Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Down

Author Topic: Grand Rapids trip (2-2-V-1)  (Read 136899 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5522
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2014, 05:46:12 PM »

Fair enough if you think Tim's images do not further The search for Amelia, I was merely suggesting that he refrain from the IT IS, To Possible Candidate Or Maybe Resembles Even.

For the record, I do not think that Tim's images, observations, comments, or lawsuit further the search for Amelia Earhart.
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #151 on: February 11, 2014, 07:05:54 AM »

2014 is TIGHAR's year. Amelia and Fred deserve no less.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #152 on: February 11, 2014, 03:42:13 PM »

This is a question for Ric, Richie, and Jeff.....Let's say your leaving New Guinea...things are going great....and something breaks from being pulled from the tail of the plane...such as an antenna cable. My question is in the vintage WWII days, and in this case the Electra...Can an aircraft continue flying if part of the skin or plane comes loose due to some form of damage?

Sorry didn't catch this sooner -

Most likely yes, if we're talking about something on the order of an antenna mast being jerked loose, etc.  Most likely a skin wouldn't be torn loose, however, from impact or even tearing away of something like that, just bent and damaged and maybe a few fasteners strained or pulled loose.

In terms of what we see with 2-2-V-1 all kinds of things are possible - relatively minor damage to start with could have set it up for worse destruction later in surf or wind, etc.  It could have also made it a target for someone trying to harvest metal from a part of a hulk, etc.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Friend Weller

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #153 on: February 11, 2014, 05:14:11 PM »

Sorry didn't catch this sooner -

Most likely yes, if we're talking about something on the order of an antenna mast being jerked loose, etc.  Most likely a skin wouldn't be torn loose, however, from impact or even tearing away of something like that, just bent and damaged and maybe a few fasteners strained or pulled loose.

In terms of what we see with 2-2-V-1 all kinds of things are possible - relatively minor damage to start with could have set it up for worse destruction later in surf or wind, etc.  It could have also made it a target for someone trying to harvest metal from a part of a hulk, etc.

This is what I was trying to express a week ago.....

After taking another look at the overlay photo of the artifact and the Harney drawings on the site, I noticed the proximity of the aft ventral antenna mast to the area of the the artifact.  If we accept the theory of the loss of the antenna upon takeoff from Lae, would it be reasonable to postulate that during the loss of the mast, the underside of the aircraft in the vicinity of the artifact may have been damaged just enough to crack stiffeners or pop rivets creating a weakened area?  This could have been either from the sudden forcing upward and aft of the mast upon contact with the ground surface while taxiing or the hammering of the underside of the aircraft as the mast bounced along during the takeoff roll prior to the antenna separating from the plane.  If enough rivets were popped from the deformation of the skin and stiffeners, this may have resulted in 20+ hours of "oil-canning" during the flight or perhaps severe weakening during the landing fatiguing the skin in that area making it easier for it to fracture/tear/pop when NR16020 went over the reef edge.

Friend

Maybe not loss of aluminum but a weakening of a portion of the skin due to damage incurred at the time of the loss of the antenna.

Friend
Friend
TIGHAR 3086V
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #154 on: February 11, 2014, 06:26:14 PM »

The artifact is a piece busted out of the middle of a panel. No manufactured edges on it. That suggests a focussed force where the edges held better than the middle. If the antenna mast was not on one of the torn edges, I don't see how its loss relates to the failure of the artifact.
(edit: though the antenna loss probably contributed to the string of events that led to its failure)
3971R
 
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 07:01:33 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Friend Weller

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #155 on: February 11, 2014, 07:44:18 PM »

(edit: though the antenna loss probably contributed to the string of events that led to its failure)

That's exactly what I was driving at.....the loss of the antenna was not necessarily the cause of the failure of 2-2-V-1 from it's parent panel but it is a piece of the puzzle (material, location, and causal forces) from which the artifact may have been created.

Like I said to Ric in an interview a few years ago:  We've got the smoke from the smoking gun....now to find that smoking gun!

Friend
Friend
TIGHAR 3086V
 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #156 on: February 11, 2014, 08:54:44 PM »

http://i.imgur.com/iwjCU6r.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cAdDuN4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OdDawew.jpg

A friend of mine sent me these ...the T-6 Texan used brazier rivets ( aft skin of fuselage) and 0.32 AL clad skin with 3/32nds and 5/32nds rivets ....so we found one example thus far of the 3/32ds / 5/32nds rivet use combination.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #157 on: February 11, 2014, 09:47:43 PM »

http://i.imgur.com/iwjCU6r.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cAdDuN4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OdDawew.jpg

A friend of mine sent me these ...the T-6 Texan used brazier rivets ( aft skin of fuselage) and 0.32 AL clad skin with 3/32nds and 5/32nds rivets ....so we found one example thus far of the 3/32ds / 5/32nds rivet use combination.

The third image says, "Aluminum sheets may be easily identified by the markings plainly stenciled in rows approximately 3 inches apart on each side of the material."  That means that the markings would be visible on the outside of the repaired area until they were removed--it appears that there was no unmarked side of the material.  For me, that dissolves all anxiety about how highly buffed the aircraft was.  There would be markings on the exterior to begin with. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 09:53:32 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #158 on: February 11, 2014, 10:27:31 PM »


..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.

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.

Consider the installment ....labeling stamp alclad was on exterior of sheet/


The third image says, "Aluminum sheets may be easily identified by the markings plainly stenciled in rows approximately 3 inches apart on each side of the material."  That means that the markings would be visible on the outside of the repaired area until they were removed--it appears that there was no unmarked side of the material.  For me, that dissolves all anxiety about how highly buffed the aircraft was.  There would be markings on the exterior to begin with.

Ric and I have sorted this out....al-clad was on the outside ....It is the quality of finished product that I muse about. It is my belief that all such exterior lettering was removed ( by solvent wipe) , my conclusion based on pre/ post luke field photos and reports by her regarding her plane's appearance. Yes, a spot might have been somewhat missed, people aren't perfect, but so far it seems to be found just on that one panel 2-2-V-1, if more are found elsewhere , I will concede .....the tidy up crew....well,.... didn't.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 10:34:14 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #159 on: February 12, 2014, 12:43:28 AM »

I stopped by the airport today to take a closer look at a Beech B-18 (introduced in 1937).  Walking up to the nose I could see flush rivets everywhere, but the aft end and belly were covered with shallow-dome-headed rivets, some quite small.  The belly was especially interesting to me - the lines of rivets weren't all straight, giving the appearance of either a "saw horse" repair (wheels-up landing rash?), or intentionally jogging around some hidden feature, or perhaps it didn't matter much in that location?  I don't know the exact year of this particular example, but suspect it was built during the war.  I'll try to get photos next time I'm over there.
Please note that I'm not trying to imply that a B-18 was the source of 2-2-V-1.
The owner also owns a Lockheed model-12 that I am anxious to look at.  Can anyone comment on commonalities between the -12 and Amelia's -10?  Would there be anything useful to learn from studying a model -12?
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #160 on: February 12, 2014, 05:59:33 AM »

It is my belief that all such exterior lettering was removed ( by solvent wipe) ...

There is no ink on 2-2-V-1.

The lettering is visible only under oblique angles. 

It would not show in pictures.

FWIW, if we're just matching creeds, I do not share your belief that your suppositions about how the piece would have been treated if it had been part of AE's Electra disqualify this from being a piece of AE's Electra.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #161 on: February 12, 2014, 07:04:09 AM »

I stopped by the airport today to take a closer look at a Beech B-18 (introduced in 1937).  Walking up to the nose I could see flush rivets everywhere, but the aft end and belly were covered with shallow-dome-headed rivets, some quite small.  The belly was especially interesting to me - the lines of rivets weren't all straight, giving the appearance of either a "saw horse" repair (wheels-up landing rash?), or intentionally jogging around some hidden feature, or perhaps it didn't matter much in that location?  I don't know the exact year of this particular example, but suspect it was built during the war.  I'll try to get photos next time I'm over there.
Please note that I'm not trying to imply that a B-18 was the source of 2-2-V-1.
The owner also owns a Lockheed model-12 that I am anxious to look at.  Can anyone comment on commonalities between the -12 and Amelia's -10?  Would there be anything useful to learn from studying a model -12?

I hope you can get access and learn and share all you can from this, what a great oppportunity.

The twin Beech is a near-contemporary to the Electra with somewhat similar construction (wonder where Beech got the idea...).  It also enjoyed an extremely long production run - from around the time you mention (1937) until about 1968 if my memory is good.  As such it was produced in many variant forms - and the flush riveting up forward may be a later effort that was not present on earlier models of the 18 (I do not know this - it can of course be found out). 

If this airplane is in service then it should have an external I.D. tag - left side of fuselage, somewhere aft of the door (and possible tucked under the horizontal stabilizer nearly out of sight to the casual observer if a restored warbird, etc.).  That would be the easiest way to get a full model and serial number so that vintage and other details can be determined.  That might tell something of how the flush rivets got there (likely production of course, but question being was it cut-in for a later variant, or has the twin Beech always had that feature - I don't recall it on our old C-45's in A&P school).

As to the irregular rivet patterns - I'm not surprised, there are all kinds of reasons for that to occur - but most of them would have to do with 'post production'.  As you mention, 'rash' from many things bring that about on many decades-old airplanes - and belly landings certainly occur, among other calamities (ask Ric, he's seen plenty of them as an investigator).  Something could be learned if the records are there: oddly enough, repairs and modifications in today's world (since Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and possibly earlier CAA records as well) go into a public folder - forms 337 document major repairs and alterations. 

Major alterations remain on record indefinitely ("forever") but major repairs may be dropped after one year - the presumption being that a proper repair 'restores' the airplane to an approved condition.  That's a tall assumption on FAA's part because there's a wiggly line in there - very often a literal wiggly line: original fastener patterns often are altered.  Not so bad - as long as pitch and size requirements are obeyed and within approved repair limits that's fine - but it can easily result in irregular lines as you see.

Of course an 'alteration' of some sort (a modification) can be the reason - but those are usually distinct, offset rows (and such could account for the offset we see in 2-2-V-1 compared to at least one museum bird.  If you are seeing somewhat erratic rows then the suggestion to me at this point is you are seeing field-replaced skins that were hand-drilled into repaired flanges on belly members or perhaps replacement stiffeners, etc.  It would not be the normal product of match-drilling to healthy, original stringers and stiffeners.

Interested in what you can learn from the L12, but it is a different (and smaller) airframe than the L10.  On the surface they bear a strong resemblance, but I think there are many nuanced changes within the scaled-down structure that probably prevent it from being a direct model for us to consider.  It is also a later model so some modernized features would be expected by comparison to the more antique L10.  For one, look at the gear - there was an obvious advance in technology on the L12 over the L10 - the double-fork welded assembly is replaced by a forged, single-offset leg at the wheel.

I hope you can meet the owner and get a tour and his interest in some of this - great source of information.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 07:06:02 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #162 on: February 12, 2014, 08:18:37 AM »

A couple of examples of what I take to be fairly early model Beech 18's (twin Beech) do show apparent flush riveting up front.  If I had ever noticed that before I'd forgotten it.  Leave it to Beech to drive (pardon pun) that kind of detail into something... especially something as blunt as their famous 'Bug Smasher': not sure how much benefit that really gave, what with rather blunt round engines, etc.

- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: Grand Rapids trip
« Reply #163 on: February 12, 2014, 12:16:42 PM »

It is my belief that all such exterior lettering was removed ( by solvent wipe) ...

There is no ink on 2-2-V-1.

The lettering is visible only under oblique angles. 

It would not show in pictures.

FWIW, if we're just matching creeds, I do not share your belief that your suppositions about how the piece would have been treated if it had been part of AE's Electra disqualify this from being a piece of AE's Electra.


I haven't as yet ruled it out, I can only make assumptions based on the material that I can access here on this site ( which I find highly informative) and other internet sites,...nothing is certain. I am in a way testing the hypthesis, ...others may ask similar questions later on ( or have already in the past). For now, I observe what appears to be a detailed plane, pre and post Luke field,...post Luke repairs seem to indicate freshly painted leading wing edges, possibly the repainting of the numbering under the wings, and a seemingly highly burnished skin exterior, void of all factory ink markings, along with comments by earhart,.... some which give a gender attachment to it , which usually indicates a somewhat emotional attachment ......she refers to the plane as she/ her, etc ...
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 12:38:26 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP