The Question of 2-2-V-1

[Ric Gillespie]

We should soon be able to set everyone's minds to rest on B-17s, PBYs and B-24s.  At the Air Force Museum on Friday we should be able to examine:
• 3 B-17s (a C/D "The Swoose", an F "Memphis Belle", and a G "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby")
• an OA-10 (Army PBY-5A)
• a B-24D "Stawberry Bitch."  (A B-24J has already been examined and eliminated.)

[Kevin Weeks]

We should soon be able to set everyone's minds to rest on B-17s, PBYs and B-24s.  At the Air Force Museum on Friday we should be able to examine:
• 3 B-17s (a C/D "The Swoose", an F "Memphis Belle", and a G "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby")
• an OA-10 (Army PBY-5A)
• a B-24D "Stawberry Bitch."  (A B-24J has already been examined and eliminated.)

Ric, I don't know that it makes a difference but I believe the Air force museum PBY was not originally an OA-10. I believe it came from Brazil and they restored/painted it as an OA-10. Originally was a PBY-5A..... I don't know what if any changes they made to it.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, I don't know that it makes a difference but I believe the Air force museum PBY was not originally an OA-10. I believe it came from Brazil and they restored/painted it as an OA-10. Originally was a PBY-5A..... I don't know what if any changes they made to it.

We can ask the guys in the shop but I would guess it's mostly a matter of re-painting.

[Mark Pearce]

Instead of launching into a long day of studying rivet patterns, it might be wise to first have an open - no holds barred - discussion with the museum staff about the chronology of ALCLAD labeling.  Bring along copies of the 1992 paper "Matching the Markings"; pertinent pages and photos from the 1941 and 1943 editions of "Aluminum in Aircraft"; and a sharp blow-up of the 1936 photo showing the labeling on AE's Electra to hand out to museum staffers. 

I realize that anyone who holds firmly to the belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of AE's Lockheed will continue to question if the "AN-A-13" designation could appear together with the letter font seen on the piece.  Ric, however, had a different view of that important issue back in 1992.  In "Matching the Markings" he wrote-

"....we reasoned that if we could match the size and style of the letters with labeling surviving on other aircraft we might be able to complete the picture.  An exhaustive search of aircraft of World War Two and earlier vintage produced only three examples of aluminum bearing these exact markings... In all three cases, the entire sequence of labeling reads: ALCOA T. M.  .032" ALCLAD 24 S – T 3 AN–A–13  ...the conclusion appears justified that the letters visible on the artifact are the last two in the word "ALCLAD" in a sequence identical to that shown above....  [the] precise significance [of "AN-A-13"] has not yet been determined."

So... in 1992, when Ric was not aware that "AN-A-13" dates to the WW2 era, he took the position that the font he sees on 2-2-V-1 did appear together with the AN-A-13 designation. 

Is that now just an inconvenient truth?... best ignored while at the Air Force Museum?

[Monty Fowler]

Hopefully we will have enough manpower available to go over the "minor types" as well, such as the P-40.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Kevin Weeks]

Okay, second try, how about this one

No cigar. Another ditching.
I don't recall any ditchings at Canton.  No surprise. A ditching is an intentional water landing in a land plane.  Why would anyone ditch in the water when there's a runway nearby?  The crashes at Canton were crashes - such as the B-24J that went down after takeoff or the C-87 that flew into the water on approach at 130mph.  At that speed water is like concrete.

Speaking of ditchings I read that the B17 Rickenbacker was in was estimated to have ditched about 100 miles south west of Canton. that would put it pretty close to halfway between Canton and Niku correct?? I have no idea how that "100 miles" was estimated seeing that they were supposedly completely lost and floated for days in their raft.

[Ric Gillespie]

Instead of launching into a long day of studying rivet patterns, it might be wise to first have an open - no holds barred - discussion with the museum staff about the chronology of ALCLAD labeling.

We'll certainly discuss the labeling issue with the museum staff and ask if they have any documentation on when the various styles of labeling appeared. 

I realize that anyone who holds firmly to the belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of AE's Lockheed will continue to question if the "AN-A-13" designation could appear together with the letter font seen on the piece.

It's not about holding firmly to beliefs.  It's about a rigorous search for the truth.  My reasoning in 1992 was flawed - don't you agree?  Science requires a constant re-examination and, if necessary, correction of previous research. 

[John Ousterhout]

Here's a map showing the relationships of Howland, Gardner/Niku and Kanton/Canton islands.  Canton is north east of Niku, nearly the same distance from Howland as Niku.  100 miles south west of Canton would be closer to Niku.  Not exactly half way but more off to the side by my thinking.

[Mark Pearce]

"...the PBY's are still too heavy by all I've been able to learn; the B-17 has a very regulated rivet pattern where #3 brazier AD rivets attach .032" skins over waffle plating (corrugated underskins);

[I agree Ric...]

Remember Jeff, the PBY was skinned with .030" sheet above the waterline, and .030" material was to be repaired with .032" sheet.  The rivet size to be used in repairs?... well the 'rules' may not have always been followed religiously by repair men... at Canton Island and at other repair Sub-Depots. 

The web page devoted to the B-17 crash site in the Olympic Mountains shows other areas besides the wings that may be riveted with AN455-AD3 rivets.  Study the photos of the vertical stabilizer.  The photos on the page can be super-sized.

http://746project.wordpress.com/parts/

All of the exterior skin on this plane, which was reportedly built by Lockheed late in the war, appears to be riveted with those "old-style" brazier head rivets- once thought by many here to be obsolete by the time of WW2.  We now know that was not the case.

Another interesting discovery on that web page- one photograph shows the Alcoa stamp running at an angle to the rivet line, very similar to what we see in 2-2-V-1.

http://746project.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/dsc02121.jpg

[JNev]

Instead of launching into a long day of studying rivet patterns, it might be wise to first have an open - no holds barred - discussion with the museum staff about the chronology of ALCLAD labeling.  Bring along copies of the 1992 paper "Matching the Markings"; pertinent pages and photos from the 1941 and 1943 editions of "Aluminum in Aircraft"; and a sharp blow-up of the 1936 photo showing the labeling on AE's Electra to hand out to museum staffers. 

I realize that anyone who holds firmly to the belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of AE's Lockheed will continue to question if the "AN-A-13" designation could appear together with the letter font seen on the piece.

It isn't whether it "could", Mark, it's whether it "did".

Odd, but however firmly some may hold "firmly to the belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of AE's Lockheed", you seem to hold very firmly that it is not, in fact that it cannot be.  I well see the challenges, but where is your proof that you would so passionately have others abandon the search?

Ric, however, had a different view of that important issue back in 1992.  In "Matching the Markings" he wrote-

"....we reasoned that if we could match the size and style of the letters with labeling surviving on other aircraft we might be able to complete the picture.  An exhaustive search of aircraft of World War Two and earlier vintage produced only three examples of aluminum bearing these exact markings... In all three cases, the entire sequence of labeling reads: ALCOA T. M.  .032" ALCLAD 24 S – T 3 AN–A–13  ...the conclusion appears justified that the letters visible on the artifact are the last two in the word "ALCLAD" in a sequence identical to that shown above....  [the] precise significance [of "AN-A-13"] has not yet been determined."

So... in 1992, when Ric was not aware that "AN-A-13" dates to the WW2 era, he took the position that the font he sees on 2-2-V-1 did appear together with the AN-A-13 designation. 

Is that now just an inconvenient truth?... best ignored while at the Air Force Museum?

Doesn't appear to be an "inconvenient truth" to me, it appears to be more as Ric has already addressed.  Much more is understood today than when that was published 22 years ago...

BTW, as I see it, that kind of closing statement being allowed to stand here speaks volumes for TIGHAR's tolerance and openness - thanks for doing that.

[Mark Appel]

"So... in 1992, when Ric was not aware that "AN-A-13" dates to the WW2 era, he took the position that the font he sees on 2-2-V-1 did appear together with the AN-A-13 designation. 

Is that now just an inconvenient truth?... best ignored while at the Air Force Museum?"

So what's your point? Are you trying to assert that somehow TIGHAR should not be allowed to subscribe to the Scientific  Method and modify hypothesis and positions as new information is developed and tested? Are you insisting the Ric must adhere to the positions he took 20 years ago based on the information available at the time? Where is the logic, much less the science in that?

As has been so painfully apparent to those who have tracked these discussions, the only person here with a belief-based agenda seems to be you. I appreciate the impressive amount of time, energy and talent you have put into your effort to support that agenda; it has clearly produced some very useful information. But your insistence that TIGHAR is driven by some kind of dogma where none exists is wearisome and distracts from the good faith efforts represented in this research.

[Monty Fowler]

Mr. Pearce - I'm sure you would be more than welcome to come to Dayton and put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Unless that would be to inconvenient, that is.

LTM, who remembers what a hypothesis is,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Mark Pearce]

It isn't whether it "could", Mark, it's whether it "did".

Odd, but however firmly some may hold "firmly to the belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of AE's Lockheed", you seem to hold very firmly that it is not, in fact that it cannot be.  I well see the challenges, but where is your proof that you would so passionately have others abandon the search?

Doesn't appear to be an "inconvenient truth" to me, it appears to be more as Ric has already addressed.  Much more is understood today than when that was published 22 years ago...

That famous phrase attributed to Carl Sagan comes to mind-

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The burden is on you Jeff to prove the piece came from Earhart's Lockheed.  It's not on me to prove it did not. 

Yes, I agree, much more is understood today... about ALCLAD markings.

[JNev]

"...the PBY's are still too heavy by all I've been able to learn; the B-17 has a very regulated rivet pattern where #3 brazier AD rivets attach .032" skins over waffle plating (corrugated underskins);

[I agree Ric...]

Remember Jeff, the PBY was skinned with .030" sheet above the waterline, and .030" material was to be repaired with .032" sheet.  The rivet size to be used in repairs?... well the 'rules' may not have always been followed religiously by repair men... at Canton Island and at other repair Sub-Depots. 

So now "anything goes"... tell ya what, why don't you find us some examples of repairs using large numbers of undersized / improper style rivets and I'd be happy to consider that more seriously. 

While you are at it, remember we're talking about a 'double jeopardy' ship here - she had to have been repaired, flown and then have come to grief whereas an old repair panel could be salvaged or ripped from her in some fashion.

The web page devoted to the B-17 crash site in the Olympic Mountains shows other areas besides the wings that may be riveted with AN455-AD3 rivets.  Study the photos of the vertical stabilizer.  The photos on the page can be super-sized.

http://746project.wordpress.com/parts/

Maybe.  Maybe we'll get to see, I'm sure.  Why didn't you lay a scale on that, would have been nice...

All of the exterior skin on this plane, which was reportedly built by Lockheed late in the war, appears to be riveted with those "old-style" brazier head rivets- once thought by many here to be obsolete by the time of WW2.  We now know that was not the case.

Point?

Another interesting discovery on that web page- one photograph shows the Alcoa stamp running at an angle to the rivet line, very similar to what we see in 2-2-V-1.

http://746project.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/dsc02121.jpg

It isn't the 'rivet line' alignment that counts, it is the grain line, i.e. direction of rolling, that counts.  I can't discern grain direction in this picture except for what appear to be roller marks (light 'tooling' marks) on the metal surface - which happen to align with the printed characters...

[JNev]

It isn't whether it "could", Mark, it's whether it "did".

Odd, but however firmly some may hold "firmly to the belief that 2-2-V-1 is a piece of AE's Lockheed", you seem to hold very firmly that it is not, in fact that it cannot be.  I well see the challenges, but where is your proof that you would so passionately have others abandon the search?

Doesn't appear to be an "inconvenient truth" to me, it appears to be more as Ric has already addressed.  Much more is understood today than when that was published 22 years ago...

That famous phrase attributed to Carl Sagan comes to mind-

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The burden is on you Jeff to prove the piece came from Earhart's Lockheed.  It's not on me to prove it did not. 

Yes, I agree, much more is understood today... about ALCLAD markings.

Mark, with all due respect, I don't claim to have 'proof' in-hand - just confidence.  I am living up to my burden, thanks.

You've mostly provided some challenges, worthy often enough, and some very interesting research material that has been helpful - but now you've clearly established a gloves-off intent to prove those of us who 'seek' to be 'wrong' - so I think you have just stepped into a certain 'burden' all your own by your own assertions.

Just MHO, of course - but since you had the cheek to make the point...