Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 858578 times)

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #885 on: April 11, 2014, 12:11:52 PM »

After seeing the tremendous variations in fonts, sizes, spacing, etc., at the NMUSAF, I am more and more inclined to relegate fonts to secondary importance in finding out where 2-V-1-1 came from.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting today,
Monty Fowler,TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #886 on: April 11, 2014, 02:04:44 PM »

After seeing the tremendous variations in fonts, sizes, spacing, etc., at the NMUSAF, I am more and more inclined to relegate fonts to secondary importance in finding out where 2-V-1-1 came from.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting today,
Monty Fowler,TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Monty, would the rivet pattern issue be of primary importance then?  Here is a revised version of the 'overlay photo.'  The inset in the lower left has been scaled up to match the dimensions of the tape measure with the dimensions between rivet rows as reported in-

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/Flak.pdf

Even after allowing for some distortion in the artifact or the photos, the mis-alignment between the five rivet rows, keel, and stringers is significant.  Just as Marty commented back in 2010, "2-2-V-1 is fascinating, but the holes haven't matched up for sure with any known Electra." 

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,157.msg1463.html#msg1463       

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #887 on: April 11, 2014, 05:07:59 PM »

Even after allowing for some distortion in the artifact or the photos, the mis-alignment between the five rivet rows, keel, and stringers is significant.  Just as Marty commented back in 2010, "2-2-V-1 is fascinating, but the holes haven't matched up for sure with any known Electra." 

I have cautioned repeatedly that the overlay is not to scale.  One outcome of the research done at the NMUSAF is that the location shown in the overlay is not a candidate for 2-2-V-1, not for the reason you describe but because the rivet pitch in that area on the Electra is 1.5" and the rivet pitch on the artifact is 1".  Aris Scarla, FAA Flight Standards District Manager and Greg Hassler, NMUSAF Restorations Supervisor agreed that the rivet pitch would not be altered in a repair. 

The full 2-2-V-1 Commission Report will be finished soon.
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #888 on: April 11, 2014, 07:45:50 PM »


To this list I would add that the book "Aircraft sheet metal work; bench and repair work" (1941) instructed to look for "AL" or "ALC" to identify ALCLAD aluminum.


Image URL:  http://i.imgur.com/ZabaXCI.png
Source:  http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001040034

Ric, this is evidence of absence, is it not?
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #889 on: April 11, 2014, 07:55:58 PM »

If it is possible to get even a few microns of paint from this artefact then my money is on the paint being the best means of determining the identity of the airplane it came from.

This must be the place
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #890 on: April 12, 2014, 03:20:05 AM »

*points up* What Jeff said. That's in the process of being taken care of.

The pros say 2-V-1-1 is not a field repair or depot-level repair. For a number of very good reasons. I accept that.

I'm not in a position to assign a "level of importance" to any one particular identifying feature of 2-V-1-1, and I think that anyone who trys to do so is being rather foolish. It will be the totality of the evidence, the sum of the parts that make up the whole, that will allow TIGHAR to say "Yes, this piece of metal is from Amelia and Fred's Electra," or "No, it isn't."

To me, anyone who trys to exclude or include 2-V-1-1 as part of our favorite Electra based on only one particular feature is being intellectually dishonest with themselves. The essence of the search is being willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.TIGHAR is doing that, in a non-agenda-drive way.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #891 on: April 12, 2014, 06:59:44 AM »

Ric, this is evidence of absence, is it not?

Yes it is.  It can be interpreted to mean that the entire word ALCLAD was not in use in labeling in 1941. That interpretation may or may not be correct.
Do you feel that this evidence of absence conclusively proves that 2-2-V-1 cannot be from Earhart's Electra?
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #892 on: April 13, 2014, 08:15:06 AM »

Ric, this is evidence of absence, is it not?

Yes it is.  It can be interpreted to mean that the entire word ALCLAD was not in use in labeling in 1941. That interpretation may or may not be correct.
Do you feel that this evidence of absence conclusively proves that 2-2-V-1 cannot be from Earhart's Electra?

As per Jeff Carter’s summary, there is now a substantial body of evidence indicating that Alclad was marked as ‘ALC’ in the 1930s and ’ALCLAD’ starting around 1942.  We have seen plenty of examples of pre-war aircraft built by a several manufacturers where the skin is marked ‘ALC’ rather than ‘ALCLAD’; among these manufacturers is Lockheed, and in fact we see ‘ALC24ST’ markings, not ‘ALCLAD’, on Earhart’s Electra itself. We have seen no examples of pre-war airplane skin marked as ‘ALCLAD’ . We have a textbook published in 1941 (probably written in ’40) explaining that the marking convention was ‘ALC’ not ‘ALCLAD’ at that time. We have not seen ‘ALCLAD’ markings on prewar aircraft, but we see many examples of ‘ALCLAD’ marked airplane skin from 1942 onwards.  The most reasonable conclusion from all this is that the ’AD’ we see on 2-2-V-1 indicates that it is not a piece of the Electra. 

Your original hypothesis was that the ‘ALCLAD’ marking signified that 2-2-v-1 was a piece of special stock Alclad used only for repair work.  That’s no longer tenable because there are several WW2 era factory photos where we see ‘ALCLAD’ markings.  You can develop a new explanation for how a piece of aircraft skin marked with ‘ALCLAD’ became part of Earhart’s Electra but you’ll have to consider how plausible the new explanation is in light of all the evidence (photos of ‘ALC24ST’ on Earhart’s Electra, all the other prewar ‘ALC24ST’ examples, the 1941 textbook, abundant ‘ALCLAD’ on WW2 aircraft).  Unless someone finds evidence that ‘ALCLAD’ was used to mark Alclad in the 1930s all you’ll have is an ad hoc hypothesis unsupported by any evidence—you might be right, but why should we believe it?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2014, 08:27:03 AM by Steve Lee »
Logged

Mark Appel

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #893 on: April 13, 2014, 11:13:53 AM »

Ric, this is evidence of absence, is it not?

Yes it is.  It can be interpreted to mean that the entire word ALCLAD was not in use in labeling in 1941. That interpretation may or may not be correct.
Do you feel that this evidence of absence conclusively proves that 2-2-V-1 cannot be from Earhart's Electra?

As per Jeff Carter’s summary, there is now a substantial body of evidence indicating that Alclad was marked as ‘ALC’ in the 1930s and ’ALCLAD’ starting around 1942.  We have seen plenty of examples of pre-war aircraft built by a several manufacturers where the skin is marked ‘ALC’ rather than ‘ALCLAD’; among these manufacturers is Lockheed, and in fact we see ‘ALC24ST’ markings, not ‘ALCLAD’, on Earhart’s Electra itself. We have seen no examples of pre-war airplane skin marked as ‘ALCLAD’ . We have a textbook published in 1941 (probably written in ’40) explaining that the marking convention was ‘ALC’ not ‘ALCLAD’ at that time. We have not seen ‘ALCLAD’ markings on prewar aircraft, but we see many examples of ‘ALCLAD’ marked airplane skin from 1942 onwards.  The most reasonable conclusion from all this is that the ’AD’ we see on 2-2-V-1 indicates that it is not a piece of the Electra. 

Your original hypothesis was that the ‘ALCLAD’ marking signified that 2-2-v-1 was a piece of special stock Alclad used only for repair work.  That’s no longer tenable because there are several WW2 era factory photos where we see ‘ALCLAD’ markings.  You can develop a new explanation for how a piece of aircraft skin marked with ‘ALCLAD’ became part of Earhart’s Electra but you’ll have to consider how plausible the new explanation is in light of all the evidence (photos of ‘ALC24ST’ on Earhart’s Electra, all the other prewar ‘ALC24ST’ examples, the 1941 textbook, abundant ‘ALCLAD’ on WW2 aircraft).  Unless someone finds evidence that ‘ALCLAD’ was used to mark Alclad in the 1930s all you’ll have is an ad hoc hypothesis unsupported by any evidence—you might be right, but why should we believe it?

One man's "substantial body" is another man's "prison camp victim."

Jeff's summary is quite thorough--that is, of the modest photographic and documented evidence associated with typographic labeling styles collected to date. What seems to elude you is that we have nothing definitive. No source documentation on labeling practices and associated dates. No data on implementation of changes in labeling practices and any variability associated with those changes. No data on exceptions. Nothing. Nada. I have pointed out these numerous ambiguities and unknowns in greater detail previously.

Nobody's asking you nor anyone else to "believe" anything. And frankly that's a particularly disturbing comment; this is a science-based inquiry, not a religious exercise. Despite your repeated suggestions to the contrary, nobody on this forum has an agenda that I can discern. (Well, maybe there are a couple of exceptions to that...)

You are correct that to date we have not "seen" sans serif fonts on pre-WWII aircraft. And that may prove to be indicative. Oh, well. That's the way science goes. Hypothesize. Test. Confirm, deny, or modify. But we're still way into the testing phase of 2-2-V-1 and barring any breakthrough, a long way from confirm or deny...

Whichever way the mop flops, 2-2-V-1 is a very interesting artifact indeed and the inquiry even more so.

"Credibility is Everything"
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #894 on: April 13, 2014, 02:00:01 PM »

At the risk of repeating myself (OK, I'm going to) - where 2-V-1-1 did, or did not, come from is not going to hang on a couple of letters in a particular font.

It is going to be the totality of the evidence, from all available data points on the artifact, that will determine whether is did, or did not, come from our favorite Electra. If it did, great. If it did not, great, we all learned a lot about pre-WWII and WWII manufacturing methods. You never know when that may come in handy on Jeopardy on in Trivial Pursuit.

LTM, who finds touching the ghosts for World Flights past pretty intense,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #895 on: April 13, 2014, 04:01:09 PM »

At the risk of repeating myself (OK, I'm going to) - where 2-V-1-1 did, or did not, come from is not going to hang on a couple of letters in a particular font.

Actually, it could.  All it takes is one irrefutable fact to kill a hypothesis.  If it can be shown that it is impossible for there to have been letters like that on aluminum from NR16020 then 2-2-V-1 can not have come from that aircraft regardless of how many other factors appear to fit.
Similarly, if it could be shown that Earhart did not have enough fuel to reach Gardner Island then Earhart did not reach Gardner Island, no matter what we find there.
By there same token, if it can be shown that NR16020 is the only aircraft that was ever in the Central South Pacific that could have been the aircraft-of-origin for 2-2-V-1, then 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020, regardless of how improbable it might seem.
Logged

Dale O. Beethe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #896 on: April 13, 2014, 04:28:45 PM »

The difficult part is "irrefutable".  Far too often something that is "irrefutable" turns out to be all too refutable, as TIGHAR has proven on several occasions!  I still think it's going to be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to prove a particular font was used or not used at any given date.  Totality of evidence is likely to be far more useful.  (Of course, if you find the Electra offshore it will make much of this discussion somewhat moot!)
Logged

Mark Appel

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #897 on: April 13, 2014, 06:45:07 PM »

The difficult part is "irrefutable".  Far too often something that is "irrefutable" turns out to be all too refutable, as TIGHAR has proven on several occasions!  I still think it's going to be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to prove a particular font was used or not used at any given date.  Totality of evidence is likely to be far more useful.  (Of course, if you find the Electra offshore it will make much of this discussion somewhat moot!)

Ric is right. Sometimes all it takes is one immutable fact to prove or disprove a hypothesis... And if we could find the source materials on this issue, i.e. period Alcoa corporate documents..., well, that would be the "E" ticket, and very likely definitively describe what is or is not possible in respect to font appearance and application of the era. Alas it appears not even Alcoa is clear on its own historical policies and procedures germane to the issue. And while participants on the forum have unearthed useful, informative documents, we have yet to see any of the type I described. As I indicated, I have looked for such, but thus far unsuccessfully; I hope those who may have better sources or clues will pursue it as well...
"Credibility is Everything"
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #898 on: April 13, 2014, 09:07:26 PM »


...One outcome of the research done at the NMUSAF is that the location shown in the overlay is not a candidate for 2-2-V-1, not for the reason you describe but because the rivet pitch in that area on the Electra is 1.5" and the rivet pitch on the artifact is 1".  Aris Scarla, FAA Flight Standards District Manager and Greg Hassler, NMUSAF Restorations Supervisor agreed that the rivet pitch would not be altered in a repair. 


So where do you find one inch rivet pitch in .032" skin on an Electra?

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #899 on: April 14, 2014, 07:10:53 AM »

So where do you find one inch rivet pitch in .032" skin on an Electra?

Dunno yet. Stay tuned.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 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