Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 841602 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #210 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.

Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #211 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.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #212 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

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. 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #213 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).
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #214 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.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #215 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?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 762
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #216 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.
3971R
 
Logged

Jeff Carter

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #217 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)


Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #218 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.  Ric stated back in 2012, "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.  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:)
Cheers,
JohnO
 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 12:17:23 PM by John Ousterhout »
Logged

Jay Burkett

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #219 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!     
Jay Burkett, N4RBY
Aerospace Engineer
Fairhope AL
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #220 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.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #221 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?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5898
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #222 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.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #223 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.  Ric stated back in 2012, "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.  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 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.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Mark Appel

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #224 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...
"Credibility is Everything"
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP