observation about 2-2-V-I appearing to have been in a shoreline environment with the list of Canton wrecks, and on that sole basis, the PBY-2 looked like the best fit. By the way, at this site (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/kiribati_canton.html) is a brief mention of a PBY wreck on the beach:

 "Thomas S. Equels adds:
While working for contractor H&N on Canton Island in 1971, we saw the hull of the troopship and nearby on the beach was the fuselage of a PBY with a radial engine close by
";

So this wreck was on the seaward, high energy surf environment shore, but which of the wrecked PBYs was it?...I definitely think every Canton plane type should be considered a possible donor and carefully researched. And, if clambering over a PBY to research is fun research, all the better...

But, thinking about how narrow the rim of Canton is, I suppose it might not have just been seaplanes that ended up in Canton's nearshore environment. Looking the airphoto of the island at this site (http://www.qsl.net/la7mfa/kanton.html) you  can see how close the runways were to the water (I know I've seen better photos of this, but this is what I came up with).


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 08:33:32 PM
Here is a link i found of interest  http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200074.html

Fascinating article.  It shows the Model 10 with a single tail and the backward-slanting windshield that was in fashion in the early '30s.

only the passenger cabin was covered in 24st 0.32 skin

Skinning diagram below.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 08:37:24 PM
Where would the panel that is leaning on the stand supporting the starboard wing fit?

Probably part of the wheel well.

Would it provide any more insight on the repair procedure?

Not that I can think of.  The entire right wing was replaced.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 06, 2014, 11:44:47 PM
One thing we should probably look for and document while at Dayton (and during any other studies of museum articles) are repairs that may be in evidence.  I realize that restorations often eliminate that possibility, but just in case.  It would be good to note, for instance, details like whether brazier head rivets were applied at some point in lieu of flush, etc. if we're lucky enough to find old field repairs still intact.  Seems it would be good to have a sub-catalogue of repair characteristics.

...One might think this would mean that repairs would always be highly standardized, but we don't know that.  At that stage it may have still been very much an art form on the shop floor to have to restore a damaged machine, whereby the engineers themselves may have used a fair bit of license to make things work out quickly.  Just sayin'...

Jeff, here's a photo of a Russian P-39 with a rear fuselage reinforcement doubler.  Brazier head rivets have been applied in lieu of flush it seems. 

http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1515.0

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/

During testing and combat reports, the one thing the Soviets were discovering was that the P39 suffered a structural weakness of the rear fuselage. After thorough testing, the Soviet LII (Flight Research Institute) and TsAGI (Central Aero and Hydrodynamic Institute) recommended a number of improvements to be undertaken at repair workshops from mid 1944."

"These were recorded as: -
 Defect and modification. - Twisting of rear fuselage and skin deformation.
 All Q models up to and including the Q21 to have the following.
 a. Two additional skins around radio compartment hatches."


(http://s2.postimg.org/i6ggccf9l/1_013_9_A111111111111111111.jpg)


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 07, 2014, 05:02:19 AM
"By the early 1960s Nikumaroro, Orona, and Manra were all abandoned"

Which begs the question how did 2-2-V-1 end up on uninhabited Nikumaroro about thirty years later. Even of it was salvaged from an as yet unidentified airplane it remains a mystery as to how it arrived on Nikumaroro. Has it been there since WW2 and the PISS settlement days and lay undiscovered? Was it brought there when the island was subsequently uninhabited? Or was it washed up during a storm from the remains of something close by?
Getting a positive ID may prove impossible but, how it got there may be the biggest clue.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on March 07, 2014, 06:12:55 AM
Jeff,
Meaningful details can be found in unexpected places- see for example this huge web page devoted to the history of the 465th Sub Depot.  It gives a great picture of what went on at these repair stations- interesting excerpt pasted below.  Chances are the 422d Sub Depot on Canton Island found it impossible at times to find 'correct' rivets for their repair jobs too.  :)

http://www.b24.net/support/465thSubDepot.htm

"The Sheet Metal shop under M/Sgt Donald Leahy is one of the busiest shops in our Sub Depot.  No matter what time or day it is, whenever you go inside you can see men working and usually there is a lot of noise.  Most of the work in this department is patching up battle-damaged ships, flak holes causing most of the headaches.  Sometimes a ship will make a tail skid landing and this usually tears up one to three bulkheads.  In the last six months, this department has repaired twelve such ships.  Four ships which landed on the nose were repaired.  Near the end of May 1944, a B-24, No 41-28862, landed lop-sidedly and consequently all the weight was put on the right landing gear.  This ripped out the auxiliary spar and required replacing the whole spar assembly.    The boys of the Sheet Metal Shop got to work and removed the broken spar and procured another spar from a salvaged wing.  The removing of the spar entailed removing sixty rivets that were heat-treated in the factory and were impossible to get at this station. Consequently, the holes had to be reamed out most carefully to avoid having off-size holes for over-sized bolts.  The bearing surface of the bolts had to be the same the whole way round or else the wear on the bolts in landing would soon cause the landing gear to collapse again.  However, the boys took great pain to see that the complete assembly lined up and was as secure as the original one.  It took the men four weeks to complete this ticklish job.  To date the plane has flown three missions, once landing with a full load of bombs and the landing gear is still as good as new."


Are there supply records for such shops? Surely they weren't expected to work ENTIRELY from cannibalized materials.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Matt Revington on March 07, 2014, 06:46:33 AM
It appears that its going to very difficult to rule out the possibility that this piece was salvaged from Canton or elsewhere based on the rivets etc.

There is ( at least) one other thing that needs to be looked at carefully when comparing skins/patches on museum aircraft and that is the type of ALCLAD stamp on the pieces. One of the things that supported the idea that this piece was from the Electra was the pre-war type of aluminum stamp found on it. 

Its not impossible that prewar stocks of aluminum were used for assembly/repairs during the early part of the war but it seems more likely (to me)  that this piece came from a prewar plane.  One way to test this is to get a look at what kinds of stamps are on the planes that you are going to see in the museum, I know these are hard to see and may be buffed off in many cases, but they are worth checking for, (it may that they show up better using different camera filters (or digital photographic processing) or under UV light). If we can find that type of stamp used on the exterior of any wartime aircraft then this value of this piece as evidence of the Electra would be substantially less but if not then it I think it points very strongly to the NIku hypothesis being correct
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 07, 2014, 06:50:52 AM
"By the early 1960s Nikumaroro, Orona, and Manra were all abandoned"

Which begs the question how did 2-2-V-1 end up on uninhabited Nikumaroro about thirty years later.

It couldn't get there by itself so, unless the occasional post-evacuation visitors were distributing scrap metal, it must be presumed that the artifact was brought to the island during the period of habitation (late 1938 to 1963) - unless it was already there someplace when the first workers arrived in December 1938.

Getting a positive ID may prove impossible but, how it got there may be the biggest clue.

The artifact is loaded with information about its travels since leaving whatever airplane it was once part of.  It spent considerable underwater in relatively shallow water.  It spent sufficient time being scrubbed around against sand or coral for its edges to be worn smooth.  For that to happen, the piece had to by lying exterior (convex) side up.  At some point, a heavy irregularly-shaped object (probably a big hunk of coral) impacted the interior (concave) surface and left a big dent.  For that to happen, the piece had to be lying exterior (convex) side down.  At some point, somebody crudely pried off remnants of remaining sections of stringer.  At some time, a large portion of the sheet was exposed to enough heat to alter the ductility of the metal. That sure as heck didn't happen when the piece was underwater.   All of these things happened, but in what order?

One thing is certain.  The artifact's history is far more complex than simply being salvaged from some airplane and brought to Nikumaroro.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 07, 2014, 07:01:57 AM
It appears that its going to very difficult to rule out the possibility that this piece was salvaged from Canton or elsewhere based on the rivets etc.

If none of the aircraft types that were at Canton or anywhere in the region have #3 brazier rivets in a .032 skin in a pattern even close to what we see on the artifact, then those aircraft can be ruled out and what we're left with is the one aircraft that we know fits those criteria. QED

There is ( at least) one other thing that needs to be looked at carefully when comparing skins/patches on museum aircraft and that is the type of ALCLAD stamp on the pieces. One of the things that supported the idea that this piece was from the Electra was the pre-war type of aluminum stamp found on it.

I think you'll find that virtually all manufacturers put the labeled side of the aluminum on the interior.  The one exception we've seen is the pre-war construction of Lockheed Model 10s. Museums are not likely to let us tear their aircraft open to see what the labeling looks like, but we have plenty of photos of aircraft under rebuild that show the labeling. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 07, 2014, 08:54:21 AM
Some B-24's had large skin panels with seven vertical rivet rows on the starboard side above the rear bomb bay doors.  A clear example is on this page http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/liberator_A72-176_walkaround.html in the image http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/Liberator_A72-176_051_med.jpg.

The panel size is approx. 2 1/2 feet x 3 feet which would place the rivet rows approx. 3 1/2" - 4" apart.  There are no crossing patterns of rivets. 

This particular example is a B-24M, and a B-24M was damaged landing at Topham Field on Canton Island in 1945.  Some sources show a similar rivet pattern on B-24Js, but I have not been able to confirm or deny.  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/)

I do not have B-24 repair/structural manuals or blueprints to identify skin thickness or rivet size, but I do have factory photographs showing at least some B-24s/C-87s used .032" skin on the fuselage sides.

This rivet pattern does not appear on all B-24s.

These photos show the same rivet pattern on original B-24s (not restorations), so the pattern is not just a mistake in restoration  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863286/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/).

Jeff, here is a plating diagram for a B-24- no telling what model it is.  It turned up here-
http://forum.armyairforces.com/Olive-Drab-Painting-quotOddityquot-m237620-p2.aspx

There are about ten areas shown to be .032".  It would be interesting to see what "by the book" repairs to a B-24 called for.  It's unlikely they were all done that way on Canton Island however. 

If we agree 2-2-V-1 shows evidence of being a 'repair' piece, I believe it's too early to rule out a repaired Canton Island B-24 as the 'donor'.     

(http://forum.armyairforces.com/download.axd?file=0;238582&where=&f=Plating+-+100.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 07, 2014, 10:53:57 AM
Jeff, here is a plating diagram for a B-24- no telling what model it is.  It turned up here-
http://forum.armyairforces.com/Olive-Drab-Painting-quotOddityquot-m237620-p2.aspx

There are about ten areas shown to be .032".  It would be interesting to see what "by the book" repairs to a B-24 called for.  It's unlikely they were all done that way on Canton Island however. 

If we agree 2-2-V-1 shows evidence of being a 'repair' piece, I believe it's too early to rule out a repaired Canton Island B-24 as the 'donor'.     

Thanks Mark.  I've colored-in the .032 skins to make them easier to see. This plating diagram confirms our general impression that wartime bombers were heavily built.  It should be easy enough to check the style, size and pattern of rivets in the few places where .032 skins were used.

To my knowledge, the B-24M damaged on 24 April 1945 is the only Liberator known to have been repaired at Canton.  The airplane landed with the nose gear retracted.  It's hard to see how that would effect any .032 skin, let alone result in damage anything like what we see on 2-2-V-1.

The B-24J that lost power after takeoff and crashed on the reef 19 July 1944 would seem to be a much better candidate IF any of the .032 skins had #3 braziers in a pattern similar to 2-2-V-1.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 07, 2014, 12:30:25 PM
It's an oxymoron almost, but there is a general consensus that the B-24 was a 'lightly built heavy bomber'.   If the areas of .025 in the diagram are highlighted, I think this will become apparent.  It would be good to know how the wings were skinned- thinly probably.  Here's an good overhead view.   

http://forum.armyairforces.com/download.axd?file=0;233070&where=&f=B-24 8b.jpg

Chances are many B-24s were repaired at Canton Island.
 
"The placement of the B-24's fuel tanks throughout the upper fuselage and its lightweight construction, designed to increase range and optimize assembly line production, made the aircraft vulnerable to battle damage."

ref; Winchester, Jim. "Consolidated B-24 Liberator." Aircraft of World War II: The Aviation Factfile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Brad Beeching on March 07, 2014, 05:03:01 PM
I was just trying to put these thickness listed in some sort of context. For example, .032 is about the thickness of my debit card (.030). A sheet of printer paper is about .004, a US 1 cent coin measures .056 and a US Dime is about .052. When you put it in this light, its a little easier to visualize these dimensions.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 07, 2014, 05:20:34 PM
Chances are many B-24s were repaired at Canton Island.

And every B-24 (or other type) that was repaired at Canton (or anywhere else) had sustained damage that was, by definition, repairable.  The B-24M is a good example.  Landed with a retracted nose wheel. The C47 that later crashed on Sydney Island had been repaired after a taxiing accident that dinged a wingtip.  Minor occurrences.  The aeronautical equivalent of "fender benders."

Now look at 2-2-V-1.  It's a hunk of structure that was blown out of the middle of a larger structure by a sequence of three types of forces -lateral tearing, a massive fluid blow to the interior surface, and finally cycling of the flap of skin back and forth until it failed from fatigue.   Describe for me the kind of accident that could result in damage like that and would leave the airplane repairable.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 08, 2014, 10:44:33 AM
It's impossible to know for certain how the thing became separated from the original structure.  I will agree that  'final cycling back and forth until it failed from fatigue,'  brings up a picture of a Niki Islander scavenging metal from one of the many wrecks on Canton Island, or Funafuti Island, the C-47 wreck on Sydney Island, or the wrecks said to be on Baker Island, etc...
 
"...[T]he wreck [of the C-47 on Sydney Island] became the chief source of aluminum for the islanders, who had learned on Canton Island to make women’s combs and other ornaments from this material. Eventually almost nothing remained of the aircraft."
 
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_1/sydney.html
 
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1991Vol_7/SydneyCrash.pdf
 
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html

As a side note, the DC-3 repair manual calls for AD3 rivets- [or size 3/32"]  to be used in wing tip skin repairs- "...replacing type and pattern of original rivets."   The C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island- a military model of the DC-3- by chance, had it's wing tip repaired on Canton Island just days before the crash.   
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 08, 2014, 10:57:30 AM
Chances are many B-24s were repaired at Canton Island.

And every B-24 (or other type) that was repaired at Canton (or anywhere else) had sustained damage that was, by definition, repairable.  The B-24M is a good example.  Landed with a retracted nose wheel. The C47 that later crashed on Sydney Island had been repaired after a taxiing accident that dinged a wingtip.  Minor occurrences.  The aeronautical equivalent of "fender benders."

Now look at 2-2-V-1.  It's a hunk of structure that was blown out of the middle of a larger structure by a sequence of three types of forces -lateral tearing, a massive fluid blow to the interior surface, and finally cycling of the flap of skin back and forth until it failed from fatigue.   Describe for me the kind of accident that could result in damage like that and would leave the airplane repairable.

It is fascinating that the 'heated' area is somewhat coincident to what would logically be the original fracture lines.  It is very much as if an explosive force did first partially dislodge the piece, leaving it vulnerable to other receptive fatiguing forces, and finally a sitting duck to some shearing force by which it may have been cleaved away from the airframe.

Who blew up a wrecked airplane that had a previous repair present and left it to the wilds of nature, and where was such a craft?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 08, 2014, 11:23:09 AM



It is fascinating that the 'heated' area is somewhat coincident to what would logically be the original fracture lines.

I was thinking heat from friction transmitted thru the overlapped skin at the keel, but under water, not likely.
Would the loss in ductility in the metal fit with a tear like that? Something about the tear tells me it was still ductile when it tore.  The "peaks" of the tear being kind of long and stretched looking. That could be an indicator of the heat being applied after the fracture.
Another theory is user tested it on the fire to see if it would melt or work for what he wanted to use it.
or
Maybe he wanted to make it more brittle so he could break a cleaner edge without having to cut it.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill de Creeft on March 08, 2014, 11:48:49 AM
If you are looking at a wreck and see a flap of loose aluminum down in the shallow water that you want and you bend it back and forth (like breaking a wire)until it breaks and then take it home and use it to cook fish on over an open fire, it is going to look just like that...
And chances are likely you will hang onto to cook on again...

Could be anywhere and end up anywhere; also could never have left the island where it was found!
(and if you leave it down by the water some night and a storm comes through and a wave washes it into the water...then what's next??)

And it would look just like  2-2-v-1, I'm thinking.

Simplest answers can be the most likely...
But I'm listening !?!

Bill
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 08, 2014, 12:02:12 PM
It's impossible to know for certain how the thing became separated from the original structure.

I disagree.  We have three distinctly different kinds of failure - lateral tearing, fracture (both across and with the grain of the metal), and fatigue from cycling - and they had to occur in that order for the piece to end up looking as it does.

  I will agree that  'final cycling back and forth until it failed from fatigue,'  brings up a picture of a Niki Islander scavenging metal from one of the many wrecks on Canton Island, or Funafuti Island, the C-47 wreck on Sydney Island, or the wrecks said to be on Baker Island, etc...

Perhaps to you, but not to me - perhaps because I have a better understanding of how mobile the laborers on Gardner Island were (or rather weren't). We've gone to great lengths and expense to locate, photograph, and digitize the daily diaries kept on Gardner Island (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/Tarawa_Archives.html).  If you take the time to read them you'll understand how absurd it is to think that "Niki Islanders" cruised around the Pacific scavenging wrecked airplanes.
 
"...[T]he wreck [of the C-47 on Sydney Island] became the chief source of aluminum for the islanders, who had learned on Canton Island to make women’s combs and other ornaments from this material. Eventually almost nothing remained of the aircraft."

The "islanders" referenced were the Sydney Islanders.  None of the airplane debris found on Nikumaroro can be traced to the Sydney crash.  There is one anecdote about the comb but even that is purely speculative.  We do have several documented B-24 parts.

 
As a side note, the DC-3 repair manual calls for AD3 rivets- [or size 3/32"]  to be used in wing tip skin repairs- "...replacing type and pattern of original rivets."   The C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island- a military model of the DC-3- by chance, had it's wing tip repaired on Canton Island just days before the crash.

If C-47 wingtips were .032 sheet we'll have to see if the rivet pattern is anything like 2-2-V-1.  What kind of accident would leave a wingtip looking like 2-2-V-1?

Your postings are increasingly following a well-known pattern.  When critics are unable to offer valid challenges to hypotheses they start throwing around alternative explanations that ignore or dispute established parameters.  That's trollism.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 08, 2014, 12:24:06 PM
If you are looking at a wreck and see a flap of loose aluminum down in the shallow water that you want and you bend it back and forth (like breaking a wire)until it breaks and then take it home and use it to cook fish on over an open fire, it is going to look just like that...
And chances are likely you will hang onto to cook on again...

Could be anywhere and end up anywhere; also could never have left the island where it was found!
(and if you leave it down by the water some night and a storm comes through and a wave washes it into the water...then what's next??)

And it would look just like  2-2-v-1, I'm thinking.

Simplest answers can be the most likely...
But I'm listening !?!

Bill

I'm with you Bill.  The separation of the piece from the aircraft by metal fatigue could have been the result of wave action or human action.  I can't think of a way to tell.  But we do have pry marks that suggest human salvaging and an anecdotal account of a similar piece being used for cooking.  A pyrotechnic explosion would leave telltale pinpricks that aren't there.  A fuel/air explosion wouldn't expose the aluminum to enough heat for long enough to cause the loss of ductility.  Heat from a cooking fire seems like the best explanation. 

The artifact was found washed up near the head of the landing channel that was blasted through the coral to facilitate the evacuation of the island. Everything that left the island came out through that channel and the channel is often exciting as rollers from the ocean come sweeping in toward the beach.  It's easy for stuff loaded in a skiff to fall overboard (ask me how I know).  It's not hard to imagine the artifact being lost during the evacuation and being washed back up in the next big storm.  We know the storm that hit between 1989 and 1991 was the next big storm because the large cement beacon and the Co-Op store were still standing in 1989.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Bill de Creeft on March 08, 2014, 12:45:57 PM
I am very fond of the 'hi def noaa radar app' that shows current weather on a world wide satelite map...
I use it to watch for weather approaching Alaska (especially when the 'pineapple Express is going(it keeps us warm here))...I've been keeping track of Niko since before i joined the forum.
What interests me is to see how relatively unaffected niko is by the storms continually tracking from west to east along the aleutians to the west coast to the east coast and on towards Europe...
The mostly cut south of Niko to hawaii and on to here and or to South america and Europe etc.
Lots of them pass south...can see why there is a lack of water.
I have yet to see a really big storm (lightning strikes and moisture, at least) hit the island...doesn't mean it doesn't happen; just not while i was looking, in the last several years...
But there must have been some real rip-snorters !?!

But really, it seems to be off the main storm track...discouraging if you are praying for rainwater...
just an observation, on the dis-interest of the Weather Gods...
Bill
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 08, 2014, 04:08:34 PM
But really, it seems to be off the main storm track...discouraging if you are praying for rainwater...

Yes, the Phoenix Group is in a rather benign weather area.  Big storms are rare but there have been, as you say, some real rip-snorters.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 08, 2014, 06:33:35 PM

As a side note, the DC-3 repair manual calls for AD3 rivets- [or size 3/32"]  to be used in wing tip skin repairs- "...replacing type and pattern of original rivets."   The C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island- a military model of the DC-3- by chance, had it's wing tip repaired on Canton Island just days before the crash.

If C-47 wingtips were .032 sheet we'll have to see if the rivet pattern is anything like 2-2-V-1.  What kind of accident would leave a wingtip looking like 2-2-V-1?

Your postings are increasingly following a well-known pattern.  When critics are unable to offer valid challenges to hypotheses they start throwing around alternative explanations that ignore or dispute established parameters.  That's trollism.

Maybe I shouldn't butt into this, but while I appreciate Mark's research in bringing material to the table here, the rational 'challenge' involves specifics, not more spaghetti on the wall as 'possibles' - that's a never-ending exercise that can get no one anywhere.  Material taken as 'helpful to know', thanks, but I have enough to do and won't engage in this tidal pursuit further here unless something specific is brought up.

I hope that readers will realize that a number of us have already committed to support TIGHAR's commitment to go and look thoroughly at a number of  potential candidate types for evidence of a different source for 2-2-V-1 - far more than has been committed by those who simply doubt and toss endless possibilities at us, however vague.

Sorry if I'm cranky about it, but for one thing I've already devoted some effort into looking at the much-vaunted PBY possibility, for instance - and find NO structural similarities that would drive me out of my way to study a PBY in person, for instance.  But I will look at one if I can - just to be sure, even though the manual doesn't give hope of a match (whereas Electra data screams fastener type and vintage of repair glaringly supports material markings).

What I first said about this consideration of 2-2-V-1 still stands in my view: this artifact is eloquent, and in fact continues to yield unique signature features; if one would challenge it, let them be specific as to what ship in the region would have provided it, not just ask me or others to keep looking down one dark alley after another in case their lost cat is in there...

I'm going to Dayton to be with TIGHAR there; we will look, promise... we're taking down suggestions on what types to focus on.  What else is there to say?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: David Alan on March 08, 2014, 07:25:09 PM
I was somewhat surprised to see the photo of 2-2-V-1 http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7398;image which illustrates the area in which substantial heating took place, given the frequent conjecture in these threads that this may have resulted from its being used for cooking.  Unless this object were quite a bit larger when the heating took place, why/how could you cook on an edge area which is only a few inches wide when common sense dictates the use of the center area?  So I find myself asking the following:

If 2-2-V-1 was not used for cooking how was it heated?

What temperature/ time combination is necessary for aluminum of this dimension to lose its ductility?

How many tidal cycles would it have taken to remove the Electra?  If more than one, what condition would the aircraft be left in after each cycle?

What else might cause rapid failure of the riveting on 2-2-V-1 and the resulting deformation about the rivet holes, as well as the entire piece?

Ric mentions, "A pyrotechnic explosion would leave telltale pinpricks that aren't there."  But would such pinpricks always be present on every affected surface?  Is it possible for water to be compressed enough by an explosion in an enclosed area to blow out a thin aluminum panel? If the edges of 2-2-V-1 have been worn so completely dull by tidal abrasion, how likely is it that such pinpricks, if originally present would still be visible?

The scenario that comes to my mind, and this obviously assumes TIGHAR's Earhart theories are correct, is that Earhart, at some point, realized the Electra would never fly again and burned the aircraft after the radio would no longer function.  A plume of dense, black smoke would certainly be more visible than one made from organic materials on the island.  It also seems likely there would be at least some fuel remaining in the aircraft, possibly enough to cause an explosion that might also result in significant fragmentation.

I realize my suggestion has a lot of holes in it and I am perfectly at ease with it being thrashed and sunk, so have at.  I do not offer it in challenge but in the spirit of discussion.  I would much rather gain a clear understanding than harbor a poorly discerned shape.
edited 3/9/14 to insert link
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: James Champion on March 08, 2014, 08:24:05 PM
Quote
Unless this object were quite a bit larger when the heating took place, why/how could you cook on an edge area which is only a few inches wide when common sense dictates the use of the center area?

If 2-2-V-1 was used for cooking fish, then the center of the sheet, where the fish would be located, would not get much above the cooking temperature of the fish. That is unless well burnt fish was the perferred meal. Fish is mostly water and fats, and won't get to a metal ductile temperature until the food is ashes. However the edges of the sheet would have no food to limit the temperature, and would get significantly hotter.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 08, 2014, 09:08:17 PM
I was somewhat surprised to see the photo of 2-2-V-1 (Reply #450 on: March 07, 2014, 07:50:52 AM) which illustrates the area in which substantial heating took place, given the frequent conjecture in these threads that this may have resulted from its being used for cooking.  Unless this object were quite a bit larger when the heating took place, why/how could you cook on an edge area which is only a few inches wide when common sense dictates the use of the center area?  So I find myself asking the following:

If 2-2-V-1 was not used for cooking how was it heated?

What temperature/ time combination is necessary for aluminum of this dimension to lose its ductility?

How many tidal cycles would it have taken to remove the Electra?  If more than one, what condition would the aircraft be left in after each cycle?

What else might cause rapid failure of the riveting on 2-2-V-1 and the resulting deformation about the rivet holes, as well as the entire piece?

Ric mentions, "A pyrotechnic explosion would leave telltale pinpricks that aren't there."  But would such pinpricks always be present on every affected surface?  Is it possible for water to be compressed enough by an explosion in an enclosed area to blow out a thin aluminum panel? If the edges of 2-2-V-1 have been worn so completely dull by tidal abrasion, how likely is it that such pinpricks, if originally present would still be visible?

The scenario that comes to my mind, and this obviously assumes TIGHAR's Earhart theories are correct, is that Earhart, at some point, realized the Electra would never fly again and burned the aircraft after the radio would no longer function.  A plume of dense, black smoke would certainly be more visible than one made from organic materials on the island.  It also seems likely there would be at least some fuel remaining in the aircraft, possibly enough to cause an explosion that might also result in significant fragmentation.

I realize my suggestion has a lot of holes in it and I am perfectly at ease with it being thrashed and sunk, so have at.  I do not offer it in challenge but in the spirit of discussion.  I would much rather gain a clear understanding than harbor a poorly discerned shape.

I think you raise some excellent points for thought. 

For one, it seems to me that if water were present in the belly - not far-fetched of course at all - that it would tend to shield the metal from the immediate effects of a blast, but not the severe compressive effects.  Interesting point.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 08, 2014, 09:28:01 PM
Some thoughts about a castaway using it for cooking:
1. No energy to remove wire found tangled in it.
2. Does not appear much energy was spent to straighten metal (not sure about the "hacked?" note?)
3. Possibly held from the smoothest edge over a crude fire without making walls to support it
4. Didn't the islanders already have a grill?

Some thoughts about it not being used for a grill by anyone
1. The wire found in it suggests it washed up from the wreck with other wreckage
2. How and where it was found. The current just off the reef does appear to move south
3. The pry marks could be used to pry off the stringers, because they wanted the stringers, and the panel stayed on the side that failed by fatigue. the stringers posssibly used for spears or stakes
4. Nothing indicating an effort to straighten it?
5. No scratch marks to remove sticky fish?
6. Was loss of ductility caused by something else, like friction? fire on plane? Stress? Can we see what alcoa wrote on it? How much ductility was lost? How much heat could cause this and how many times was it heated?

Some pros to the islanders using it for a grill
1. The wire possibly used in an attempt to secure it leaving thru the channel?
2. Description of aircraft skin being used as grill
3. The pry marks
4. The loss of ductility suggesting use as grill

What are TIGHAR's thoughts regarding the antenna lead wire found tangled with it?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on March 08, 2014, 09:31:47 PM
Is it possible the aircraft skin being in shallow water on reef face was caught by lighting ?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-lightni/
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 09, 2014, 06:54:09 AM
David Alan

Some good points David. Only by exploring every avenue can you hope to find the truth so nothing can be ruled out, at this stage. Fire in the Electra whether deliberate or accidental is one such avenue yet to be discussed so good on you for bringing that one up.
Lots of possible sources inside the Electra of course so I'll put in my shillings worth.

Lead acid batteries producing hydrogen gas positioned underneath empty fuel tanks containing fuel vapour plus sea water and electricity?


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 09, 2014, 07:18:43 AM
I see reference in the NTSB report to curvature of the object across the short side and have a couple questions:

Is this curvature
a) thought to be at least nominally representative of the characteristics of the position on the airframe on which it was installed or
b) thought to have been entirely acquired at or post separation but was originally flat or
c) thought to have been distorted at or post separation but was originally curved to some degree

If "a" (maybe "c" to some extent) could or has the curvature itself been defined in any way?

If "a" (maybe "c") could definition of the curvature assist in ruling in/out potential donor airframes?

Sorry if this has been covered already, forum search didn't provide much but of course it all depends on what keyword(s) one uses
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 09, 2014, 08:59:11 AM
Some thoughts about a castaway using it for cooking:

Nobody is suggesting that it was used by the castaway.  The Seven Site is at the opposite end of the island.

4. Didn't the islanders already have a grill?

The islanders didn't have much of anything.

6. Was loss of ductility caused by something else, like friction? fire on plane? Stress? Can we see what alcoa wrote on it? How much ductility was lost? How much heat could cause this and how many times was it heated?

According to the ALCOA metallurgists, the loss of ductility was caused by the sort of heat you would expect from relatively brief exposure to flames - more than from friction but not an intense fire.  I don't recall any mention of how many times this may have happened.  The loss of ductility was noticed when they cut out three "coupons" for testing.  The procedure they used was to cut two parallel lines with snips and then bend the tab up enough to snip the third side.  That worked fine for two to the coupons but when they tried to bend up the third one it snapped off instead. 


Unfortunately ALCOA didn't give us a written report. Their research and comments were done in the context of TV shoot by WGBH as part of a planned NOVA special.  ALCOA was helping us as a courtesy (and to get some good PR) so we didn't press them for a written report. We had it all on video. But then WGBH reneged on the deal we had with them and the NOVA special never got made.  All we were left with was the notes we took at the time. 
 
What are TIGHAR's thoughts regarding the antenna lead wire found tangled with it?

The wire does seem to be consistent with antenna lead wire but that same kind of wire may have been used for other purposes. If the sheet was repurposed at any time it seems like the wire would have been removed.  My thinking at this time is that the wire is just something that got tangled on the piece in the process of getting washed up - but I could be convinced otherwise.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 09, 2014, 10:17:47 AM
This Article (http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Applications/conductivitymeasurements2.htm) describes heat treatment of aluminum alloys and gives specifics for 2024, including non-destructive eddy-current testing to determine heat treatment. The little chart in the article shows how much heat treatment effects strength – it’s a lot.
A different Article (http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6615) gives a more detailed description of the heat-treatment of 2024: “Aluminium / Aluminum 2024 alloy is an age-hardening and is strengthened during the heat treatment process. The T6 condition is obtained when the alloy is heated at 493°C (920°F) and then quenched for 10 h at 190°C (375°F) and finally cooled in air. The T4 condition is obtained when this alloy is heated at 493°C (920°F) followed by cold water quenching and finally aging at room temperature.”
T6 is fully hard.  T4 is half-hard and still somewhat bendable/ductile.  T0 is fully annealed/as soft as it gets, and uses a heat treatment temperature that is lower than the hardening temperature:
“Aluminium / Aluminum 2024 alloy is annealed from a heat treated condition between 399 and 427°C (750 and 800°F) for about 2 hours and then cooled slowly in the furnace. This alloy can be annealed between cold working operations at 343°C (650°F) for 2 hours after which the alloy is cooled in air.”
These are all temperatures that can easily be obtained over a wood fire. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 09, 2014, 10:32:47 AM

 I believe we have to be thorough about eliminating other potential sources for 2-2-V-1, and a potential 'donor' 350 miles away is strong, IMO.

Now lies this PBM wreckage with a stiffener arrangement of some sort visible through a gaping hole cut in the side of a PBM wing float where metal was removed... The history of this wreck is colorful - deliberately beached on coral and destroyed by fire - and by the old repairs visible on the float, 'hard service' suggests a history of dings and patches. 

While later than the Electra, the PBM is arguably of appropriate vintage (entered service September 1940) as we now understand the decline of the brazier-head rivet to be about a decade later than previously thought, and that some of these seaplanes had surprisingly thinner metal on the hull skins that previously believed (see links up-string).

"...someone 'cut' metal from the side of that float - and a bit crudely, look at the jagged edges - and must have gone to some trouble to do so, for some reason."

So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains... My belief is that we cannot ignore this hulk as a possible source anymore than we'd shy from visiting the AF museum for a comparison. 


Jeff,  I agree the PBM on Howland Island is still in the running as a potential donor.  Ric's list of "Aircraft lost in the vicinity of Nikumaroro" includes another PBM that "Hit reef while taxiing at Canton," on Dec. 15, 1942.  That is an interesting lead that should be looked into carefully.  An accident report probably exists somewhere. 
 
http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

You bring up a very interesting question; who could have removed that piece of metal from the float on Howland Island? The island was un-occupied at the time that PBM was beached and burned.     

I've found some information about the skin plating on the PBM-5.  As in the case of the PBY, it turns out to be thinner than might be expected.  I suspect the 'hull side and crown' had large areas of .032 material.  The wings may also have .032 skin plating, but this report does not go into that unfortunately.   

"...Plating on the bottom of the hull from the bow to the main step is varied from .051 to .072 in thickness. Afterbody bottom plating varies from .040 to .051 in thickness. Hull side and crown skin varies from .020 to .045 in thickness."

Design Analysis of the Martin PBM-5 Mariner
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/PBM/PBM_IA_4509_DA.html

(http://semperparatus.com/images/pbm-3_martin_s615_cgd12.jpg)

Interesting photos of a PBM wreck in Truk Lagoon can be seen here- (No, I'm not proposing 2-2-V-1 came from this area-  I believe it most likely came via Canton Island- where aircraft wrecks were probably piled high.)

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17105
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 09, 2014, 12:03:37 PM
Some thoughts about a castaway using it for cooking:
Nobody is suggesting that it was used by the castaway.  The Seven Site is at the opposite end of the island.


Since it may have taken a while to determine the Seven Site was a good camp, there may have been other camps. 2-2-V-1 could be used to signal and to grill fish. Possibly at a camp somewhere near where the channel was later made, 2-2-V-1 was temporarily used to grill but left on the beach to reflect the sun as a signal and later washed off. The castaway could have found the Seven Site after this. It just seems that 2-2-V-1 wasn't used for long because there does not appear to be much effort to modify it, and the areas of suggested heat are narrow, suggesting small food portions cooked.
see pictures of islanders cooking fish here (http://www.cuisinivity.com/globalfeast/pacific/Marshall_Islands/2013/bikirin.php)
Now if it was hacked that changes that whole thought process. I think the case for Colonist using it is stronger but didn't want to rule out AE using it. Is there something I'm missing that does rule it out for certain?
 The possible antenna wire may be related to 2-2-V-1 based on its location in the plane. Possibly an abandoned lead wire that extended over the belly's interior to the trailing antenna (http://tighar.org/wiki/Removal_of_trailing_antenna) that was removed at the tail. The series of events in the break off of 2-2-V-1 could have happened in a matter of weeks while AE was still nearby. Before the castaway/ AE/ FN went to the Seven Site.
It was the possible close association with the antenna wire that had me wondering so much. But if the wire could be for some other use, that helps.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: David Alan on March 09, 2014, 02:09:12 PM
Since my previous post, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30451.html#msg30451 , seems to have struck a chord of interest I'd like to take a few minutes to expand upon the scenario I presented and at the same time address some of the responses to it.  "If you give a mouse a cookie...".

I have no background in metallurgy, aviation or historical research.  At best, I have some knowledge in several areas of photography having been professionally employed in such for about 40 years.  So pretty much all of my projections are based on entries I read on this forum, which I have hopefully remembered and applied correctly.

I am not trying to make up some grand new vision of what might or might not have occurred.  I am trying to stay within the framework of supposition and fact already presented.  It is after all, a puzzle still.  One piece fits the another only when placed in the correct orientation.

I don't see 2-2-V-1 as having been used for cooking, primarily because of the illustration Ric provided in Reply 450.  James Champion reply, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30453.html#msg30453 , makes a good point that the outer edges of a cooking surface would get hotter than the area directly below the foodstuffs.  But I offer a couple of counterpoints:
--The food also acts as a heatsink and would introduce some limitation in spread of heat.
--How would an islander of little means and even less possession build a fire to cook on?
--On Gardner Island, was the cooking done communally or individually?
--How do you handle a sheet of hot metal?

Traditionally a rock lined pit is used in many, if not most, South Seas cultures.  The rocks were heated by a fire.  (Whole, drained coconuts are often used as a coal.) After the flame self-extinguishes, food wrapped in leaves is layered on top of the rocks/coals and then the entire pit may be covered with sand or more leaves.  If 2-2-V-1 were used in this fashion, either as a bottom sheet or top cover, the heating would have been fairly consistent across the entire dimension.  Cooking in this manner could also be the reason no signs of scraping seem to be present on 2-2-V-1. (see Greg Daspit Reply http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30457.html#msg30457 )

Alternatively, a fire pit could be built and 2-2-V-1 was suspended in some manner above the heat source and used as a cooking tray, the food being placed directly on the metal.  In this fashion, as James Champion suggests the outer edge could become substantially hotter.  But then, why did only one edge of 2-2-V-1 lose ductility? To account for this 2-2-V-1 might have originally been scavenged and used in a much larger size, or, a more complex "oven" built that only allowed a smaller portion of the metal to reach temperatures high enough to effect ductility.  Both of these ideas represent substantially more complex scenarios.  As a side note, a wood fueled fire (according to sources easily found on the inter-web) reaches temperatures of 575f to 1100f  (300c - 600 c).  Now assuming that 2-2-V-1 was used in one way or another as a cooking surface over a direct flame and assuming further that I am the guy doing the cooking, I am not about to touch, much less remove, a flaming hot sheet of metal from a fire after I serve the food... I'm going to leave that sucker there and the let the fire "wash" the dishes for me.  And now, after only a few minutes the entire sheet of metal reaches a consistent temperature.

But ultimately, how much does it matter if it was used for cooking?  Of more importance is how was it introduced to a tiny speck of an island in the South Seas and how did it's present condition come about --torn, bent, flexed, heated and subjected to explosive force?

Based on the ideas and theories presented by TIGHAR  I see the following as being worth at least a little consideration.  Earhart and Noonan land on Gardner during a low tide cycle. The aircraft may be stuck in the reef, it may be crippled in other ways, in any event, it wasn't going to leave.  Enough fuel remains to run an engine and keep the Electra's batteries charged sufficiently to allow radio distress calls.  Eventually the rising tides eliminate this avenue of communication when the water levels prevent the use of the motor.  Were it me, I would have then used every amp of remaining electricity in the batteries to make final, radio mayday calls.

Earhart seems to have a been a practical person, some might say to a fault.  The Electra is now, for all extents and purposes, worthless.  It provides no shelter and anything that can be easily be removed with tools no more complex than a pocket knife, and the necessary strength to use it, have been excised.  How else can you use it?

With each high tide cycle the aircraft is battered and will soon disappear.  Will anything remain in pieces large enough to be seen by rescuers?  And that's why I think she may have tried to burn it, one final use.  I have no idea how she would have started a fire on the aircraft and I was no Boy Scout, but I'm sure there were several potential sources of ignition and tinder within the aircraft's hulk available to her.

But perhaps fate had still more bad intent for her. If she had been able to start a burn, how long would it last?  Jeff Victor Hayden mentions the batteries, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30465.html#msg30465 , implying (I believe) the potential for fire and explosion.  Even if the radio was used for as long as possible, there would still be a substantial store of electricity remaining.  The batteries aren't dead, they just no longer provide enough juice to power the radio.  How much fuel might remain in the tanks?  How long would it take for a fire to reach and react with the batteries or the remaining fuel and what might happen when it did?  Was the overall condition and position of the Electra's main frame such that it was lying or tipped on it's side in a flooded orientation partially exposing the area 2-2-V-1 is thought to belong?

I think it possible that an unexpected explosion occurred as a result of trying to set a signal fire.  The fire may have may have been short lived but long enough to affect the portion of 2-2-V-1 above water.  An explosion may have snuffed the fire as well as further fragmenting and perhaps separating portions of the Electra's structure and causing some of the stresses observed on 2-2-V-1 .  Was it not suggested that Richie's Anomaly shows a potential debris field that was dragged behind the main object (thought to be the size of the Electra's fuselage)?  It would be interesting to know if the area in the photo posted by Ric, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7398;image , showing the loss of ductility is as sharply defined as the illustration indicates as I fail to see how a camp fire could be so resolved.

I've gone on long enough.  My apologies if I have taken too much "what-if" license, as well as for being too verbose.   

Cheers, d.a.
edited 3/9/14 to include links
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on March 09, 2014, 07:48:41 PM
Hi All

I have been wondering if area of heat marks could be due to underbelly impacting ground, As the heated area line is too straight to of been used on a open fire  ?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 09, 2014, 08:08:33 PM
Hi All

I have been wondering if area of heat marks could be due to underbelly impacting ground, As the heated area line is too straight to of been used on a open fire  ?
Richie
Ric said the heat is more than what would be generated from friction. see reply here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30468.html#msg30468)
Where is that picture of the belly from?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 09, 2014, 10:19:29 PM
Friction heating is a good thought, but couldn't persist for enough time without leaving clear signs of dragging on the ground.  A different scenario that occurs to me is  proximity to an exhaust pipe.  Does the Electra cowl ring have a rivet pattern anything close to 2-2-V-1?  I only have Beechcraft examples, and they're not even close (pictures to follow).
Here's a hypothetical scenario (please apply whatever caveats will keep me out of jail) - an aircraft with heat-effected cowl ring makes a water landing near Gardner Island (possibly on the Reef, in early July 1937).  Water spray during landing compresses the cowling internally (as a strut fails and the cowling dips into the water), pushing the heat-affected portion of the cowling out of alignment with the rest of the structure.  Subsequent wave action fatigues the loosened piece of aluminum until it breaks loose and washes to shore, where it hides in the sand until TIGHAR finds it.  If it had a nose and thumb it would use them to say "THBBBBBBBBB" to you all.  Perhaps luckily for us, it doesn't have those appendages.
I now return to studying Japanese aircraft of the era....
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 09, 2014, 10:52:45 PM
Friction heating is a good thought, but couldn't persist for enough time without leaving clear signs of dragging on the ground.
See attachment in reply here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30038.html#msg30038)
(option A)
The overlap of the port skin would probably be the layer that gets more scratched up. I suspected the port layer would transmit the heat thru to 2-2-V-1 but evidently that would still not generate enough heat. Plus it would likley be under water if being pushed. I did some research and found interesting topics like "underwater friction welding" but nothing that related well to this theory. Still that study of the overlap was useful to me because I wanted to see why 2-2-V-1 wasn't more scratched from sliding sideways to make the first tear at the keel. I suspect it did not slide so much when pushed really hard, but more picked up some, and then when the waves lowered it, is when it got damaged. So a little upward impact force from a projection into the bottom of the keel. As indicated by the blue arrow in the attachment to the reply here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30157.html#msg30157)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on March 10, 2014, 02:28:34 AM
Hi All

I have been wondering if area of heat marks could be due to underbelly impacting ground, As the heated area line is too straight to of been used on a open fire  ?
Richie
Ric said the heat is more than what would be generated from friction. see reply here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30468.html#msg30468)
Where is that picture of the belly from?
it's off Purdue the picture is a plane stationary on runway I think the plane number was nx or nc it was taking in 1936

Don't know how to copy an paste on iPhone
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: richie conroy on March 10, 2014, 02:35:37 AM
If u go on Purdue type electra in search box image 96 page 4 or 5

Cheers richie
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 10, 2014, 06:51:08 AM
If I had to chose a plane on Tighar’s list of Canton airplane wrecks (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro) as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I’d put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30357.html#msg30357) that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as ‘hit reef on takeoff’ , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30364.html#msg30364) a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.


Why not the example of 27 March 1943 - USN  PBY-5A of VP-54 - Destroyed in Japanese bombing attack on Canton -

2-2-V-1 also bears evidence of severe trauma in terms of forced removal from the mother structure and signs of heat damage (loss of ductility) in some areas.  It does not bear the tell-tale pock-marks of explosive damage per one expert who looked at it (upstring - the gent who worked TWA 800 before being retired from NTSB), but perhaps another modus of explosive force, e.g. gasoline creating a rupturing scenario, etc. could have done it (whew - run on...).

Oddly enough, BTW, given the heat damage and suggestion of explosive force, I've found myself wondering a bit lightly whether Hooven might have been right (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html)...  8)

That said, the main problem I have with the PBY is that we've already looked at the manual for it and the fastener size and type is wrong, unless somebody put a really light, down-scale patch on something for some reason I cannot imagine: the entire structure uses heavier fasteners than what we see in 2-2-V-1.

But that's not to disclaim it away - if we get to examine one I'd happily clambor all over it to see what can be learned (a bit tongue in cheek... no worries Ric, I realize the museum will have some limits on how much touch is allowed and I won't embarrass the family...  ;D).

Jeff,

I was just trying to connect Ric's observation about 2-2-V-I appearing to have been in a shoreline environment with the list of Canton wrecks, and on that sole basis, the PBY-2 looked like the best fit.

Understood.  I was merely throwing in that the other example might provide some notion of heat / mechanical distress as a victim of a bombing raid.

Quote
By the way, at this site (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/kiribati_canton.html) is a brief mention of a PBY wreck on the beach:

 "Thomas S. Equels adds:
While working for contractor H&N on Canton Island in 1971, we saw the hull of the troopship and nearby on the beach was the fuselage of a PBY with a radial engine close by
";

So this wreck was on the seaward, high energy surf environment shore, but which of the wrecked PBYs was it?...I definitely think every Canton plane type should be considered a possible donor and carefully researched. And, if clambering over a PBY to research is fun research, all the better...

But, thinking about how narrow the rim of Canton is, I suppose it might not have just been seaplanes that ended up in Canton's nearshore environment. Looking the airphoto of the island at this site (http://www.qsl.net/la7mfa/kanton.html) you  can see how close the runways were to the water (I know I've seen better photos of this, but this is what I came up with).

I suppose many things are possible; what we need to do is pinpoint the real likelihoods, IMO.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 10, 2014, 07:03:09 AM

 I believe we have to be thorough about eliminating other potential sources for 2-2-V-1, and a potential 'donor' 350 miles away is strong, IMO.

Now lies this PBM wreckage with a stiffener arrangement of some sort visible through a gaping hole cut in the side of a PBM wing float where metal was removed... The history of this wreck is colorful - deliberately beached on coral and destroyed by fire - and by the old repairs visible on the float, 'hard service' suggests a history of dings and patches. 

While later than the Electra, the PBM is arguably of appropriate vintage (entered service September 1940) as we now understand the decline of the brazier-head rivet to be about a decade later than previously thought, and that some of these seaplanes had surprisingly thinner metal on the hull skins that previously believed (see links up-string).

"...someone 'cut' metal from the side of that float - and a bit crudely, look at the jagged edges - and must have gone to some trouble to do so, for some reason."

So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains... My belief is that we cannot ignore this hulk as a possible source anymore than we'd shy from visiting the AF museum for a comparison. 


Jeff,  I agree the PBM on Howland Island is still in the running as a potential donor.  Ric's list of "Aircraft lost in the vicinity of Nikumaroro" includes another PBM that "Hit reef while taxiing at Canton," on Dec. 15, 1942.  That is an interesting lead that should be looked into carefully.  An accident report probably exists somewhere.

You are an excellent finder of stuff, Mark - can you perhaps locate such a report?

Maybe more to the point of the PBM - which I agree circumstances make intriguing - can you find technical specifics as you have on other types like the PBY and B-17?

I say by 'circumstances' because we have visible PBM wreckage within an arguable 'reasonable distance' of Niku with very suggestive repair / salvage evidence showing.  But will it stand the scrutiny of technical data?  The review of the PBY data revealed much heavier construction throughout, and a lack of the appropriate rivet type.  Although we now know a brazier might have been substituted for other types in a repair scheme, not so much so smaller than original rivets.

The PBM would have to carry #3 rivets in original structure to be convincing.  Having now seen how the PBY is built, I have my doubts.  But we have a surviving exmample at Pima - and perhaps the manuals, if you can find them, may tell us something...

Quote
 
 
http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

You bring up a very interesting question; who could have removed that piece of metal from the float on Howland Island? The island was un-occupied at the time that PBM was beached and burned.   

"Anyone" could have, one supposes; it is intriguing to think of Niku islanders doing so, but I'm not sure we're there yet on that. 

Quote
I've found some information about the skin plating on the PBM-5.  As in the case of the PBY, it turns out to be thinner than might be expected.  I suspect the 'hull side and crown' had large areas of .032 material.  The wings may also have .032 skin plating, but this report does not go into that unfortunately.   

"...Plating on the bottom of the hull from the bow to the main step is varied from .051 to .072 in thickness. Afterbody bottom plating varies from .040 to .051 in thickness. Hull side and crown skin varies from .020 to .045 in thickness."

Design Analysis of the Martin PBM-5 Mariner
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/PBM/PBM_IA_4509_DA.html

(http://semperparatus.com/images/pbm-3_martin_s615_cgd12.jpg)

Interesting photos of a PBM wreck in Truk Lagoon can be seen here- (No, I'm not proposing 2-2-V-1 came from this area-  I believe it most likely came via Canton Island- where aircraft wrecks were probably piled high.)

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17105

Interesting, but essentially anecdotal (like so many things, I know) - now if we could just find more specifics...

As to the PBY, it didn't pan out so well in my view: while some light plating is there in places, the rivet sizing and type is way off.

Specifics needed.  How far are you (or any reading this) from Pima?  There sits a PBM... I think the sole survivor, in fact.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Tim Collins on March 10, 2014, 07:11:26 AM
According to the ALCOA metallurgists, the loss of ductility was caused by the sort of heat you would expect from relatively brief exposure to flames - more than from friction but not an intense fire.  I don't recall any mention of how many times this may have happened.  The loss of ductility was noticed when they cut out three "coupons" for testing.  The procedure they used was to cut two parallel lines with snips and then bend the tab up enough to snip the third side.  That worked fine for two to the coupons but when they tried to bend up the third one it snapped off instead


Unfortunately ALCOA didn't give us a written report. Their research and comments were done in the context of TV shoot by WGBH as part of a planned NOVA special.  ALCOA was helping us as a courtesy (and to get some good PR) so we didn't press them for a written report. We had it all on video. But then WGBH reneged on the deal we had with them and the NOVA special never got made.  All we were left with was the notes we took at the time. 


Wait a minute, that was how they "determined" there was a loss of ductility?!! Just off the cuff because a piece snapped off rather than bending?  Incredible, simply incredible.  If that's how it was determined then  I would sooner believe that any loss of ductility was due to environmental exposure and corrosion. By the way, what again is the evidence that it was used for cooking?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 10, 2014, 08:15:41 AM
According to the ALCOA metallurgists, the loss of ductility was caused by the sort of heat you would expect from relatively brief exposure to flames - more than from friction but not an intense fire.  I don't recall any mention of how many times this may have happened.  The loss of ductility was noticed when they cut out three "coupons" for testing.  The procedure they used was to cut two parallel lines with snips and then bend the tab up enough to snip the third side.  That worked fine for two to the coupons but when they tried to bend up the third one it snapped off instead


Unfortunately ALCOA didn't give us a written report. Their research and comments were done in the context of TV shoot by WGBH as part of a planned NOVA special.  ALCOA was helping us as a courtesy (and to get some good PR) so we didn't press them for a written report. We had it all on video. But then WGBH reneged on the deal we had with them and the NOVA special never got made.  All we were left with was the notes we took at the time. 


Wait a minute, that was how they "determined" there was a loss of ductility?!! Just off the cuff because a piece snapped off rather than bending?  Incredible, simply incredible.  If that's how it was determined then  I would sooner believe that any loss of ductility was due to environmental exposure and corrosion. By the way, what again is the evidence that it was used for cooking?

I can appreciate your point, Tim - micro-pitting or attack / weaking of the alloy (remember this is 'clad' skin) could facilitate a brittle fracture as I think you are thinking of.  But the zonal depiction Ric gave implies more 'findings' than described here.

Ric, how did the zonal depiction of ductile characteristics get developed?  Was there a survey of the part by hardness testing or similar?  Are you able to notice distinctly varying degrees of malleabiltiy in different areas as you handle the sheet?

Personally, I find the 'heated' prospect for this item interesting as to it's history, but am not sure how vital it is to answer whether 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020 or not.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 10, 2014, 08:19:34 AM
Does the Electra cowl ring have a rivet pattern anything close to 2-2-V-1?

No.  The rivets in the 10E cowl appear to be #3s.  Dunno about the gage of the sheet metal but the rivet pattern is nothing like 2-2-V-1. The photos are of a 10E cowling that were to be used on the replica of NR16020 that was being constructed from Lockheed 10A c/n 1130 by the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, FL.  The museum decided not to complete the replica and never used the big cowlings.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 10, 2014, 12:28:23 PM

I can appreciate your point, Tim - micro-pitting or attack / weaking of the alloy (remember this is 'clad' skin) could facilitate a brittle fracture as I think you are thinking of.  But the zonal depiction Ric gave implies more 'findings' than described here.

Ric, how did the zonal depiction of ductile characteristics get developed?  Was there a survey of the part by hardness testing or similar?  Are you able to notice distinctly varying degrees of malleabiltiy in different areas as you handle the sheet?

Personally, I find the 'heated' prospect for this item interesting as to it's history, but am not sure how vital it is to answer whether 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020 or not.
Well said Jeff
I’m also curious about how the red heated areas were determined although I could not possibly have worded it that well.  I can’t see how 3 test snip “coupons” could define the areas of heat well. Maybe the bend it by hand, flexible here and rigid there, best guess method?
I also am not sure about how vital it is to answering  whether 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020. I think not much at all but maybe what could be considered lagniappe, the extra being a loose fit to a description of something like 2-2-V-1 being used for cooking by colonist who also described aircraft wreckage on the island when they got there. I have the heat element way down the list. 
Reasonable rivet pattern match consistent with repair of original area
Rivet size
Rivets type
Aircraft skin thickness
Aircraft skin type
Is where it went missing within reasonable access of the colonist in the time they had access.
If the donor was repaired in that area before 2-2-V-1 coming off
Is how it broke up consistent with how the donor broke up (the heat may or may not be applicable here).
The lagniappe for me is how much the break up fits TIGHAR's theory of what happened on that reef.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 10, 2014, 12:39:44 PM
The lagniappe for me is how much the break up fits TIGHAR's theory of what happened on that reef.

That's actually what prompted me to re-open Pandora's Box.  To explain how the airplane went over the reef edge (leaving the Bevington Object behind), sank out of sight, but left behind pieces that would later wash up to be found and used by the locals, we had to knock the airplane down onto its belly, push it across the reef flat, tear it up in the surf and sink whatever remained beyond the edge of the first underwater cliff.  It was only after we had developed that hypothesis that I thought, "Wait a minute.  That sounds like our old friend 2-2-V-1." 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 10, 2014, 02:29:35 PM

I can appreciate your point, Tim - micro-pitting or attack / weaking of the alloy (remember this is 'clad' skin) could facilitate a brittle fracture as I think you are thinking of.  But the zonal depiction Ric gave implies more 'findings' than described here.

Ric, how did the zonal depiction of ductile characteristics get developed?  Was there a survey of the part by hardness testing or similar?  Are you able to notice distinctly varying degrees of malleabiltiy in different areas as you handle the sheet?

Personally, I find the 'heated' prospect for this item interesting as to it's history, but am not sure how vital it is to answer whether 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020 or not.
...The lagniappe for me is how much the break up fits TIGHAR's theory of what happened on that reef.

Love that word, e.g. the gratis "thirteenth donut" in a bought dozen...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 10, 2014, 04:13:28 PM
All,
Would the heat tempered area of 2-2-V-1, shown by Ric, be consistent with sliding down the runway in Hawaii?  Suppose that what we are looking at is the remnants of the original belly skin that wasn’t too terribly damaged i.e. original construction not a repair piece.  The repair panel was on the starboard side of the belly instead of the port side.

The starboard side of the plane in the Luke Field photos seem to have taken the bulk of the damage.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 10, 2014, 05:03:10 PM
Suppose that what we are looking at is the remnants of the original belly skin that wasn’t too terribly damaged i.e. original construction not a repair piece.  The repair panel was on the starboard side of the belly instead of the port side.

But the artifact doesn't fit the port side. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 10, 2014, 07:19:31 PM
Ric,
Is the "heated" edge of 2-2-V-1 towards the keel or out board?
Ted
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 10, 2014, 07:37:59 PM
Ric,
Is the "heated" edge of 2-2-V-1 towards the keel or out board?
Ted

Keel.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 10, 2014, 08:17:30 PM
Then heating by friction in Hawaii is still a possibility?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 10, 2014, 08:19:33 PM
Then heating by friction in Hawaii is still a possibility?

I don't see how. The artifact only fits the starboard side and entire starboard side skin was replaced. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 10, 2014, 08:29:01 PM
Was a heat gun (heating) a practice in getting a repair piece to conform to a possible deformed main assy.?  I am sure that the keel took a hard blow.

Sorry Ric, just looking for a possible reason.
Ted
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 10, 2014, 09:22:32 PM
There's a brief description on the old forum about three of the B-24 parts that have been found on the island.     Has anything more been written up about the "forward wing spar cap strip"?  Did it turn out to be something else?   

"...The three identifiable B-24 parts we've found on Niku have actually been kind of scattered all
over the place.  The navigator's bookcase, as you know, was found near the Co-Op store.  The
piece with the "32B-" part number (later lost by NTSB) was found near "John Manybarrel's
House" (in the area where we think the Manra immigrants were settled), and the forward wing
spar cap strip was found at "Sam's Site".


http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200212.txt
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 11, 2014, 06:15:21 AM
    Has anything more been written up about the "forward wing spar cap strip"?  Did it turn out to be something else?   

No.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 12, 2014, 07:33:04 AM
The nearest aviation repair shop to Gardner island circa 1930's I can find so far is this one.

"May 1939: Pan American World Airways arrives on Kanton Island to build a service station for a flying boat service to New Zealand. The service starts in July 1940."

Didn't mean to but believe shot past this note when delving into the Airacobra possibilities -

Does artefact 2-2-V-1 have to be from a missing or crashed aircraft if it isn't from the Electra?

I believe probably "yes" as 2-2-V-1 has the distinction of representing a twice-failed structure:

- First, it is distinctly NOT original construction but a repair (and/or alteration) piece of material, and
- Second, it was removed forcibly in some manner of failure having to do with that previously repaired (and/or altered) structure to which formerly attached.

The exception could be that a shop didn't like the repair and replaced it, discarding what we now hold as 2-2-V-1; but that is highly unlikely (to the inth...) as no shop seeking to 'improve' the structure would have used a can opener to remove it in the fashion we can see - as strongly suggested (figuratively...) by the failures we see on the part.

But for argument's sake, did any of those Pan Am boats pile in in the area?  I don't recall that.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 12, 2014, 07:50:49 AM
What is it that I am seeing here in the area of skin between stations 239 and 269 (aft cabin belly), RH side?  It appears to be 'open' skin for some reason.

I snagged this from a TIGHAR bulletin on "Artifact 2-2-V-1*".  Was this taken 'during' the repair sequence?  If so, it appears that area was 'lagging' others for repair action for some reason, or perhaps left open or re-opened for some reason.

If at another time (before the repair), was this area under mod work for something we have not found out about so far?

To me it adds to the likelihood of a 'different than original' area on the airplane for some reason - either mod or expedited / slightly altered construction scheme to accomodate some reality of damage / needs of other modification to belly in that area.

 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 12, 2014, 09:32:40 AM
Jeff - are you referring to the dark area on the starboard side of the belly?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 12, 2014, 10:46:43 AM
Where did the idea come from that 2-2-V-1 is a repair piece and not original on an aircraft?  Is that a safe assumption?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 12, 2014, 11:20:46 AM
Jeff - are you referring to the dark area on the starboard side of the belly?

Yes - way back at aft end of cabin area.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 12, 2014, 11:23:49 AM
Where did the idea come from that 2-2-V-1 is a repair piece and not original on an aircraft?  Is that a safe assumption?

Irregular hole spacing and variances in rivet sizes clearly indicate post-original work.  Those features are common in repair / replacement skins, not in factory originals.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 12, 2014, 11:58:22 AM
Where did the idea come from that 2-2-V-1 is a repair piece and not original on an aircraft?  Is that a safe assumption?
See this reply (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30046.html#msg30046) from Ric
 "the letters AD are faintly visible on the surface of the sheet.  They are etched remnants of the original labeling applied by ALCOA.  The unique style (font) of the letters enabled ALCOA to identify the full designation as ALCLAD 24S – T3    AN - A – 13

• The labeling indicates that the sheet was manufactured by ALCOA not earlier than 1937 (when the T3 process was introduced) and not later than 1954 (when 24ST became 2024). The “13” signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction (i.e. repairs"
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on March 12, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
(http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/muledeer5/Richie/NR16020bellyskinview1_zpsf0237114.png) (http://s1295.photobucket.com/user/muledeer5/media/Richie/NR16020bellyskinview1_zpsf0237114.png.html)

Was wondering about the seemingly jagged edges near where 2-2-V-1 is purported to fit......is it a shadowing effect as in other areas circled... ( or perhaps reflected objects on the floor beneath the plane)?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 12, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Where did the idea come from that 2-2-V-1 is a repair piece and not original on an aircraft?  Is that a safe assumption?
See this reply (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30046.html#msg30046) from Ric
 "the letters AD are faintly visible on the surface of the sheet.  They are etched remnants of the original labeling applied by ALCOA.  The unique style (font) of the letters enabled ALCOA to identify the full designation as ALCLAD 24S – T3    AN - A – 13

• The labeling indicates that the sheet was manufactured by ALCOA not earlier than 1937 (when the T3 process was introduced) and not later than 1954 (when 24ST became 2024). The “13” signifies that it is “reserve stock” sheet that has been certified for uses other than original construction (i.e. repairs"

Many replies up-string cover the AN-A–13 designation [reply #218 through #231, and others].  The "ALCLAD 24S–T3  AN-A–13" stamping appears in original WW2 construction also.  Here are three examples, found at crash sites.  First photo is of a B-24, next two are B-17s.

(http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/GunnerySgtJackson/B24crashsite020.jpg)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebull/255312057/in/set-72157594303862783

(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n241/ulabodo/Aircraft%20parts/Police_2010-02-13_17.jpg)



Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Palshook on March 12, 2014, 02:38:56 PM
Jeff Neville,

The photo you posted above (in Reply #502) is available for viewing in the Purdue e-archives:

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=509&CISOBOX=1&REC=3 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=509&CISOBOX=1&REC=3)

It looks like the Purdue archives photo is a bit clearer than the one you posted.

The photo was taken in Karachi (India in 1937, now Pakistan) during the 2nd world flight attempt.

When I zoom in to the area in question in this photo in the Purdue archives, I don't see anything abnormal in the skin of the aircraft.  Perhaps what you see in the version you posted is just shadows or some other effect of the lighting in this area.

Jeff P.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 12, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
Many replies up-string cover the AN-A–13 designation [reply #218 through #231, and others].  The "ALCLAD 24S–T3  AN-A–13" stamping appears in original WW2 construction also.  Here are three examples, found at crash sites.

How do you know those are original construction and not repairs or modifications? (You better have a good answer.)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 12, 2014, 07:09:39 PM
I don't suppose there was ever a KOA on Gardner? (just kidding)
http://www.airstream.com/files/library/ba001792c0a731f5.pdf
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 12, 2014, 08:19:48 PM
This makes me want to remove cupboards from our 32 foot Airstream to see what's underneath, or should I strip the paint from the outside?
As for the presence of "ALCLAD 24ST-T3..." stamps, please refer to the crashed Kawanishi HK6 pictures I posted earlier.  The stamps seem most likely to indicate that the Japanese bought the aluminum prior to the war, built the aircraft, and it eventually got shot down during the war.  Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 12, 2014, 08:48:01 PM
Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?

Yes.  Alcoa told us the A-N-A 13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If some can show that is incorrect please do.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 12, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?

Yes.  Alcoa told us the A-N-A 13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If some can show that is incorrect please do.

"AN-N-13" was the general US Army-Navy specification for Alcad 24S sheet, according to this manual- [See page 65]
"Aluminum in aircraft. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Aluminum company of America 1943"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4444813;view=1up;seq=7
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 12, 2014, 09:59:56 PM
For Mark Pearce, do you have any details of what Fortress the AN-A-13 corrugated material in last photo is from?  (I assume that photo shows the corrugated wing strength layer under the "flat" skin)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 12, 2014, 10:27:20 PM
For Mark Pearce, do you have any details of what Fortress the AN-A-13 corrugated material in last photo is from?  (I assume that photo shows the corrugated wing strength layer under the "flat" skin)

Doug, here is the link to the photo's 'home' page, where you will find more info. [Look for comments below the photos.]  The plane went down somewhere in Poland. 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1266421967/1266668813/HELP+NEEDED-WW2+wreck+parts+identification-B-17--
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 13, 2014, 05:51:20 AM
Jeff Neville,

The photo you posted above (in Reply #502) is available for viewing in the Purdue e-archives:

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=509&CISOBOX=1&REC=3 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=509&CISOBOX=1&REC=3)

It looks like the Purdue archives photo is a bit clearer than the one you posted.

The photo was taken in Karachi (India in 1937, now Pakistan) during the 2nd world flight attempt.

When I zoom in to the area in question in this photo in the Purdue archives, I don't see anything abnormal in the skin of the aircraft.  Perhaps what you see in the version you posted is just shadows or some other effect of the lighting in this area.

Jeff P.

Thanks Jeff.  Yes, the original from Purdue is much clearer and I see that.

The copy I posted was at least third generation, and bitmap at that (now I notice), so not great.  It looks like some light/shadow effect is more pronounced for some reason.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 13, 2014, 08:45:23 AM
Thanks Mark, will check that out re B-17.

On another tangent, referring to the C-47 wing wreckage shown at Pacific Wrecks and mentioned by others previously, could the internal structure shown with the AN-A-13 labelling reasonably be anything other than original construction?  I'm no expert (hence all questions and no answers) and dont know if extensive repairs such as to internal wing structure would even be undertaken for a cargo plane in the middle of a conflict but I would expect a "field" repair to look like a field repair and probably not have such perfectly formed holes for one thing.  (Not saying the repair guys couldn't work wonders).

I believe I read here that wing damage to everyone's favorite Electra was remedied with a complete replacement wing section.  Just saying
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 13, 2014, 11:13:50 AM
Thanks Mark, will check that out re B-17.

On another tangent, referring to the C-47 wing wreckage shown at Pacific Wrecks and mentioned by others previously, could the internal structure shown with the AN-A-13 labelling reasonably be anything other than original construction?  I'm no expert (hence all questions and no answers) and dont know if extensive repairs such as to internal wing structure would even be undertaken for a cargo plane in the middle of a conflict but I would expect a "field" repair to look like a field repair and probably not have such perfectly formed holes for one thing.  (Not saying the repair guys couldn't work wonders).

I believe I read here that wing damage to everyone's favorite Electra was remedied with a complete replacement wing section.  Just saying

By as much as I can see, if any of that is 'repair' (not original) I cannot discern the difference.  As to that point - ideally, a good repair would be hard to tell from 'original' if one could tell at all; it is the other way around with 2-2-V-1 - what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc.

As to the replacement wing on NR16020 - yes, aware of that - but we're not talking about wing as a source but fuselage (which was repaired).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 13, 2014, 11:30:28 AM
Is there any reason to think those stamps are other than original construction?

Yes.  Alcoa told us the A-N-A 13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If some can show that is incorrect please do.

It appears per Mark's offering "Aluminum in Aircraft (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4444813;view=1up;seq=7#view=1up;seq=5)" (1943) that AN-A-13 was a 'recent' standard at the time that book was published.  Whether 1937 was 'recent' in those terms (if the spec existed) I can't tell so far.

Another thing I cannot tell is how Alcoa could tell that 2-2-V-1 was so marked (as "AN-A-13") just by the faint "A" and "D" hand-printed characters.  Seems like a leap to me - maybe someone at Alcoa was confused and may have given mistaken information?  They seem to have missed as to the meaning of that code - and it seems to me whether 2-2-V-1 is even of that spec (or at least whether it was so marked, or if the code even existed when that metal was produced...).

As such, AN-N-13 may be no more than an unintended red herring here.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 13, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
Quote from Jeff "As to the replacement wing on NR16020 - yes, aware of that - but we're not talking about wing as a source but fuselage (which was repaired)".

Actually my point in mentioning the Electra in this context was just to show a precedent where in an arguably similar plane with wing damage, key structure was apparently replaced with factory assembly rather than patching.  Suggests, to me anyway, assuming a similar standard of care, that field repairs to internal structure of the C-47 wing might be unlikely, therefore more likely to be original (non-repair) structure as pictured.  A leap in logic....maybe

I wonder if damage/repair records exist for that C-47
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 13, 2014, 12:27:19 PM

"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17867.html#msg17867


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 13, 2014, 02:45:37 PM

"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17867.html#msg17867


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem with that kind of work coming out of Canton...  ;)

...and perhaps my words about the repair are unfairly harsh, given that time and exposure have so weathered this part.

Let us just say it is clearly 'repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features.  Those things are NOT unusual in repair work where one is trying to match to existing, damaged structure that may have been straightened to some degree, etc.  You work with what you have.

As to the bent shank - can happen anywhere, but especially in a relatively rushed repair job where the owner is in the front office pushing for attention on her bird...

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 13, 2014, 05:50:34 PM
Quote
Posted by: Jeffrey Neville
« on: Today at 11:13:50 AM »...with 2-2-V-1 - what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc....

Did I do the quote thing right?

Some B-24 semi-close up shots attached. I note lots of irregular rows, seemingly different rivet sizes, uneven spacing, various pitches.  Point being that if this Liberator represents state of the art in assembly line production then maybe apparent inconsistent workmanship on artifact doesn't necessarily say so much.

I guess Rosie was allowed some artistic license
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 13, 2014, 08:16:20 PM
Alcoa told us the AN-A-13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If someone can show that is incorrect please do.

I think Mark Pearce has done that. Thank you Mark.  The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1.

We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943.  So how did a piece of sheet labeled AN-A-13 end up on a pre-war Japanese flying boat?

Clearly, the guy at ALCOA who, in 1996, told us that AN-A-13 was the designation for "reserve stock" was wrong. That means we DON'T know whether 2-2-V-1 was from a repair or not.  What we DO know about the artifact is that there is an "AD" in a particular font that was used by ALCOA.  The only word that ALCOA stamped on there product that contains the letters "AD" is ALCLAD but at some point they stopped using the entire word ALCLAD and abbreviated it to "ALC".  We also know that the AD on the artifact is not aligned with the grain of the metal so it was probably hand-stamped rather than rolled-on.  Both of those factors suggest that 2-2-V-1 is an early, probably pre-war, piece of ALCLAD sheet.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 13, 2014, 09:52:08 PM
Alcoa told us the AN-A-13 designation was for "reserve stock."  If someone can show that is incorrect please do.

I think Mark Pearce has done that. Thank you Mark.  The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1.

We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943.  So how did a piece of sheet labeled AN-A-13 end up on a pre-war Japanese flying boat?

Clearly, the guy at ALCOA who, in 1996, told us that AN-A-13 was the designation for "reserve stock" was wrong. That means we DON'T know whether 2-2-V-1 was from a repair or not.  What we DO know about the artifact is that there is an "AD" in a particular font that was used by ALCOA.  The only word that ALCOA stamped on there product that contains the letters "AD" is ALCLAD but at some point they stopped using the entire word ALCLAD and abbreviated it to "ALC".  We also know that the AD on the artifact is not aligned with the grain of the metal so it was probably hand-stamped rather than rolled-on.  Both of those factors suggest that 2-2-V-1 is an early, probably pre-war, piece of ALCLAD sheet.


I'm happy to help out. The word 'ALCLAD' and either 'AN-A-13' or 'ANA 13' is visible in the photos of three different aluminum sheets - said to be from the 1940s and 1950s, at the Airstream Co. link below, [mentioned earlier?]

- a .051" Alcoa sheet, a .032" Kaiser Aluminum sheet and a .032" Alcoa sheet.

Can you post a high resolution photo of the 'AD' letters?
The Japanese flying boat- really a Mavis, or....?     

http://www.airstream.com/files/library/ba001792c0a731f5.pdf (http://www.airstream.com/files/library/ba001792c0a731f5.pdf)


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 14, 2014, 06:30:09 AM
Quote
Posted by: Ric Gillespie
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:16:20 PM »"....The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1...."
 

Not exactly, the reference to applicable sheet thickness is simply indicating a reduction in relative cladding thickness at 0.064 and heavier...doesn't say that the spec doesn't apply to lighter gauges.  Airstream photos confirm availability in 0.032
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 14, 2014, 09:50:30 AM

"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17867.html#msg17867


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem with that kind of work coming out of Canton...  ;)

...and perhaps my words about the repair are unfairly harsh, given that time and exposure have so weathered this part.

Let us just say it is clearly 'repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features.  Those things are NOT unusual in repair work where one is trying to match to existing, damaged structure that may have been straightened to some degree, etc.  You work with what you have.

As to the bent shank - can happen anywhere, but especially in a relatively rushed repair job where the owner is in the front office pushing for attention on her bird...

Yes, exactly, it is clearly "...repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features."
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone.  [The Japanese bombed the place from the air, and shelled it from submarines.]  But it's not the kind of work I'd expect to see from Lockheed employees, working in the safety of the Calif. factory, with every proper tool at hand, and with AE looking over their shoulders.  She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field.  The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.  The repaired plane's structure was even X-rayed!! To seek out flaws in the structure!!

Everything I see here screams- WW2 repair job patch- later scavenged at Canton Island  and brought back to Gardener Island.     

http://www.sff.net/people/brook.west/arc/abdr.html
"Aircraft battle damage repair (ABDR)... the "quick fix and get it in the air again" brand of aircraft repair."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_562.htm
"...certain skin areas are classified as highly critical, other areas as semi-critical, while still other areas may be classified as non-critical."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_546.htm
"5. Rivets less than three thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter should not be used for any structural parts."

--------------------------------------------------

"When Amelia Earhart's big plane was placed under a newly developed X-ray machine recently, several flaws were discovered which might have forced down the aviatrix at some point on her round-the-world-flight if they had not been corrected..."  Popular Mechanics, Aug. 1937, Page 178.


"Aviation experts recently utilized a new portable X-ray machine to locate possible structural defects in the huge transport plane in which Amelia Earhart, world famous woman flyer, recently crashed at Honolulu, Hawaii, while on a attempted flight around the world.  Rays developed by the apparatus were said to be strong enough to penetrate eighteen inches of solid aluminum and reveal motor or framework flaws as small as one millionth of an inch.  More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."
  Popular Science, August 1937, page 58

(http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/files/2012/07/Earharts-Lockheed-Electra-Repair-5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 14, 2014, 10:26:37 AM
Quote
Posted by: Ric Gillespie
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:16:20 PM »"....The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1...."
 

Not exactly, the reference to applicable sheet thickness is simply indicating a reduction in relative cladding thickness at 0.064 and heavier...doesn't say that the spec doesn't apply to lighter gauges.  Airstream photos confirm availability in 0.032

That's not the way I read it.  We'd need to see the actual specification to be sure.  In any event, the information we were given by the metallurgist at ALCOA was not accurate and there seems to be no way to know whether the AN-A-13 was ever on the artifact.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 14, 2014, 10:58:16 AM
I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work. ...

Yes, exactly, it is clearly "...repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features."
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone. ...

She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field. ...

The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.

You've express your opinion (again).  That's fine, but it's not supported by the facts. 

We know this for sure:
• The repairs to Earhart's aircraft had to pass Bureau of Air Commerce inspection.

•There is nothing to indicate that repairs as implied by 2-2-V-1 would not pass government inspection.

• Your opinions are all "would haves" (or "wouldn't haves").  You have no facts.

• Your opinion about the work not being done "in a pinch" is not supported by correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies. GP was telling State Dept. officials that the repairs were completed and inspected when the inspector was telling his boss that the repairs would take another ten days.  In fact, everything was wrapped up in five days.  That's a rush job.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 14, 2014, 12:47:32 PM

I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work. ...
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone. ...

She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field. ...

The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.

You've express your opinion (again).  That's fine, but it's not supported by the facts. 
• Your opinions are all "would haves" (or "wouldn't haves").  You have no facts.
• Your opinion about the work not being done "in a pinch" is not supported by correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies. GP was telling State Dept. officials that the repairs were completed and inspected when the inspector was telling his boss that the repairs would take another ten days.  In fact, everything was wrapped up in five days.  That's a rush job.


All the major and minor repairs, and the 1000 X-rays, done start to finish in five days?  It would be good to have a fact-based "time-sheet" covering the repair job.  A letter written by GP to Purdue's Pres. Edward Elliott on March 30th 1937, starts,

"Dear Elliott,  The plane gets back Friday to the factory here..."

Forty days (?) later, on May 15th, the United Press published a short article titled "Amelia to Take Off Again Before June 1"  It says in part, "The famous woman flyer said her plane has been restored to "perfect condition".  It has been undergoing extensive repairs at the Lockheed factory..."

[The other story below quotes Amelia as estimating "...not more than three weeks" for the repairs.]

Are the other letters on-line?   

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19370515&id=I1wbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-UwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5818,5642730
 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19370328&id=IicbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=C0wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2888,4634814
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 14, 2014, 02:22:26 PM
All the major and minor repairs, and the 1000 X-rays, done start to finish in five days?

No.  You seem to be having a hard understanding this.  I must not be communicating clearly.  The aircraft was at the Burbank facility for repair from early April until May 19.

  It would be good to have a fact-based "time-sheet" covering the repair job.

yes it would.  Let me know if you find one.

Forty days (?) later, on May 15th, the United Press published a short article titled "Amelia to Take Off Again Before June 1"  It says in part, "The famous woman flyer said her plane has been restored to "perfect condition".  It has been undergoing extensive repairs at the Lockheed factory..."

And yet, the day before the BAC inspector in L.A. told his boss that the repairs and inspection would take another ten days.

Are other letters on-line?   

No.  I'll do that as soon as I can.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 14, 2014, 02:25:38 PM
I've been getting a lot of calls from media for TIGHAR's take on the missing Malaysian flight.  I'll be in New York tonight as one of a "panel of experts" on The Kelly File, FOX News at 9pm Eastern.  Should be interesting.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 14, 2014, 02:45:28 PM
Fox "news"? Be sure to take your tinfoil hat   ;D


LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

P.S. - use your time to plug Niku VIII !!! I mean, why not?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 14, 2014, 03:15:19 PM
So the plane was at the Lockheed factory for 47 days.  That is plenty of time for the plane to be brought back to the "perfect condition" AE described.  She could be quite fussy from what I've learned.   

Jeff N. has emphasized the irregular riveting seen in 2-2-V-1 as a sign of work not done in a factory. 

 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 14, 2014, 04:47:58 PM
So the plane was at the Lockheed factory for 47 days.  That is plenty of time for the plane to be brought back to the "perfect condition" AE described.  She could be quite fussy from what I've learned.

Sounds like you were either there or that you have experience fixing heavily damaged airplanes.  I was not there, but in my former life handling insurance claims I have monitored the repair of many heavily damaged airplanes. In my experience, I would expect the kind of repairs that NR16020 needed would take at least two months.
We know that on May 15 when Amelia said the plane had been brought back to perfect condition it would be another five days before repairs were actually completed and inspected. Shocking as it may be, Amelia Earhart did not always tell the truth - especially to the media.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 14, 2014, 06:32:12 PM
It would really be shocking if Lockheed did less than perfect work on the repair.  Would she lie and say a "perfect job" had been done, when Lockheed had really cut corners?  What are the chances that  Lockheed would cut corners repairing AE's plane- a plane they had designed and built - that was going on a flight around the world?



 


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 15, 2014, 09:23:39 AM
It would really be shocking if Lockheed did less than perfect work on the repair.  Would she lie and say a "perfect job" had been done, when Lockheed had really cut corners? 

Would she lie and call her plane a "Flying Laboratory" when, in fact, it was equipped pretty much the same as any airliner of the day?  Would she lie and tell the press that the cross-country flight to Miami was just a test flight?  Would she lie about why the South Atlantic flight ended up in St.Louis instead of Dakar?

What are the chances that  Lockheed would cut corners repairing AE's plane- a plane they had designed and built - that was going on a flight around the world?

None. They would repair the plane to approved Bureau of Air Commerce standards. It had to pass government inspection.  If 2-2-V-1 is what we think it is, the repairs left that part of the airplane as strong or stronger.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 15, 2014, 12:51:48 PM
So the plane was at the Lockheed factory for 47 days.  That is plenty of time for the plane to be brought back to the "perfect condition" AE described.  She could be quite fussy from what I've learned.   

Jeff N. has emphasized the irregular riveting seen in 2-2-V-1 as a sign of work not done in a factory.

No, I have not, Mark - you have misquoted me.

What I have said is what I see is consistent with repair work, not original, work - I said nothing about the factory either way and happen to be well aware that Earhart's repairs were done at the Lockheed facility.

What we see in 2-2-V-1 is entirely consistent with what can happen during repairs at any facility, including off-line, post-production repairs at a factory - the occasional over-sized rivet holes are good evidence of that, IMO, whereas in new construction that doesn't happen so frequently.

If you are going to 'quote' me you need to get it right and not put your own twist into things...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 15, 2014, 01:05:18 PM

"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17867.html#msg17867


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem with that kind of work coming out of Canton...  ;)

...and perhaps my words about the repair are unfairly harsh, given that time and exposure have so weathered this part.

Let us just say it is clearly 'repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features.  Those things are NOT unusual in repair work where one is trying to match to existing, damaged structure that may have been straightened to some degree, etc.  You work with what you have.

As to the bent shank - can happen anywhere, but especially in a relatively rushed repair job where the owner is in the front office pushing for attention on her bird...

Yes, exactly, it is clearly "...repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features."
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone.  [The Japanese bombed the place from the air, and shelled it from submarines.]  But it's not the kind of work I'd expect to see from Lockheed employees, working in the safety of the Calif. factory, with every proper tool at hand, and with AE looking over their shoulders.  She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field.  The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.  The repaired plane's structure was even X-rayed!! To seek out flaws in the structure!!

What is your experience with this sort of work, Mark?  Great for you to have all these 'expectations' but I don't sense much background here backing that up - you don't seem well acquainted with hands-on repair work, field, factory or otherwise but argue in absolutes that aren't, IMO, well founded.

The x-rays would have been done to determine if hidden damage / cracks, etc. were present out of sight and to minimize the need to remove structure for the purpose of exploration or precautionary replacement, no mystery there.  It says nothing about what might have happened in terms of over-sized fasteners being needed or the finished quality of every rivet, etc.

Quote
[Everything I see here screams- WW2 repair job patch- later scavenged at Canton Island  and brought back to Gardener Island. 

Well, a scream is hard to ignore and I'm sorry you are being screamed at.  So if canton is it, where is the matching structure that it came from?  You have thrown a few 'possibles' on the wall - which are going to be looked at, so what is your point other than sharing that you hear screams?

Quote
http://www.sff.net/people/brook.west/arc/abdr.html
"Aircraft battle damage repair (ABDR)... the "quick fix and get it in the air again" brand of aircraft repair."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_562.htm
"...certain skin areas are classified as highly critical, other areas as semi-critical, while still other areas may be classified as non-critical."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_546.htm
"5. Rivets less than three thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter should not be used for any structural parts."

...and item 4 just before that last item 5 includes that protruding head rivets should be replaced with MS20470 / AN470 universal head rivets, nary a brazier mentioned...

All nice - and anecdotal / non-specific to Canton / real events / disproves nothing about Lockheed, etc.

--------------------------------------------------

Quote
"When Amelia Earhart's big plane was placed under a newly developed X-ray machine recently, several flaws were discovered which might have forced down the aviatrix at some point on her round-the-world-flight if they had not been corrected..."  Popular Mechanics, Aug. 1937, Page 178.


"Aviation experts recently utilized a new portable X-ray machine to locate possible structural defects in the huge transport plane in which Amelia Earhart, world famous woman flyer, recently crashed at Honolulu, Hawaii, while on a attempted flight around the world.  Rays developed by the apparatus were said to be strong enough to penetrate eighteen inches of solid aluminum and reveal motor or framework flaws as small as one millionth of an inch.  More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."
  Popular Science, August 1937, page 58

(http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/files/2012/07/Earharts-Lockheed-Electra-Repair-5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 15, 2014, 01:12:07 PM
I know a little bit ... about a lot of things.

But mostly ... I know what I don't know.

LTM, who will now go back to pondering the cat box,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 15, 2014, 01:22:53 PM
"More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."

And not a lead apron in sight. Funny how none of those guys ever had kids.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 15, 2014, 01:39:42 PM
"More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."

And not a lead apron in sight. Funny how none of those guys ever had kids.

"This thing makes my fillings feel funny..."
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on March 15, 2014, 01:42:01 PM
To be fair, not much was known about the effects of x-ray radiation outside of the scientific community in those days.

Even as shoe stores rushed to add the machines, the dangers of X-ray radiation were becoming more evident. By the 1920s many X-ray pioneers -- who had received massive doses of seemingly harmless X-rays during their experiments -- suffered well-publicized, painful and often gruesome deaths. Even before the shoe-fitting fluoroscope was patented, the first, tentative national guidelines on radiation exposure were established.

While the theoretical dangers of excessive radiation exposure were already fairly well known within the scientific field, actual data on shoe store exposure did not appear until the late 1940s. Towards the end of that decade articles in medical journals began to document the potential health effects of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes (skin and bone marrow damage; growth problems). At the same time, other research discovered that a high percentage of the nearly 10,000 fluoroscopes in use in the United States emitted dangerous levels of radiation for both customers and clerks. Various health and industrial hygiene organizations began recommending against using the devices. On November 24, 1950, Milwaukee became one of the first cities in the nation to regulate the operation and location of the machines, and in 1957 Pennsylvania became the first state to outlaw their use. By 1960, 34 states had banned the machines.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/museum/artifacts/archives/002457.asp (http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/museum/artifacts/archives/002457.asp)


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 15, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
What tools will be needed and what are the methods for looking at possible donors?
Some items I can think of are:
Cameras
Measure tape, soft so not to scratch metal
Hand held camera jib (http://www.coolcontraptions.com/Cool-Jib.html) to view hard to get at spots
Drawings of the canditate planes broken out into grids with checklist for each grid
Portable Lamps
What is a good tool to measure the rivets?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Hal Beck on March 15, 2014, 03:53:18 PM

• Your opinion about the work not being done "in a pinch" is not supported by correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies. GP was telling State Dept. officials that the repairs were completed and inspected when the inspector was telling his boss that the repairs would take another ten days.  In fact, everything was wrapped up in five days.  That's a rush job.

Ric,

Is there any other correspondence besides the one you refer to above, that bears on the question of whether this was a 'rush job'? From the correspondence you quote it is clear that GP misinformed the State Dept. about the progress of repairs (either accidentally or intentionally). But its not clear to me that 'Team Earhart' actually pressured Lockheed to finish the repair asap. It is a fact that the repairs were finished more quickly than the inspector told his boss, but it seems to me there are other reasonable explanations for why that was so, oner than it being a rush job. For instance, I have often seen contractors overestimate how long it will take to finish a job just to avoid getting pressured by their customers to finish on time, i.e. it was the opposite of a rush job! It seems to me that, unless additional documentation exists that indicating that Lockheed was pressured we can't be very certain that this was the case.


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 15, 2014, 04:55:55 PM
I have removed postings relating to theories about Malaysian 370.  Although interesting, they are off topic.  I'll allow the "Parallels of Flight" topic to remain but postings should be confined to that subject.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on March 15, 2014, 05:07:13 PM
"More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."

Do you suppose that those were actual films? 

Wouldn't you like to find that stash of archived material.


amck
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 15, 2014, 05:20:30 PM
Wouldn't you like to find that stash of archived material.

It's also nice to have original source material but I'm having trouble imagining how it would help us find the plane.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on March 15, 2014, 08:18:30 PM
It might, if one of those films showed the piece you have.  I wonder how big those films would be, if they used films such as you see in the doctor's office.  Would they be large enough to show 2-2-V-1 (more probably the larger piece it was part of)?
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: John Ousterhout on March 15, 2014, 08:31:37 PM
The film would be a bit larger than the piece being X-rayed.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 15, 2014, 08:55:25 PM
For Jeff Neville primarily I guess...

I have no doubt that it would (sorry I know we don't like "would" but I lost my thesaurus) have been at least possible, given enough time, for the factory repair shop to bring the Electra back to virtually "perfect" in terms of strength, dimensions, rivet placement and any other measurable aspect, ie in all practical aspects indistinguishable from a virgin airframe.

If I understand correctly the theory about the rivet pattern not exactly matching what is expected is that stringers/keel/other structure were tweaked a bit in the ground loop and perhaps not restored to perfect placement.

So I'm trying to get a feel for what sort of magnitude of extra effort would have been required to get the underlying structure mentioned above back to "perfect" and if its reasonable that Lockheed didn't go that route. Are we talking a few hours, an extra couple of days, or weeks, assuming no extra repair crew or shift added?

I'm also raising a Spockian eybrow about the alclad stamp not being buffed off of 2-2-v-1...this was still a current production aircraft at the time of repair, as I understand it, and in the control of probably the highest profile customer Lockheed or any other manufacturer was likely to see and they don't take a few minutes to buff the repair patches to match surrounding?  What up with that? No doubt they would have been hoping to sell an Electra or two on the backs of our hapless duo so don't you make sure the demo model is tarted up to the max?

There was some discussion of why alclad marking is visible in another recent thread but no real answer that I saw.  When one is buffing something one uses lighting and varying view angles to ensure a quality finish leaving no trace of whatever one was trying get rid of
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on March 15, 2014, 09:38:30 PM
The film would be a bit larger than the piece being X-rayed.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1942-Press-Photo-Tom-Triplett-Ground-Inspector-With-X-ray-Damaged-Airplane-Part-/351018361760?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item51ba5323a0#ht_2907wt_1018
John and Others....
                            Here is a sample of Mr Tom Tripletts work .....quite an inventive fellow.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1942-Press-Photo-Tom-Triplett-Technician-Lockheed-Aircraft-Corporation-/350940052002?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item51b5a83a22#ht_2814wt_1018
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 16, 2014, 07:47:28 AM
If I understand correctly the theory about the rivet pattern not exactly matching what is expected is that stringers/keel/other structure were tweaked a bit in the ground loop and perhaps not restored to perfect placement.

No one knows what was done, but whatever was done met Bureau of Air Commerce standards and was inspected and approved.  No one is suggesting that the repairs were sloppy or half-assed.

So I'm trying to get a feel for what sort of magnitude of extra effort would have been required to get the underlying structure mentioned above back to "perfect" and if its reasonable that Lockheed didn't go that route. Are we talking a few hours, an extra couple of days, or weeks, assuming no extra repair crew or shift added?

Jeff Neville will correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the use of larger rivets in the keel was necessary due to the presence of the original small rivet holes that could not be re-used.  The only fix for that would be the replacement of the entire keel.  Faced with that, it would be cheaper to just give her a new airplane.

I'm also raising a Spockian eybrow about the alclad stamp not being buffed off of 2-2-v-1..

No one is saying it wasn't buffed off.  All we know is that a D and to a lesser degree an A remain visible on the metal.  It's not ink.  It appears to be an effect the ink of the label had on the metal itself. We don't know by what process that occurred.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 16, 2014, 07:56:02 AM
It might, if one of those films showed the piece you have.

The x-rays were taken of the plane to determine what parts were damaged. They were taken before repairs were made.  They wouldn't show the piece we have if it is a repair.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 16, 2014, 09:04:29 AM
Is there any other correspondence besides the one you refer to above, that bears on the question of whether this was a 'rush job'? From the correspondence you quote it is clear that GP misinformed the State Dept. about the progress of repairs (either accidentally or intentionally). But its not clear to me that 'Team Earhart' actually pressured Lockheed to finish the repair asap. It is a fact that the repairs were finished more quickly than the inspector told his boss, but it seems to me there are other reasonable explanations for why that was so, oner than it being a rush job. For instance, I have often seen contractors overestimate how long it will take to finish a job just to avoid getting pressured by their customers to finish on time, i.e. it was the opposite of a rush job! It seems to me that, unless additional documentation exists that indicating that Lockheed was pressured we can't be very certain that this was the case.

The example you cite of a contractor overestimating the time required so as to avoid pressure doesn't apply in this case.  As shown in the attached correspondence, this is what happened:

On May 10 Putnam wrote to Undersecretary of Commerce Johnson in Washington asking for a new letter of authority for Earhart to do her world flight. In that letter Putnam states that the plane has been "thoroughly repaired at the Lockheed plant under the direction of Department inspectors."

On May 13 Reining at the Bureau of Air Commerce in Washington wires the Supervising Aeronautical Inspector in Inglewood, CA asking him to  "wire status inspection repairs Earhart NR 16020." He wants the inspection report airmailed to him.

On May 14 Marriott, the Chief General Inspection Service wires Reining saying that "completion of repairs and inspection will take ten days."  Marriott has no reason to exaggerate the estimate.

On May 19 Marriott wires Reining that "Earhart Lockheed repairs completed [and] approved.  Report air mailed today."

Note that Putnam is in New York handling the correspondence with the government.  As shown in photos, Earhart is in Burbank on the shop floor.  Anecdotal accounts have her pushing for the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 16, 2014, 11:01:52 AM

As shown in photos, Earhart is in Burbank on the shop floor.  Anecdotal accounts have her pushing for the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible.

The photo was taken by Harvey Christen, "..long time Lockheed jack of all trades." Two thousand photos he collected while working for the company were donated to the Huntington Library in San Marino, Calif. 

http://huntingtonblogs.org/2011/11/basney-donation-of-harvey-christen-papers/
http://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/830/return-to-camelot/

He is pictured on page 14 in this 1957 Lockheed Co. publication;

http://www.mbmcdaniel.com/burbankia/of_men_and_stars_3.pdf

When the 2-2-V-1 story was first got underway, Christen was interviewed for a story in the LA Times-

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-30/news/vw-278_1_amelia-earhart/3

"...Gillespie sees no mystery in variances of rivet spacing and patterns. He believes the positioning was changed when Earhart's plane was repaired after the takeoff accident.

"Not so, insists Ed Werner, 82, of Santa Cruz, the assistant foreman of Lockheed's fuselage shop at Burbank at the time.  The rivet patterns on the fragment, he says, "just don't follow the engineering orders for the repairs. If those orders weren't followed, the repair couldn't have passed inspection and the airplane wouldn't have been released. And no double riveting along the center line . . . is tampering with the structural integrity of the airplane."

"Harvey Christen, 81, of Pasadena agrees. A retired director of quality reliability for Lockheed, Christen was Werner's boss during repairs to the Earhart plane.  "Nobody repaired anything at Lockheed without taking it back to its original configuration, as dictated by the airplane's federal certification," he says. Under such rigid controls, it would be "unthinkable" that any worker or inspector would allow a repair where the riveting missed a complete line of attachment to a fuselage stiffener.  Gillespie believes his fragment should have never been compared to a Lockheed 10B because Earhart was flying a Lockheed 10E..."

(http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/50482571-lockheed-aircraft-executive-harvey-c-christen-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=9wK2oiRgBBZnaxFxdkNs1QPjZluLR6Q7LIkDAPlJ%2f25PaH2eWxcZjWy4KYvm1dBR9hMStE%2fMzrQZ73c41zNG2ejytuzu3z994P6oyslvhAw%3d)

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 16, 2014, 01:09:47 PM
"Not so, insists Ed Werner, 82, of Santa Cruz, the assistant foreman of Lockheed's fuselage shop at Burbank at the time.  The rivet patterns on the fragment, he says, "just don't follow the engineering orders for the repairs. If those orders weren't followed, the repair couldn't have passed inspection and the airplane wouldn't have been released.

Yeah, that was really damaging.  Elgen Long asked me for a template of the artifact.  I sent him one (not realizing that the bowed shape of the artifact introduced distortion to the rivet pattern).  Elgen rounded up Ed Werner and Harvey Christen and compared the template to a Lockheed 10 in Oakland (as I recall).  I knew their criticisms were flawed but who was the LA Times going to believe - me or two former Lockheed mechanics?

As we've seen, Mr. Werner's statement is not accurate.  The engineering orders for the repairs to the part of the airplane where the artifact appears to fit do not contain specifics about how the repairs are to be carried out. There is nothing in our hypothesis that contradicts the engineering orders.

And no double riveting along the center line . . . is tampering with the structural integrity of the airplane."

As we've all seen, in the engineering drawings and on surviving Electras, the Lockheed 10 is double riveted along the center line (keel) in the area where the artifact appears to fit.  Why would Werner say something like that?  He was 82 at that time. Maybe he wasn't with Elgen and Harvey Christen when they visited the airplane in the museum. Maybe he only saw the template and was relying on memory about how Electras were built.

"Harvey Christen, 81, of Pasadena agrees. A retired director of quality reliability for Lockheed, Christen was Werner's boss during repairs to the Earhart plane.  "Nobody repaired anything at Lockheed without taking it back to its original configuration, as dictated by the airplane's federal certification," he says.

Historical documents show Christen's categorical statement to be simply not accurate. As we've seen, Earhart's airplane was modified during repairs.  New drawings were made and approved for changes to the nacelle ribs.  Those have survived but there were also numerous engineering orders approved that have not survived.

Under such rigid controls, it would be "unthinkable" that any worker or inspector would allow a repair where the riveting missed a complete line of attachment to a fuselage stiffener.  Gillespie believes his fragment should have never been compared to a Lockheed 10B because Earhart was flying a Lockheed 10E..."

I never said that and, of course, we are suggesting no such thing.  At the time Christen made that comment we thought the artifact fit best on another part of the belly further forward.  This was all going down in 1992 and it pretty much shut down further research on 2-2-V-1.  But the more we learned about what probably happened to the airplane the more interesting the artifact became.  It was 2004 before we developed the current hypothesis about where it fits.  Ten years later, as our research capabilities have continued to grow (in no small measure thanks to this forum) the artifact looks stronger than ever. Previous criticisms, such as the ones you have posted, are now clearly in error and there's nothing that disqualifies the artifact except the possibility that it matches some other aircraft.  That is now the focus of our research.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on March 16, 2014, 01:20:13 PM
It might, if one of those films showed the piece you have.

The x-rays were taken of the plane to determine what parts were damaged. They were taken before repairs were made.  They wouldn't show the piece we have if it is a repair.
Thanks, Ric!  I wondered after I posted if that would be the case.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 16, 2014, 02:06:08 PM
Mr. Pearce, while you have posted some genuinely interesting and enlightening information, with this last post, I'm sorry, but I see an agenda.

LTM, who tries to keep agendas confined to useless meetings,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jeff Carter on March 16, 2014, 02:41:28 PM
Maybe a trip to California is warranted -- hit the photo collection at Huntington Library and then swing by Castle Museum to look at the rivet patterns on the B-24M.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 16, 2014, 06:46:03 PM
Mr. Pearce, while you have posted some genuinely interesting and enlightening information, with this last post, I'm sorry, but I see an agenda.

Of course Mark has an agenda. He's trying his darndest to debunk 2-2-V-1 but he hasn't resorted to trollism (much, yet, anyway).  He's a dynamite researcher and that makes him extremely valuable.  We're trying to be objective but we want the artifact to be part of NR16020 and that might color our objectivity.  Mark wants it to be a Canton repair so his bias goes in the opposite direction.

Personally, I'm thoroughly enjoying his challenges. He's doing more to reinforce our hypothesis than we could ever do.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 16, 2014, 08:25:25 PM
If I understand correctly the theory about the rivet pattern not exactly matching what is expected is that stringers/keel/other structure were tweaked a bit in the ground loop and perhaps not restored to perfect placement.

No one knows what was done, but whatever was done met Bureau of Air Commerce standards and was inspected and approved.  No one is suggesting that the repairs were sloppy or half-assed.

Agree - and if terms I've used implied that, I did not mean to be so harsh.  What must be understood is that with any repair of this type there is latitude for acceptable variation.  There will also be the occasional poorly bucked rivet in some corner somewhere, no matter how good the mechanic or how hard they try.

Quote
So I'm trying to get a feel for what sort of magnitude of extra effort would have been required to get the underlying structure mentioned above back to "perfect" and if its reasonable that Lockheed didn't go that route. Are we talking a few hours, an extra couple of days, or weeks, assuming no extra repair crew or shift added?

Jeff Neville will correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the use of larger rivets in the keel was necessary due to the presence of the original small rivet holes that could not be re-used.  The only fix for that would be the replacement of the entire keel.  Faced with that, it would be cheaper to just give her a new airplane.

Yes, agree - it would be an acceptable practice to replace damaged holes with larger rivets.  Damage to holes can happen during repair efforts, e.g. drilling off-center, etc., but more likely with so many affected it might be due to the original rivets being stressed and elongating holes a bit. 

Quote
I'm also raising a Spockian eybrow about the alclad stamp not being buffed off of 2-2-v-1..

No one is saying it wasn't buffed off.  All we know is that a D and to a lesser degree an A remain visible on the metal.  It's not ink.  It appears to be an effect the ink of the label had on the metal itself. We don't know by what process that occurred.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 16, 2014, 08:30:05 PM
Is there any other correspondence besides the one you refer to above, that bears on the question of whether this was a 'rush job'? From the correspondence you quote it is clear that GP misinformed the State Dept. about the progress of repairs (either accidentally or intentionally). But its not clear to me that 'Team Earhart' actually pressured Lockheed to finish the repair asap. It is a fact that the repairs were finished more quickly than the inspector told his boss, but it seems to me there are other reasonable explanations for why that was so, oner than it being a rush job. For instance, I have often seen contractors overestimate how long it will take to finish a job just to avoid getting pressured by their customers to finish on time, i.e. it was the opposite of a rush job! It seems to me that, unless additional documentation exists that indicating that Lockheed was pressured we can't be very certain that this was the case.

The example you cite of a contractor overestimating the time required so as to avoid pressure doesn't apply in this case.  As shown in the attached correspondence, this is what happened:

On May 10 Putnam wrote to Undersecretary of Commerce Johnson in Washington asking for a new letter of authority for Earhart to do her world flight. In that letter Putnam states that the plane has been "thoroughly repaired at the Lockheed plant under the direction of Department inspectors."

On May 13 Reining at the Bureau of Air Commerce in Washington wires the Supervising Aeronautical Inspector in Inglewood, CA asking him to  "wire status inspection repairs Earhart NR 16020." He wants the inspection report airmailed to him.

On May 14 Marriott, the Chief General Inspection Service wires Reining saying that "completion of repairs and inspection will take ten days."  Marriott has no reason to exaggerate the estimate.

On May 19 Marriott wires Reining that "Earhart Lockheed repairs completed [and] approved.  Report air mailed today."

Note that Putnam is in New York handling the correspondence with the government.  As shown in photos, Earhart is in Burbank on the shop floor.  Anecdotal accounts have her pushing for the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible.

Somebody most likely found some way to avoid replacing as much metal as first thought necessary to get that done that quickly; what we can see in 2-2-V-1 is consistent with that thought.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 16, 2014, 08:32:45 PM
Mr. Pearce, while you have posted some genuinely interesting and enlightening information, with this last post, I'm sorry, but I see an agenda.

Of course Mark has an agenda. He's trying his darndest to debunk 2-2-V-1 but he hasn't resorted to trollism (much, yet, anyway).  He's a dynamite researcher and that makes him extremely valuable.  We're trying to be objective but we want the artifact to be part of NR16020 and that might color our objectivity.  Mark wants it to be a Canton repair so his bias goes in the opposite direction.

Personally, I'm thoroughly enjoying his challenges. He's doing more to reinforce our hypothesis than we could ever do.

Agenda aside (duh), I find Mark's sharing of research helpful and agree, the challenges allow a thorough discussion.

As has been said recently, "could be anything" doesn't fly with 2-2-V-1 anymore - there have to be specific alternates or Cinderella keeps the glass slipper...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 16, 2014, 08:54:48 PM
For Jeff Neville primarily I guess...

I have no doubt that it would (sorry I know we don't like "would" but I lost my thesaurus) have been at least possible, given enough time, for the factory repair shop to bring the Electra back to virtually "perfect" in terms of strength, dimensions, rivet placement and any other measurable aspect, ie in all practical aspects indistinguishable from a virgin airframe.

Time and resources permitting.  The trouble I have with any assumption of that is the obvious where Earhart and Putnam were concerned about most anything with this flight (and as evidenced by the compressed schedule and reports of Earhart's kind attentions to the front office to push repairs ASAP) - people start finding ways to accommodate that are short of the ideal of a perfectly restored machine.  That does not mean 'slipshod' - merely that some stuff gets straightened instead of replaced, and oversized rivets are used prolifically instead of removing extensive components to start with fresh pilot holes, etc.

As to stiffener migration (the spacing we see is on average something approaching 3/4" greater than original, except, oddly (and perhaps tellingly), for the first row - which is 'just about right') there could be many reasons, any of which could have remained unrecorded in a way that we've been able to find to-date.  For one, while an L10E is supposed to be the same as an L10A except for engines, and some other mods, I don't know that subtle alterations weren't made to areas like this to better distribute skin stresses in tension and bending with such a high fuel load / gross weight capability.  I also don't know that some mode of failure wasn't observed that suggested such a necessity - and that a relatively minor alteration scheme wasn't effected during the repair to meet such a newly-realized need. 

Not saying 'did happen', saying 'don't know didn't happen' as an example of some things that do happen in the real world.  Mechanics who might have worked the project later hearing these things proffered may feel a bit defensive, and of course they were loyal in their craft and would defend their work as having 'met spec'.  No one says it did not - merely that like all such efforts that work was subject to some allowable license for deviations.  What is apparent in 2-2-V-1 easily fits within that real-world scheme: ideally it would perfectly match a museum L10; the deviations we see fall within what I've described.

This may make our our review of other types a bit more challenging as they too could have undergone similar efforts - but it's a chance we have to take.  Also, we may tend to find that other types have less-mobile features like the stiffeners in the L10 belly, which if I understand correctly dead-end at each bulkhead and don't 'carry through', so can be shifted as to butt line locations, unlike the keel and major longerons which do traverse the bulkheads intact.

Quote
If I understand correctly the theory about the rivet pattern not exactly matching what is expected is that stringers/keel/other structure were tweaked a bit in the ground loop and perhaps not restored to perfect placement.

Maybe - but my suspicion is that what we see may have been more deliberate - perhaps as a means to better distribute stresses realized in the outcome of the accident.  Or, there could have been some as-yet not detailed alteration in that area of Earhart's airplane.

Many things are possible as to why we see these variations - most of them having to do simply with the nature of such repairs under the working circumstances we know of.

Quote
So I'm trying to get a feel for what sort of magnitude of extra effort would have been required to get the underlying structure mentioned above back to "perfect" and if its reasonable that Lockheed didn't go that route. Are we talking a few hours, an extra couple of days, or weeks, assuming no extra repair crew or shift added?

I'm also raising a Spockian eybrow about the alclad stamp not being buffed off of 2-2-v-1...this was still a current production aircraft at the time of repair, as I understand it, and in the control of probably the highest profile customer Lockheed or any other manufacturer was likely to see and they don't take a few minutes to buff the repair patches to match surrounding?  What up with that? No doubt they would have been hoping to sell an Electra or two on the backs of our hapless duo so don't you make sure the demo model is tarted up to the max?

There was some discussion of why alclad marking is visible in another recent thread but no real answer that I saw.  When one is buffing something one uses lighting and varying view angles to ensure a quality finish leaving no trace of whatever one was trying get rid of
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 16, 2014, 10:00:13 PM
Regardless of when this photo was taken...  :)  ... does it appear to have just enough detail to show "crossing lines" of rivets in the same area 2-2-V-1, (which has no "crossing" rivet lines), is alleged to have come from?
Just asking.   

The photo was taken at Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York.  The caption reads-

"Here Amelia Earhart is seen talking with her husband George Palmer Putnam before a race to Los Angeles."

Click on the photo in the Daily Mail article for a larger view.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370750/The-airport-time-forgot-Floyd-Bennett-Field-Brooklyns-Ghost-runways-Howard-Hughes-Amelia-Earhart-flew-revealed.html

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/28/article-0-0B5DBD3E00000578-338_634x436.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on March 17, 2014, 05:21:59 AM
Regardless of when this photo was taken...  :)  ... does it appear to have just enough detail to show "crossing lines" of rivets in the same area 2-2-V-1, (which has no "crossing" rivet lines), is alleged to have come from?
Just asking.   

Is it not the case that the image below has appeared in this thread already?  Wouldn't an attentive researcher have remembered this picture of where TIGHAR thinks 2-2-V-1 might have originated?  Is it possible to make accusations in question form?

Just asking.

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/17/DSCN3623-overview-artifact.jpg)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 17, 2014, 07:14:14 AM
Regardless of when this photo was taken...  :)  ... does it appear to have just enough detail to show "crossing lines" of rivets in the same area 2-2-V-1, (which has no "crossing" rivet lines), is alleged to have come from?
Just asking.   

Is it not the case that the image below has appeared in this thread already?  Wouldn't an attentive researcher have remembered this picture of where TIGHAR thinks 2-2-V-1 might have originated?  Is it possible to make accusations in question form?

Just asking.

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/1/17/DSCN3623-overview-artifact.jpg)

To answer Mark -

"No."  I can't see the area between stations 269 5/8 and 293 5/8 well enough in your photo (as nice as it is in other regards) to make such a determination.  However, the picture Marty has posted does reinforce my memory and clarify - that there are clearly no crossing members in the area we speak of, at least certainly in this ship we see up close by this picture.

Marty,

Thanks for posting this - and my understanding of the structure in this area is refreshed by it. 

Which raises a point of discussion about the fitment problem of 2-2-V-1 to known L10 airplanes, so far -

I had come to labor under an understanding somehow that the stiffeners merely butted-up against each structural bulkhead (often the case), and that therefore an altered placement of the rows could be easily explained.  Not so, as evidenced here.  This picture was one I was trying to find again to clarify this point (and I stand reminded by Marty's effort here that most such stuff already resides here, if only I'd get smarter in my efforts... ;)): the stiffeners do not abut each bulkhead and terminate - they actually pass through.

What does that mean?  For one, they are not merely station-to-station stiffeners, but light stringers after all.  For another, they are not so portable as to lateral displacement: notice that the u-channel style stiffeners pass through cut-outs in the bulkhead at station 293 5/8.  This means that displacement of the stiffeners to either side would require a 're-notching' of the bulkhead - at least as in the case we see before us, this particular L10.

So, as has been discussed, some fair questions as I see it are -

ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers?  For one thing, 2-2-V-1 is an extremely distorted piece of metal - it is difficult to get an accurate flat pattern off of something like that, and the bending and stresses it endured would also mean that it cannot be 100% true to the original pattern as-cut and installed.  The error between those considerations could account for a great deal of misalignment.  The large divergence seen at the 4th stringer would remain a bit suspect, but this is worthy of consideration.

Barring that -

Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason?  I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.

Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now?  I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics?  If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained.  I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no". 

A scab is usually an ugly thing anyway, and avoided in most cases except for the most expedient needs.  But they are sometimes used, often as a temporary measure in a needy situation until better repairs can be effected.

So we are still stuck with a real fitment problem of 2-2-V-1 in the belly of known L10 types so far.  What is hopeful is how closely the keel and first stiffener align; after that, divergence gets to be a problem.  Better questions might be -

What can we learn of any variations in this area, if any, between the E model and other L10 variants? 

Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?

Can we learn more about Earhart's own airplane?  Much discussed already and hard to find specifics beyond the anecdotal.

And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.

Nothing new, this has been with us all along.  I appreciate the visual clarification as to how the stiffeners are arranged relative to the bulkheads - the transverse members do dictate in substantial degree where the stiffeners lie in terms of lateral butt line, so errant placement would not be so likely - IF the L10E (NR16020 in point of fact) was true to this scheme.  It would be good to know more about possible variations in this area among the various L10 variants... (hows that for varying variables...).

"Is it possible... accusation... question?" - yes, it truly is, and you were nearly rabbinical in pointing that out, e.g. "so, what's wrong with a question?" - LOL!!! ;) 

I have to say those who constantly go after someone else's interest in a given pursuit by slinging so much pasta and sauce on the kitchen wall never cease to amuse me with the 'just gotta be something else' chase or the 'could be anything' dismissal...

This one, however, is refreshing.

Rarely do those who would prove us wrong behave so well or bring forth such an enormous amount of useful material to help - stuff actually that I would scarcely have the time to go out and find on my own.  So I hereby thank Mark, who tends toward gentle conduct in his effort whatever his motives, and I mean to encourage his continued contributions of material.  To me he's more of an ally in this search than not (and if he finds that to be more than he intends, I beg his forbearance).  This comes in the form of 'useful discussion' more than disruptive 'trolling' as I see it, a nice change.

So, in that vein, I will also challenge Mark to help us find more specific data on the L10 variants - let the chips fall where they will.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 07:48:34 AM
ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers?  That error could account for a great deal.

That's a distinct possibility and, as I have cautioned before, the overlay is only a rough approximation. 
A true comparison of the rivet pattern on the artifact (prior to deformation) to the belly of a Lockheed 10 is a complex exercise that is beyond our capabilities.

Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason?  I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.

There is nothing in the Lockheed engineering drawings for the Model 10 that calls for different structures in the E.

Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now?  I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.

All Model 10s were built in jig. To change the spacing of fuselage stringers would essentially mean designing a whole new airplane.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics?  If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained.  I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no". 

I agree.

Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?

Grace McGuire's airplane is the only surviving Electra that was originally built as an E, but it has been extensively rebuilt.  To get a true comparison you'd have to find an historically preserved E.  Air museums and collectors almost never do true historic preservation.  That's why we have to visit crash sites to get reliable data.  We don't know of any E crash sites.

And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.

As Sherlock said, "Once you have eliminated all the alternative explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 17, 2014, 08:14:20 AM
ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers?  That error could account for a great deal.

That's a distinct possibility and, as I have cautioned before, the overlay is only a rough approximation. 
A true comparison of the rivet pattern on the artifact (prior to deformation) to the belly of a Lockheed 10 is a complex exercise that is beyond our capabilities.

Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason?  I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.

There is nothing in the Lockheed engineering drawings for the Model 10 that calls for different structures in the E.

Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now?  I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.

All Model 10s were built in jig. To change the spacing of fuselage stringers would essentially mean designing a whole new airplane.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics?  If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained.  I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no". 

I agree.

Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?

Grace McGuire's airplane is the only surviving Electra that was originally built as an E, but it has been extensively rebuilt.  To get a true comparison you'd have to find an historically preserved E.  Air museums and collectors almost never do true historic preservation.  That's why we have to visit crash sites to get reliable data.  We don't know of any E crash sites.

And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.

As Sherlock said, "Once you have eliminated all the alternative explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Thanks for clarifying on these points, Ric. 

It is true - we look at the alternatives and what remains at the end is the best answer. 

ADDED: It would be lovely if we could refine the flat-pattern model before Dayton, somehow; I do realize that requres some sophisticated modeling, given that the metal is very deformed.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 17, 2014, 11:03:49 AM


Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics? 

"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29966.html#msg29966)"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 17, 2014, 11:44:27 AM
So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

what about the PBY that used to resupply the loran station?? those were designed in 1935?? they were built until 1945. I can imagine that a flying boat like that may have sustained some damage/repairs due to the hazards of landing in and around the coral heads of gardner.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 17, 2014, 01:02:16 PM
So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

what about the PBY that used to resupply the loran station?? those were designed in 1935?? they were built until 1945. I can imagine that a flying boat like that may have sustained some damage/repairs due to the hazards of landing in and around the coral heads of gardner.

The PBY type has been looked at, in fact recently by myself  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30293.html#msg30293) using the link supplied by Mark Pearce for tech data on the type  (http://134.216.99.97:9090/progress?pages&id=1091855314&sp2&fileName=Q29uc29saWRhdGVkJTIwMDEtNU0tMyUyMChQQlktNSUyMCwlMjA1QSwlMjA2QSUyMC0lMjBIYW5kYm9vayUyMG9mJTIwU3RydWN0dXJhbCUyMFJlcGFpciUyME1hbnVhbCkucGRm&url=aHR0cDovL21pcmF2aW0ub3JnL2F2aW1saWJyYXJ5L01hbnVhbHMvQWlyZnJhbWUlMjBNYW51YWxzL090aGVyJTIwQWlyZnJhbWVzL0NvbnNvbGlkYXRlZCUyMDAxLTVNLTMlMjAoUEJZLTUlMjAsJTIwNUEsJTIwNkElMjAtJTIwSGFuZGJvb2slMjBvZiUyMFN0cnVjdHVyYWwlMjBSZXBhaXIlMjBNYW51YWwpLnBkZg==&serv=2&referer=aHR0cDovL3RpZ2hhci5vcmcvc21mL2luZGV4LnBocC90b3BpYywxNDI2Lm1zZzMwMjkzLmh0bWw=&foo=3) where he raised the same point as to the PBY (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30287.html#msg30287).  I was not able to find any promising use of #3 rivets that would come close, but other's review is of course welcome, of course.  What I found was substantially heavier fasteners in that type. 

You are correct about the vintage and PBY visits, of course.  I'm also not aware of any PBY mishaps or repair activity on Gardner, just visits with no reports of damage known. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 01:13:11 PM
I'm also not aware of any PBY mishaps or repair activity on Gardner, just visits with no reports of damage known.

We have the flight reports and manifests for all the PBY re-supply flights to
Gardner.  We also have the colony's official daily diaries for the war years.  No aircraft mishaps were recorded in either source.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 01:16:52 PM
"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29966.html#msg29966)"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

I would expect to see stringers of that thickness anywhere #3 rivets were used in a .032" skin. It's a matter of scale.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 17, 2014, 01:21:13 PM


Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics? 

"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29966.html#msg29966)"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

Thanks for that reminder on grip-length, you are of course correct.  Were it a 'scab' it would have shown more depth of grip.

Search is on, of course.  I know some of the pattern doesn't look right, but at times I still wonder about what covering might have been improvised for the large lav window (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.0.html).  I was privileged to see Grace McGuire's L10E in the Seattle Museum of Flight recently and while it has a similar window with cover, the cover looks like nothing I can discern of Earhart's.  McGuire's example was very neat and looked strongly braced, with vertical bracing.  Earhart's - while not distinct in the photos I've found, appears to have been done a bit more on the fly in Miami (picture attached).

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 17, 2014, 01:26:05 PM
"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29966.html#msg29966)"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

I would expect to see stringers of that thickness anywhere #3 rivets were used in a .032" skin. It's a matter of scale.

I think Greg means that a 'scab' would have caused the underlying .032" skin to be added to the existing .060" stringer - which I think he also quoted as measured on the Idaho wreck.  Accordingly, were 2-2-V-1 a scab, there should be around .092" clench showing beyond the scab patch (original skin plus stringer thickness).
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 17, 2014, 01:27:35 PM
So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

what about the PBY that used to resupply the loran station?? those were designed in 1935?? they were built until 1945. I can imagine that a flying boat like that may have sustained some damage/repairs due to the hazards of landing in and around the coral heads of gardner.

The PBY type has been looked at, in fact recently by myself  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30293.html#msg30293) using the link supplied by Mark Pearce for tech data on the type  (http://134.216.99.97:9090/progress?pages&id=1091855314&sp2&fileName=Q29uc29saWRhdGVkJTIwMDEtNU0tMyUyMChQQlktNSUyMCwlMjA1QSwlMjA2QSUyMC0lMjBIYW5kYm9vayUyMG9mJTIwU3RydWN0dXJhbCUyMFJlcGFpciUyME1hbnVhbCkucGRm&url=aHR0cDovL21pcmF2aW0ub3JnL2F2aW1saWJyYXJ5L01hbnVhbHMvQWlyZnJhbWUlMjBNYW51YWxzL090aGVyJTIwQWlyZnJhbWVzL0NvbnNvbGlkYXRlZCUyMDAxLTVNLTMlMjAoUEJZLTUlMjAsJTIwNUEsJTIwNkElMjAtJTIwSGFuZGJvb2slMjBvZiUyMFN0cnVjdHVyYWwlMjBSZXBhaXIlMjBNYW51YWwpLnBkZg==&serv=2&referer=aHR0cDovL3RpZ2hhci5vcmcvc21mL2luZGV4LnBocC90b3BpYywxNDI2Lm1zZzMwMjkzLmh0bWw=&foo=3) where he raised the same point as to the PBY (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30287.html#msg30287).  I was not able to find any promising use of #3 rivets that would come close, but other's review is of course welcome, of course.  What I found was substantially heavier fasteners in that type. 

You are correct about the vintage and PBY visits, of course.  I'm also not aware of any PBY mishaps or repair activity on Gardner, just visits with no reports of damage known.

Jeff, what type of PBY were you looking at?? given the changes in the type over the years of production I wonder if a change from a smaller to a larger rivet was done.

this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 01:30:31 PM
I was privileged to see Grace McGuire's L10E in the Seattle Museum of Flight recently...

The airplane at Museum of Flight is the one Linda Finch rebuilt as NR16020 replica.  She later sold it to Mike Kammerer who later died.  Museum of flight but it from Mikes' daughter. It's a faux-10E, built as an A but later re-engined with the big R1340s.

Grace McGuire's airplane is the last true 10E and is still very much in her possession.  She still plans to finish the rebuild and fly it around the world. Hope springs eternal.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 01:43:08 PM
this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf

Later than what?  The manual is for the PBY-5, PBY-5a,  PBY -6, and Army OA-10.  Those are the wartime models.  The PBYs that flew from Canton were PBY-5s and -5as.  Six PBY-2s visited Gardner in June 1941 but none of them suffered damage.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 17, 2014, 02:24:49 PM
this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf

Later than what?  The manual is for the PBY-5, PBY-5a,  PBY -6, and Army OA-10.  Those are the wartime models.  The PBYs that flew from Canton were PBY-5s and -5as.  Six PBY-2s visited Gardner in June 1941 but none of them suffered damage.

exactly what you state.. the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY. I thought the manual might give some interesting views on the recommended repairs from the time.

as for the damage... it's war time... expedient field repairs and all that.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY.

Perhaps you should do so. Until you find documentation that the PBY-2 was built any lighter than later versions of the airplane we'll consider it, as you say, just an off the cuff thought.

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 17, 2014, 02:49:13 PM
the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY.

Perhaps you should do so. Until you find documentation that the PBY-2 was built any lighter than later versions of the airplane we'll consider it, as you say, just an off the cuff thought.

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

so maybe you should consider it more than an off the cuff thought   ::)
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 17, 2014, 03:50:09 PM
"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg29966.html#msg29966)"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

I would expect to see stringers of that thickness anywhere #3 rivets were used in a .032" skin. It's a matter of scale.

I think Greg means that a 'scab' would have caused the underlying .032" skin to be added to the existing .060" stringer - which I think he also quoted as measured on the Idaho wreck.  Accordingly, were 2-2-V-1 a scab, there should be around .092" clench showing beyond the scab patch (original skin plus stringer thickness).

Yes that is what I meant but I also noted it may be a possible eliminator to other donors and I think Ric was noting it may be common for that ratio or scale.
 I think there are many other, much more difficult, hoops for other donors to jump thru. I doubt the shank depth will ever need to come into play.

 Layers could be added in "gas tight areas" (http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf). Something to consider when looking at float planes with integral tanks.

Edit- the 1/32 gaskets seem to be at the integral gas tanks in the repair manual for a PBY. The water proof areas appear to have a very thin barrier added "All web repairs on watertight areas of bulkheads must be sealed with marine glue and fabric, zinc chromate tape or 1/64 inch synthetic rubber sheet"
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Hal Beck on March 17, 2014, 04:57:50 PM
Is there any other correspondence besides the one you refer to above, that bears on the question of whether this was a 'rush job'? From the correspondence you quote it is clear that GP misinformed the State Dept. about the progress of repairs (either accidentally or intentionally). But its not clear to me that 'Team Earhart' actually pressured Lockheed to finish the repair asap. It is a fact that the repairs were finished more quickly than the inspector told his boss, but it seems to me there are other reasonable explanations for why that was so, oner than it being a rush job. For instance, I have often seen contractors overestimate how long it will take to finish a job just to avoid getting pressured by their customers to finish on time, i.e. it was the opposite of a rush job! It seems to me that, unless additional documentation exists that indicating that Lockheed was pressured we can't be very certain that this was the case.

The example you cite of a contractor overestimating the time required so as to avoid pressure doesn't apply in this case.  As shown in the attached correspondence, this is what happened:

On May 10 Putnam wrote to Undersecretary of Commerce Johnson in Washington asking for a new letter of authority for Earhart to do her world flight. In that letter Putnam states that the plane has been "thoroughly repaired at the Lockheed plant under the direction of Department inspectors."

On May 13 Reining at the Bureau of Air Commerce in Washington wires the Supervising Aeronautical Inspector in Inglewood, CA asking him to  "wire status inspection repairs Earhart NR 16020." He wants the inspection report airmailed to him.

On May 14 Marriott, the Chief General Inspection Service wires Reining saying that "completion of repairs and inspection will take ten days."  Marriott has no reason to exaggerate the estimate.

On May 19 Marriott wires Reining that "Earhart Lockheed repairs completed [and] approved.  Report air mailed today."

Note that Putnam is in New York handling the correspondence with the government.  As shown in photos, Earhart is in Burbank on the shop floor.  Anecdotal accounts have her pushing for the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible.

Ric,

Thank you for posting the primary documents covering the communications involving Putnam, State Dept., Reining, and Marriot—interesting to see that.  I can see that Marriot tells Reining that the repairs would be completed in 10 days, but what these documents don’t help us with is why Marriot thought 10 days, rather than 5. My example about the contractor was only meant as an example of the kind of ‘back story’ that I wondered might be documented somewhere, that Tighar might know about. I gather that there isn’t any primary documention that explicitly states that there was a rush job, rather this is something you’ve inferred from the communication between these players in the story in those documents.
 
You mentioned that there was anecdotal information indicating that AE was pushing for repairs to be completed asap.  Looked around for more information about such accounts but didn’t find anything about that, although I did come upon a YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY_oiYC-jDU) that indicates her penchant for  first hand observation of work on her plane, but this anecdotal account would seem to suggest that her being on the shop floor at Burbank during the repair to her plane was typical for Amelia -- she liked to be involved in this way.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 05:08:14 PM
I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

The PBY-5 did not have retractable gear.  It was a pure flying boat just like the PBY-2.  You're thinking of the PBY-5a.
Yes, the later models were heavier and had more powerful engines but to say they had were built with bigger rivets is waaay off the cuff and unsupported by any shred of evidence. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 17, 2014, 05:25:16 PM
I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

The PBY-5 did not have retractable gear.  It was a pure flying boat just like the PBY-2.  You're thinking of the PBY-5a.
Yes, the later models were heavier and had more powerful engines but to say they had were built with bigger rivets is waaay off the cuff and unsupported by any shred of evidence.

yes... that post was more a reaction to your snooty response to me than a statement of fact... I did not appreciate it when I was trying to be helpful.

The picture linked by mr neville was a amphib.... so it would be at least a -5a. to dismiss all PBY's based on one later aircraft built during the war (which was stated to be the changover time to the new rivet in general) when there were pre war examples known to exist is also not the best way to handle this is it??

btw, I swear there was a coral head incident with a -2 on or around gardner. Martin, I'm horrible with the search... do we have the list of lost aircraft around niko handy?? may not have been a loss but at least an incident????

edit:

there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 07:12:45 PM
I gather that there isn’t any primary documention that explicitly states that there was a rush job, rather this is something you’ve inferred from the communication between these players in the story in those documents.

i would not expect there to be documentation describing the repairs as a "rush job."  It's important to understand the larger context in which repairs were made.There is a large body of correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies relating to preparations for the second world flight attempt. Dozens of letters and official radio messages.  There is an even larger body of archival material documenting the preparations for the first world flight attempt.  The contrast between the first attempt and second attempt is striking. Planning for the first attempt was methodical, even plodding, with lots of close coordination with the Bureau of Air Commerce and the Coast Guard.  The preparations for the flight were also very public, with all kinds of press events, interviews, photo ops, newsreel coverage, etc.   The second attempt was entirely different for several reasons. 
• The administration at Bureau of Air Commerce had changed. AE's buddy (some say lover) Gene Vidal was no longer in charge and Bill Miller, the Bureau guy Vidal had assigned to help Earhart and who had done all the heavy lifting in planning the flight, was sent to Australia on another assignment.  That put the full re-planning load squarely on Earhart and Putnam.
• Money was a huge worry.  Rebuilding the airplane and re-planning the flight were not in the budget.  Fund raising takes time and energy away from research, preparation and planning. Ask me how I know.
• The wreck in Hawaii had damaged Earhart's reputation. Favorable press coverage could no longer be assumed. TIME magazine was openly derisive, and syndicated columnist Maj. Al Williams called Earhart's flights "the worst racket in aviation." He publicly urged the Bureau of Air Commerce to deny her permission for a second attempt.  In response, Earhart and Putnam became highly secretive about their plans.
• Pressure to hurry came from the need to get Earhart's new book published by September, in time for the Christmas market.  AE and GP had gone heavily into debt to cover the cost of repairing the Electra. The plan had always been for Earhart, during the trip, to write daily travelogue stories for the Herald Tribune newspapers.  After the Honolulu debacle Putnam had cut a deal with Harcourt Brace to publish a compilation of the stories, with some additional chapters, as a book to be called World Flight.  Sales of the book would hep get them out of debt.  But the flight was going to take a month and it takes time to edit and publish a book.

Between the calls for the Bureau of Air Commerce to stop the flight and the need to get the trip done so that the book could be published by September there was lots of pressure to get the repairs completed as soon as possible. I think somebody should wrote a book about all this.


You mentioned that there was anecdotal information indicating that AE was pushing for repairs to be completed asap.  Looked around for more information about such accounts but didn’t find anything about that, ...

I wish I could remember who told me that. Over the past 25 years I've heard lots of stories from people who knew the lady. 
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 17, 2014, 07:21:51 PM
there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

There is one incident of a pre 5A model being damaged at Canton. On 16 March 1940 a PBY-2 BuNo 0487 hit reef on takeoff.  No mention of whether the airplane was a write off or was still flyable but in March of 1940 their were no repair facilities at Canton.  The U.S. military wasn't there yet and Pan Am only had a hotel and servicing facility.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Jerry Germann on March 17, 2014, 08:52:51 PM
So the latest possible fit is directly across the cabin door where the taper has the lines closer together?  Was that area not selected before because the lines of rivets would have been too close together and is it  the possible deformation in the artifact that may now allow it to fit that area directly across the cabin door?

To be honest I don't remember why we didn't see the match before.

Is the pitch of the rivets in that new location the same as the previous location? If so, is the significance of the spacing of the rivets at 1” on the artifact and 1.5” on the airplane that this is evidence it was repaired?

I'm not sure about the rivet pitch in the new location. Scaling from the photos I have gives conflicting answers. I'll check it in person next Sunday when I'm at the New England Air Museum for a speaking engagement.  In any case, the fact that the artifact is from a repaired section of some airplane is based on the labeling that identifies it as metal that has been approved for use in repairs but original construction.

Was wondering about what Greg brought out before concerning the pitch for the outer 3/32nds rivets,... it has been discussed the reason that the 3/32nds keel row rivets were replaced with the larger 5/32nds rivets, may have been because of the elongating of the rivet holes there, ....I suspect a greater impact would occur upon the keel due to the underbelly design may cause this , however I am curious as to the repair procedure seemingly almost doubling up ( or one every inch on 2-2-V-1) the remaining 3/32nds rivets in the outer rows away from the keel. Greg mentions the underbelly may have 1.5 inch rivet pitch in that area..as per the ( underbelly photo of electra in new england air museum) ....if so it seems some / most of the original stringer holes may not have been used?....       
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Mark Pearce on March 17, 2014, 10:38:40 PM

"...is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured...   Rarely do those who would prove us wrong behave so well or bring forth such an enormous amount of useful material to help - stuff actually that I would scarcely have the time to go out and find on my own.  So I hereby thank Mark, who tends toward gentle conduct in his effort whatever his motives, and I mean to encourage his continued contributions of material.  To me he's more of an ally in this search than not (and if he finds that to be more than he intends, I beg his forbearance).  This comes in the form of 'useful discussion' more than disruptive 'trolling' as I see it, a nice change.


Jeff,
I thank you for your kind words of praise- I'm very flattered.  Earlier tonight I found a brief but intriguing record of an accident on Canton Island that has gone un-noticed.         

"22-JUN-1942   Boeing B-17E Flying Fortress   41-9208     Short of Rwy, Canton Island, PAC"
"Written off (damaged beyond repair)"

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=B17
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/dbasn.asp?SN=41-9208&Submit4=Go
 
Large areas of the B-17 fuselage were covered with .032" Alclad-  most likely the wings were skinned with some .032" also.  The WW2 era "Design Analysis" of the B-17G, linked below, reports 3/32" rivets were used in the wings.  I hope you find this all fits into the specific, and not the spaghetti category.  :)

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30381.html#msg30381

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30273.html#msg30273

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 06:03:01 AM
Jeff, what type of PBY were you looking at?? given the changes in the type over the years of production I wonder if a change from a smaller to a larger rivet was done.

this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf

I looked at the type I gave you a link for - did you look??  ;D
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 06:23:34 AM
the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY.

Perhaps you should do so. Until you find documentation that the PBY-2 was built any lighter than later versions of the airplane we'll consider it, as you say, just an off the cuff thought.

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

so maybe you should consider it more than an off the cuff thought   ::)

First, I hope you will notice that I was not 'off the cuff' or dismissive in having perused the PBY-5 data rather carefully...

Kevin, if you "know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter" and all that then you are far more of a PBY expert that I will likely ever be, and apparently have access to at least as much data as I can hope to ever find, so why not jump in and help get this past the 'cuff'?  I'm sure we can use all the research help you can muster.

As Ric notes, six PBY-2 visits are recorded, so given your confidence in there having been a war on (somehow I had not overlooked that fact) and that there must have been a smothering of field repairs - including perhaps for the coral head strike at Gardner by a PBY-2 you "swear" happened then by all means, please jump in.  That's the first I'd ever heard of a coral head strike by a PBY at Gardner - where did that come from that you can swear it to have been true?

As interested as I am in getting to the bottom of every single lead, I cannot possibly do so personally and frankly, find it impossible to give priority to every single supposed-event or supposition about how a given variant was constructed.  It's great to brain storm possibilities, but as has been said (by me), those who would challenge 2-2-V-1 need to provide plausible alternates - meaning factually probable 'other types' that are a) known to have been within reasonable proximity (meaning the Phoenix area and Howland, etc.), and b) had some sort of history involving damage or destruction so as to make them a likely donor, and c) a former repair that became detached in the course of subsequent repair or salvage.

That means not just throwing ideas on the kitchen wall like Oscar's pasta surprise...

Not meaning to be snide, simply asking for your help if you sincerely want to explore these possibilities as I am simply unable to accomodate the meat sauce on the wall for now and foreseeably... if that sounds a bit too colorful, consider that simply tossing 'maybes' into this approaches no more than blowing smoke into the room.

I, with others, will be perusing rivet patterns on a number of types in Dayton in about 10 days - mayhaps you could help us define what to look at while there, do they have an example of the PBY-2, for example?  Can you find data for it?  Ric is populating a spread sheet with candidates for us to look at - HELP APPRECIATED.

You are welcome.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 06:31:38 AM

"...is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured...   Rarely do those who would prove us wrong behave so well or bring forth such an enormous amount of useful material to help - stuff actually that I would scarcely have the time to go out and find on my own.  So I hereby thank Mark, who tends toward gentle conduct in his effort whatever his motives, and I mean to encourage his continued contributions of material.  To me he's more of an ally in this search than not (and if he finds that to be more than he intends, I beg his forbearance).  This comes in the form of 'useful discussion' more than disruptive 'trolling' as I see it, a nice change.


Jeff,
I thank you for your kind words of praise- I'm very flattered.  Earlier tonight I found a brief but intriguing record of an accident on Canton Island that has gone un-noticed.         

"22-JUN-1942   Boeing B-17E Flying Fortress   41-9208     Short of Rwy, Canton Island, PAC"
"Written off (damaged beyond repair)"

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=B17
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/dbasn.asp?SN=41-9208&Submit4=Go
 
Large areas of the B-17 fuselage were covered with .032" Alclad-  most likely the wings were skinned with some .032" also.  The WW2 era "Design Analysis" of the B-17G, linked below, reports 3/32" rivets were used in the wings.  I hope you find this all fits into the specific, and not the spaghetti category.  :)

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30381.html#msg30381

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30273.html#msg30273

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

Thanks, Mark, excellent find on the B-17 accident at Canton, and the data.

I had noticed from data you placed here before that some fuselage areas did use .032" skins on the B-17; they also used "icebox" rivets - heat treated "DD" (as opposed to the "AD" rivet we find in 2-2-V-1) according to that data, in large degree in the fuselage, so my suspicion is that the outer wing panels you describe may be the most fertile ground to examine for a fit.

Not to say a complete view of the B-17 wouldn't be warranted, and I think I will make the effort to get a preview here at the "City of Savannah" being restored at the Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum in Pooler, GA (near Savannah, ya'll come...).  That would at least give me a bit of a leg-up on what will come at Dayton, etc.

Your contributions of data here really are appreciated and do much to help educate us on the possibilities - it helps focus attention where it counts - important because every one of us has limited time and resources, of course.  Thanks!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 18, 2014, 06:48:06 AM
there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

There is one incident of a pre 5A model being damaged at Canton. On 16 March 1940 a PBY-2 BuNo 0487 hit reef on takeoff.  No mention of whether the airplane was a write off or was still flyable but in March of 1940 their were no repair facilities at Canton.  The U.S. military wasn't there yet and Pan Am only had a hotel and servicing facility.

I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect? I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

16 March 1940    USN    PBY-2    0487    VP-25    Hit reef on takeoff from Canton.

January 1942    USN    PBY       VP-23    Lost near Canton during night takeoff. I did some research to check model of vp-23 they had -5's at this time

12 February 1943    USN    PBY-5    8033    VP-71    Engine fire on takeoff at Canton. Crashed and sank.

13 August 1943    USN    PBY-5          Beached at Canton after being shot up by Japanese Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

16 February 1944    USN    PBY-5          Sank off Canton


again, these are all non landing gear models...
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 06:52:51 AM
there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

There is one incident of a pre 5A model being damaged at Canton. On 16 March 1940 a PBY-2 BuNo 0487 hit reef on takeoff.  No mention of whether the airplane was a write off or was still flyable but in March of 1940 their were no repair facilities at Canton.  The U.S. military wasn't there yet and Pan Am only had a hotel and servicing facility.

I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect? I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

16 March 1940    USN    PBY-2    0487    VP-25    Hit reef on takeoff from Canton.

January 1942    USN    PBY       VP-23    Lost near Canton during night takeoff. I did some research to check model of vp-23 they had -5's at this time

12 February 1943    USN    PBY-5    8033    VP-71    Engine fire on takeoff at Canton. Crashed and sank.

13 August 1943    USN    PBY-5          Beached at Canton after being shot up by Japanese Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

16 February 1944    USN    PBY-5          Sank off Canton


again, these are all non landing gear models...

Thanks, Kevin.

I enjoy Wiki a great deal, but it is subject to editing needs now and then... but where else would we find so much so easily?

From all this the PBY-2 looks like it deserves more understanding along the lines of how-built, per your earlier posting.  Can you dig out any structural specifics on it?  What about living examples to look at?

I don't think the -5 is a strong candidate - too beefy, not likely to have a patch on the order we see in 2-2-V-1 (not saying I wouldn't look one over, mind you).

Thanks for your help!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on March 18, 2014, 06:58:26 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

I created and maintain that page (I created and maintain the wiki, too, although there
are several other excellent contributors who have helped fill it with information).

I would be happy to correct any errors on the page.

I have updated it this morning to add the 22 June 1942 incident.

Quote
I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

If you would be so kind as to provide a link (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) to your source, I can update the page to include that claim, provided that the source seems reliable.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 07:21:58 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

I created and maintain that page (I created and maintain the wiki, too, although there
are several other excellent contributors who have helped fill it with information).

I would be happy to correct any errors on the page.

I have updated it this morning to add the 22 June 1942 incident.

Quote
I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

If you would be so kind as to provide a link (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) to your source, I can update the page to include that claim, provided that the source seems reliable.

Sorry, I missed that this was the 'Ameliapedia' in lieu of 'Wiki' -

In THAT case, it is FAR more reliable than Wiki...

Thanks, Marty.  I hope Kevin can provide the specifics.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 18, 2014, 07:47:34 AM
the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY.

Perhaps you should do so. Until you find documentation that the PBY-2 was built any lighter than later versions of the airplane we'll consider it, as you say, just an off the cuff thought.

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

so maybe you should consider it more than an off the cuff thought   ::)

First, I hope you will notice that I was not 'off the cuff' or dismissive in having perused the PBY-5 data rather carefully...

Kevin, if you "know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter" and all that then you are far more of a PBY expert that I will likely ever be, and apparently have access to at least as much data as I can hope to ever find, so why not jump in and help get this past the 'cuff'?  I'm sure we can use all the research help you can muster.

As Ric notes, six PBY-2 visits are recorded, so given your confidence in there having been a war on (somehow I had not overlooked that fact) and that there must have been a smothering of field repairs - including perhaps for the coral head strike at Gardner by a PBY-2 you "swear" happened then by all means, please jump in.  That's the first I'd ever heard of a coral head strike by a PBY at Gardner - where did that come from that you can swear it to have been true?

As interested as I am in getting to the bottom of every single lead, I cannot possibly do so personally and frankly, find it impossible to give priority to every single supposed-event or supposition about how a given variant was constructed.  It's great to brain storm possibilities, but as has been said (by me), those who would challenge 2-2-V-1 need to provide plausible alternates - meaning factually probable 'other types' that are a) known to have been within reasonable proximity (meaning the Phoenix area and Howland, etc.), and b) had some sort of history involving damage or destruction so as to make them a likely donor, and c) a former repair that became detached in the course of subsequent repair or salvage.

That means not just throwing ideas on the kitchen wall like Oscar's pasta surprise...

Not meaning to be snide, simply asking for your help if you sincerely want to explore these possibilities as I am simply unable to accomodate the meat sauce on the wall for now and foreseeably... if that sounds a bit too colorful, consider that simply tossing 'maybes' into this approaches no more than blowing smoke into the room.

I, with others, will be perusing rivet patterns on a number of types in Dayton in about 10 days - mayhaps you could help us define what to look at while there, do they have an example of the PBY-2, for example?  Can you find data for it?  Ric is populating a spread sheet with candidates for us to look at - HELP APPRECIATED.

You are welcome.

As I stated earlier I was being snide in my response to Ric. I do not know if the -2 was constructed using different methods. I only know that making the craft amphibious would be a significant redesign. I was and will continue to look for information that may give a clue one way or another.

I may be more useful in providing some assistance with regards to the New england air museum's 10A as I am about 10 minutes away.

Dayton has MANY aircraft that would be candidates to check on. just a quick look at the WWII aircraft they have includes
A later model amphibious PBY
B24
B17
B25
C47

all these planes had incidents on Canton but may or may not be viable candidates.... has Ric compiled his preliminary list??

edit: I also wanted to clarify, I am not saying that the panel is not from an Electra... I would love to be able to match it up to one... unfortunately we don't have her modified and repaired plane to match it to so the next best thing is to be able to positively say all other options were checked.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 18, 2014, 07:57:57 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

I created and maintain that page (I created and maintain the wiki, too, although there
are several other excellent contributors who have helped fill it with information).

I would be happy to correct any errors on the page.

I have updated it this morning to add the 22 June 1942 incident.

Quote
I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

If you would be so kind as to provide a link (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) to your source, I can update the page to include that claim, provided that the source seems reliable.

this is the link for the VP-23 information I had found. they tell when they group switched from the -2 to the -5 and whether there were losses or not. no losses were mentioned on Canton.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-23.htm

Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 18, 2014, 08:15:18 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

No.

again, these are all non landing gear models...

The problem seems to be that you think the PBY-5A (with landing gear) came along later than the PBY-5.  Not so. It actually pre-dates the PBY-5 flying boat.  In the spring of 1939 the last production PBY-4 was converted to include retractable landing gear and was designated XPBY-5A.  The Navy ordered the first PBY-5 flying boats on December 20, 1939.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 08:30:21 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

I created and maintain that page (I created and maintain the wiki, too, although there
are several other excellent contributors who have helped fill it with information).

I would be happy to correct any errors on the page.

I have updated it this morning to add the 22 June 1942 incident.

Quote
I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

If you would be so kind as to provide a link (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) to your source, I can update the page to include that claim, provided that the source seems reliable.

this is the link for the VP-23 information I had found. they tell when they group switched from the -2 to the -5 and whether there were losses or not. no losses were mentioned on Canton.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-23.htm



Looks like the PBY-2's were traded in for PBY-5's in November 1941 - and based at Ford in Hawaii, interesting timing.

Thence a detachment of PBY-5's sent to Canton about a year later, and as you noted, no mishaps recorded.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Doug Ledlie on March 18, 2014, 08:48:07 AM
Wondering about the C-87 (I think often grouped here as B-24) losses at Canton, particularly the one that hit the drink on approach.  I saw a reference to an accident report in Tighar's possession (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kanton_(Canton)_Island) - is this posted anywhere or otherwise available?


Here's where I'm going with this:

- B-24 skin diagram posted earlier by Mark Pearce showed areas of 0.032 skin in certain areas
including immediately aft of wings

- C-87 being a modified B-24 (modified not quite the right word as I think most were built as C-87 from the get go
on the same assembly line, not conversion of bomber post production) can we assume skin details to be similar?
Any way to document?, couldn't find any record of surviving air frames

- B-24's seem to be noted as likely to break apart in a predictable pattern notably immediately aft of the wings
in shall we say off-nominal landings/ditchings (ie Atka Island, Lady Be Good)

- If the C-87 broke up in the usual fashion, could the now exposed interior side of a section of 0.032 skin be exposed
to hydraulic forces (ie impact with water) that might provide similar features to 2-2-v-1?

- Accident report may note note how/if plane broke up

- Not sure about bouyancy but if there were attached empty o2 tanks in the area as in a B-24 or other floatables, who
knows what was recovered when the survivors were picked up or what washed ashore later...

- Do we have any skin/rivet info for B-24/C-87 that would rule out? Pictures seem to indicate all sorts of different rivet sizes and styles with some appearing close in general layout but of course no reference scale and without consideration to photo distortion.



Whether or not the above is deemed to have any weight, very good detail of a couple B-24 models here for general interest and worth a look:


Good resolution exterior photos
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/b-24m_liberator/index.php?Page=4

Internal panoramic views at various stations (very cool)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=494
note labelled 0.032 skin at radio operator station (replacement skin I assume)



Another B-24 thing...found one reference (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/VII/AAF-VII-7.html) talking about replacement horizontal stabilizers being brought in (Port Moresby so not to Canton specifically) after a number of failures.  Do we know any further details of this apparent stabilizer problem and if there might have been a lot of discarded stabilizers lying around, maybe even on Canton. At least could be eliminated as a possibility if skin guage, rivet details dont work
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: Kevin Weeks on March 18, 2014, 08:52:21 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

No.

again, these are all non landing gear models...

The problem seems to be that you think the PBY-5A (with landing gear) came along later than the PBY-5.  Not so. It actually pre-dates the PBY-5 flying boat.  In the spring of 1939 the last production PBY-4 was converted to include retractable landing gear and was designated XPBY-5A.  The Navy ordered the first PBY-5 flying boats on December 20, 1939.

as stated, I'm not a PBY expert. I did find evidence to the contrary though... my understanding of what I read was that the PBY-5 was already designed and ready for production when the -4 was converted to -5a (it didn't fly until november of 39) first navy orders were for the -5 not the -5A

http://www.catalina.org.uk/pby-catalina-history

As mentioned above, the final PBY-4 was not initially delivered to the US Navy for squadron use but was retained by the manufacturers for further design work. In fact, it was used for trials of the amphibious undercarriage system that was to provide future Catalinas with so much flexibility and that was ultimately to ensure the type’s longevity. Bu1245 had its weight increased by 2,300 lbs through the addition of two main wheel units, a nose wheel assembly and associated wheel well bays and doors. Although at first it was not fitted with blisters and it retained the original shape PBY-4 rudder, it became the prototype PBY-5A (XPBY-5A), first flying as such on 2nd November 1939. The US Navy, realising the type’s potential, decided that its then current order for PBY-5s should be amended to PBY-5As, and thereafter ordered many more. The British remained distinctly cool about the added wheels, however, and stuck to the pure flying boat variant, although one small order for twelve amphibious Catalina IIIs was placed.


notice the weight increase from the -4 to the -5A though!!
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 09:05:38 AM
I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

No.

again, these are all non landing gear models...

The problem seems to be that you think the PBY-5A (with landing gear) came along later than the PBY-5.  Not so. It actually pre-dates the PBY-5 flying boat.  In the spring of 1939 the last production PBY-4 was converted to include retractable landing gear and was designated XPBY-5A.  The Navy ordered the first PBY-5 flying boats on December 20, 1939.

as stated, I'm not a PBY expert. I did find evidence to the contrary though... my understanding of what I read was that the PBY-5 was already designed and ready for production when the -4 was converted to -5a (it didn't fly until november of 39) first navy orders were for the -5 not the -5A

http://www.catalina.org.uk/pby-catalina-history

As mentioned above, the final PBY-4 was not initially delivered to the US Navy for squadron use but was retained by the manufacturers for further design work. In fact, it was used for trials of the amphibious undercarriage system that was to provide future Catalinas with so much flexibility and that was ultimately to ensure the type’s longevity. Bu1245 had its weight increased by 2,300 lbs through the addition of two main wheel units, a nose wheel assembly and associated wheel well bays and doors. Although at first it was not fitted with blisters and it retained the original shape PBY-4 rudder, it became the prototype PBY-5A (XPBY-5A), first flying as such on 2nd November 1939. The US Navy, realising the type’s potential, decided that its then current order for PBY-5s should be amended to PBY-5As, and thereafter ordered many more. The British remained distinctly cool about the added wheels, however, and stuck to the pure flying boat variant, although one small order for twelve amphibious Catalina IIIs was placed.


notice the weight increase from the -4 to the -5A though!!

I had to re-read to get a clear picture of the weight increase - that isn't an 'improvement', it's apparently more of a penalty due to the weight of the retractable gear, associated doors and bays, etc.  That may be why the British were cool to the idea - may have liked the pure performance advantage of the lighter airframe.
Title: Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
Post by: JNev on March 18, 2014, 09:14:25 AM
Wondering about the C-87 (I think often grouped here as B-24) losses at Canton, particularly the one that hit the drink on approach.  I saw a reference to an accident report in Tighar's possession (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kanton_(Canton)_Island) - is this posted anywhe