Print

[Bessel P Sybesma]

And Mr. Pearce, I must respectfully disagree with your disagreement... You break the font styles into two very distinct, absolute (and for now, arbitrary) categories: a) serif-laden, pre WWII style, and b) san-serif, italic WWII style. After examining 2-2-V-1 in detail, I am very hesitant to subscribe to that model. You may be right in the end. But right now I can tell you: way too much variability is evident in Alcoa font styles to yet draw any definitive conclusions. At this stage there appears to be variability even within your two arbitrary categories. Moreover, multiple factors other than the font styles themselves may influence appearance. Time (and a lot more work) will tell...

But wasn't this distinct difference in font categories the precise reason why we found reason to believe 2-2-V-1 could be off NR16020?

So if this distinction is no longer clear cut, what data now objectively links the artifact to Earheart?

The discussion here seems to focus on discounting all other sources, with an apparently blind assumption that it MUST be from Amelia's Electra. This is a dangerous and not very scientific approach.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Nikumaroro thesis proven beyond reasonable doubt, but considering the tenuous potential evidence we have to date, we need to be very careful about our methods.

[JNev]

And Mr. Pearce, I must respectfully disagree with your disagreement... You break the font styles into two very distinct, absolute (and for now, arbitrary) categories: a) serif-laden, pre WWII style, and b) san-serif, italic WWII style. After examining 2-2-V-1 in detail, I am very hesitant to subscribe to that model. You may be right in the end. But right now I can tell you: way too much variability is evident in Alcoa font styles to yet draw any definitive conclusions. At this stage there appears to be variability even within your two arbitrary categories. Moreover, multiple factors other than the font styles themselves may influence appearance. Time (and a lot more work) will tell...

But wasn't this distinct difference in font categories the precise reason why we found reason to believe 2-2-V-1 could be off NR16020?

So if this distinction is no longer clear cut, what data now objectively links the artifact to Earheart?

The discussion here seems to focus on discounting all other sources, with an apparently blind assumption that it MUST be from Amelia's Electra. This is a dangerous and not very scientific approach.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Nikumaroro thesis proven beyond reasonable doubt, but considering the tenuous potential evidence we have to date, we need to be very careful about our methods.

Things have come a long way since 1992 and Ric's already spoken to that evolution in response to Mr. Pearce of late; now we've gone and seen even more - and I'll just say 'stay tuned' because 2-2-V-1 is rich with information that I am confident 'the commission' will be able to ferret out, whatever it comes to.  This is not as simple as fonts alone, and fonts are apparently not as cut-and-dry as once believed, by what I saw.

The level of talent that descended on Dayton was amazing - we have some very gifted people among our own here and how the exercise was carried out was equally as impressive.  For one and only as an individual commenter, I will simply say for now that I remain confident in the Lockheed-origin prospects and look forward to the commission's full work.

[Steve Lee]

Another data point FWIW. A piece of Alclad from a C-47 that crashed in Italy in 1944.

[JNev]

Thanks Steve.

From reading at the source you linked this C-47 was apparently bureau number 4315153, a C-47A-80-DL - which I take to have been manufactured in 1943. 

According to one contributor who who cited the 2nd Volume of the "Air-Britain DC-3 Book", this airplane "...went to the 9th AF's 79th Troop Carrier Sqn on March 11, 1944 and crashed on August 1, 1944...".  What a bit of 'hard cheese' to swallow, sad incident.  But good information.

[Steve Lee]

I had seen this font example in the bomb bay of a TBD a while ago but failed to save the url and only found it now. According to this source, TBDs were produced between 1937 and 1939 (I bet a lot of Tighar forum readers didn't need to be told that).

[Steve Lee]

One more piece of information comes from a repair manual for North American trainer aircraft published in January of 1943.

On Page 12 there is a section titled 'Aluminum Sheet Markings' which says:

"Aluminum sheet may be easily identified by the markings plainly stenciled in rows approximately 3 inches apart on each side of the material.  On some sheet stock, only the material composition is conveyed by the markings (see Figure 21, Detail A). On other sheet stock, the composition of the material is given in one line of stencils and the material thickness in thousandths of an inch is given in the other (see Figure 21, Detail B)."

I've attached figure 21 so readers don't have to download the whole manual.

[JNev]

One more piece of information comes from a repair manual for North American trainer aircraft. 

On Page 12 there is a section titled 'Aluminum Sheet Markings' which says:

"Aluminum sheet may be easily identified by the markings plainly stenciled in rows approximately 3 inches apart on each side of the material.  On some sheet stock, only the material composition is conveyed by the markings (see Figure 21, Detail A). On other sheet stock, the composition of the material is given in one line of stencils and the material thickness in thousandths of an inch is given in the other (see Figure 21, Detail B)."

I've attached figure 21 so readers don't have to download the whole manual.

Good find, Steve, thanks for sharing that.

What is shown here is yet another variation of markings that I had not seen before. 

The specificity of it and having come from North American makes me wonder if different makers did indeed impart their own standards of marking to some degree.  I don't recall seeing markings on 'both sides', as stated here, at least not commonly (can't recall it at all in my experience, actually).

Can't say for sure, of course, but I also take what is pictured as intended as 'examples' by North American, perhaps contemporary to each other as well, and not to be exhaustive of what one would find.  Interesting variation in fonts between the two examples as well.

Many thanks, interesting.

[Steve Lee]

One more piece of information comes from a repair manual for North American trainer aircraft. 

On Page 12 there is a section titled 'Aluminum Sheet Markings' which says:

"Aluminum sheet may be easily identified by the markings plainly stenciled in rows approximately 3 inches apart on each side of the material.  On some sheet stock, only the material composition is conveyed by the markings (see Figure 21, Detail A). On other sheet stock, the composition of the material is given in one line of stencils and the material thickness in thousandths of an inch is given in the other (see Figure 21, Detail B)."

I've attached figure 21 so readers don't have to download the whole manual.

Good find, Steve, thanks for sharing that.

What is shown here is yet another variation of markings that I had not seen before. 

The specificity of it and having come from North American makes me wonder if different makers did indeed impart their own standards of marking to some degree.  I don't recall seeing markings on 'both sides', as stated here, at least not commonly (can't recall it at all in my experience, actually).

Can't say for sure, of course, but I also take what is pictured as intended as 'examples' by North American, perhaps contemporary to each other as well, and not to be exhaustive of what one would find.  Interesting variation in fonts between the two examples as well.

Many thanks, interesting.

To me what this manual shows us is yet another example of the name 'ALCLAD' on WW2-era aircraft skin, and in a sans-serif font. I have not seen an example of a sans-serif font, much less the name 'ALCLAD', on a pre-war plane yet.

The manual also tells us that WW2 aircraft skin was marked in two ways: one way was with lines of the alloy/temper designation and the name 'ALCLAD' alternating with lines giving the thickness and the name 'ALCOA'; the other way was just repeating lines of the alloy/temper designation (24S-T, 52S-1/2H, or whatever).

[Mark Appel]

Gentlemen,

It's even more complicated than that. I echo Jeff's appreciation Steve: Fine work! And like you, I have yet to see a definitive example of pre-war in a sans-serif font, nor a WWII example in a serif font. BUT as your work, Steve, and Jeff's questions suggest, we're dealing with far more variability than simply "sans-serif vs serif." I doubt very strongly there would be any consistency, other than coincidental, from manufacturer to manufacturer. Absent U.S. govt regulation and until proven otherwise, I'm going to say they'd put their own moniker on there anyway they want.

I believe this is about branding (or lack thereof) more than anything else... aluminum producers wanted their respective brands featured prominently on their product to build mindshare. Companies vied for attention, and the one way manufacturers of otherwise indistinct sheets of aluminum could do that is with branding by stencil. You see "Alclad" enough times, it sticks in your head...

[JNev]

Gentlemen,

It's even more complicated than that. I echo Jeff's appreciation Steve: Fine work! And like you, I have yet to see a definitive example of pre-war in a sans-serif font, nor a WWII example in a serif font. BUT as your work, Steve, and Jeff's questions suggest, we're dealing with far more variability than simply "sans-serif vs serif." I doubt very strongly there would be any consistency, other than coincidental, from manufacturer to manufacturer. Absent U.S. govt regulation and until proven otherwise, I'm going to say they'd put their own moniker on there anyway they want.

I believe this is about branding (or lack thereof) more than anything else... aluminum producers wanted their respective brands featured prominently on their product to build mindshare. Companies vied for attention, and the one way manufacturers of otherwise indistinct sheets of aluminum could do that is with branding by stencil. You see "Alclad" enough times, it sticks in your head...

Can't quarrel with that marketing view, I've learned that about a thousand times and your point is well made, Mark.

Well agreed - 'variability' in type is something we've definitely seen - but key wording like 'ALCLAD' being a major constant, for sure.  And it did stick - like the bacon Bernays put on our breakfast tables, every self-respecting sheet metal mechanic has the term on the tip of the tongue (say THAT one really fast nine times)... 

Just a guess, but it seems to me that in an area of practical need, 'style' of lettering was second to 'brand' in this case: use of raw aluminum is rather utilitarian - those who apply it on the line just 'need to know' what it is; so there does not seem to have been a huge worry over appearance and I have no idea who made the identifying stencil-rollers or how often they were replaced.  But ensureing 'built to spec' is vital and it's clear that ALCOA (and one supposes Reynolds) ensured that a clear term was patented for the product, and the product clearly ID'd.  Just a guess there.

We've seen enough variability in fact that while I understand what Steve says about what he's seen and hasn't seen, I don't believe we have a conclusive case as to what well may yet be found. 

I have to say, after what I've looked at and studied, I for one would not be willing to cast 2-2-V-1 aside as some would seem to wish - it simply remains too rich a possibility in my view.  I also believe there's much more to learn about aluminum markings and believe as we might do so that a great deal may be realized about just how variable that process may have been.  To repeat - what I just saw in Steve's post here underscores that very thing, one more variation wrinkle in stenciling.

I hope the data points will keep coming.

[Doug Ledlie]

Interesting shot of what is apparently Enola Gay radio op station

Am I seeing three different "looks" in the labelling on the same piece? Not sure if its font/size/bold or what that makes the lines look different.

(With all the tangents in this thread I'm not sure if we have discarded AN-A-13 labelling as irrelevant but here it is in an aircraft accepted May/45)

http://aafradio.org/NASM/Enola_Avionics_Descriptions_-_Radio_Op.htm

[Monty Fowler]

The font issue will turn out to be immaterial - my view.

2-V-1-1 is almost certainly a factory-applied as opposed to a field-applied piece of aluminum - what numerous experts who have personally examined it say.

What is really, really, really interesting right now, to me, is paint. Especially silver paint. Especially silver paint that Lockheed used as an internal anti-corrosion treatment in the 1930s.

LTM, who has discovered that dry paint can be pretty darn interesting,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[JNev]

Interesting shot of what is apparently Enola Gay radio op station

Am I seeing three different "looks" in the labelling on the same piece? Not sure if its font/size/bold or what that makes the lines look different.

(With all the tangents in this thread I'm not sure if we have discarded AN-A-13 labelling as irrelevant but here it is in an aircraft accepted May/45)

http://aafradio.org/NASM/Enola_Avionics_Descriptions_-_Radio_Op.htm

Sans serif, but yet another variant.  Thanks!

[JNev]

For what it's worth and for the sake of 'variability', here's an example of aluminum markings going the other way, serif fonts on a post-war airplane...

Found (Twin Beech site) on a twin Beech E18S model, serial number BA-168 and manufactured in 1954 according to FAA registration against the N number.  A check of the TCDS for this model confirms eligible years and serial numbers for production in that time frame.

[Mark Pearce]

Interesting shot of what is apparently Enola Gay radio op station

Am I seeing three different "looks" in the labelling on the same piece? Not sure if its font/size/bold or what that makes the lines look different.

(With all the tangents in this thread I'm not sure if we have discarded AN-A-13 labelling as irrelevant but here it is in an aircraft accepted May/45)

http://aafradio.org/NASM/Enola_Avionics_Descriptions_-_Radio_Op.htm

Great photo Doug... many thanks.  I believe you've found another exact match with the font seen on 2-2-V-1.

Images below from Lockheed #1015 and #1052 are copied from "Matching the Markings"
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1993Vol_9/Markings.pdf   


Enola Gay


Labeling on flap actuator cover, Lockheed Electra cn 1052.


Labeling on fuselage modifications, Lockheed cn 1015


2-2-V-1