Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1022899 times)

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #240 on: February 21, 2014, 08:26:49 AM »

Sorry I'm back late, I was out with a sick 8 year old and didn't have a computer, and I know you were anxiously awaiting my reply.

If all anyone could say about a bent piece of metal is that something at some point acted, possibly/probably forcefully, upon it to deform it from its assumed original shape there would be no science of aircraft accident investigation.  Metallurgical analysis metal debris a specialized skill.
...
This is the "it could be anything" argument.
 

Ultimately it is the argument. You weren't there to see what happened, I wasn't there, Korsgaard wasn't there, and that piece of metal can't talk to tell us exactly what happened and how. To say "the failure was almost certainly caused by..." sure tries hard to give a definitive certainty to the scenario that's being put forth. Quite a leap beyond, seems to me, an informed opinion as to what could have happened. That's why I asked the question earlier if anything better that "consistent with" could be hoped for. And you gave a compelling answer.
 
We wanted to know if anyone could tell us how the sheet of aluminum got bowed out.  Did somebody hammer on it?  Was there an explosion? So we took the artifact to the best expert we could find.  Walter Korsgaard was the lead FAA investigator on the 1988 PanAM 103 Lockerbie crash.  In 2004 he was recently retired so he was able to give us his opinion without bureaucratic concerns.  We showed him the artifact in his suburban Washington, DC home.  After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push.  We asked if it could have been caused by an explosion.  After looking at it with a magnifying glass he said, "No. There is none of the telltale pitting from pinpoint pyrotechnic projectiles."   We asked him what kind of accident might cause such damage.  He said, "In flight breakup of an aircraft at very high speed, but these materials are not consistent with an aircraft capable of those speeds, or an airplane that was broken apart by moving water."

So how does this reconcile with the 1995 TIGHAR TRACKS (11/4) article which states:

"And the research continues. Recently retired FAA explosives expert Walter Korsgaard, whose successful investigations include the Pan Am 103 bombing, has determined that the type of damage sustained by the section of aircraft skin recovered on Nikumaroro in 1991 (TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1) is not consistent with the detonation of an explosive device (i.e. World War II ordnance) but was more likely caused by a fuel/air explosion (as we have suspected)."

Your argument isn't with me, it's with Walter Korsgaard.  Unfortunately he died in 2011.  He was not a TIGHAR member and he was not particularly interested in Amelia Earhart. He didn't write a scholarly paper on 2-2-V-1. He was just a retired gentlemen who had been a top-notch aviation accident investigator who was kind enough welcome us into his home and give us his opinion.  I don't think he was grasping at straws or projecting any fantasies.

My interest is not to have an argument with anyone. I just think that if this whole endeavor is going to be conducted above board, clinically, and according the rigors of the scientific method, then one shouldn’t pick and choose where and how it is applied.  Words mean things and how they’re used mean even more. Say only what you mean and mean only what you say.  I have no cause to doubt your characterization of Korsgaard and based on that I trust and applaud your reasoning to approach him on this matter. Would that his opinion (as professionally informed as it was) on the piece had been written up, even more so that his assessment of it had been done in less informal conditions than his home with a magnifying glass.

Sorry for the digression, as moot as it really is to the more important issue at hand -  that of identifying the item’s source and, hopefully, incontrovertibly associating it with AE.     
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #241 on: February 21, 2014, 08:48:14 AM »

Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #242 on: February 21, 2014, 09:10:24 AM »

We wanted to know if anyone could tell us how the sheet of aluminum got bowed out.  Did somebody hammer on it?  Was there an explosion? So we took the artifact to the best expert we could find.  Walter Korsgaard was the lead FAA investigator on the 1988 PanAM 103 Lockerbie crash.  In 2004 he was recently retired so he was able to give us his opinion without bureaucratic concerns.  We showed him the artifact in his suburban Washington, DC home.  After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push.  We asked if it could have been caused by an explosion.  After looking at it with a magnifying glass he said, "No. There is none of the telltale pitting from pinpoint pyrotechnic projectiles."   We asked him what kind of accident might cause such damage.  He said, "In flight breakup of an aircraft at very high speed, but these materials are not consistent with an aircraft capable of those speeds, or an airplane that was broken apart by moving water."

So how does this reconcile with the 1995 TIGHAR TRACKS (11/4) article which states:

"And the research continues. Recently retired FAA explosives expert Walter Korsgaard, whose successful investigations include the Pan Am 103 bombing, has determined that the type of damage sustained by the section of aircraft skin recovered on Nikumaroro in 1991 (TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1) is not consistent with the detonation of an explosive device (i.e. World War II ordnance) but was more likely caused by a fuel/air explosion (as we have suspected)."

It doesn't.  1995 was 19 years ago.  Our methodology then was not as good as it is now and, like you, I regret that we didn't approach Korsgaard in a more scholarly manner.  I had forgotten that I wrote about what Korsgaard told us in TIGHAR Tracks and at this point I have no recollection of ever thinking that the damage was caused by a fuel/air explosion (although we obviously did). It's apparent that, over the years, as evidence of what happened on the reef has grown clearer and clearer, my recollection of what Korsgaard told us has evolved.  The "push" of a fuel/air explosion is essentially the same as the "push" of a volume of water and my mind changed the memory to fit our current thinking.  In that respect my anecdotal recollections are no more reliable than those of any other Earhart "eye witness." 
The saving grace is that, while my memories may have evolved, the artifact has not.
Logged

Jeff Lange

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #243 on: February 21, 2014, 09:55:57 AM »

Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.
Finally you are coming back to my neck of the woods! (Haven't had you come around here since we did the intro to aviation archeology class at The Henry Ford Museum WAY too many years ago!) Count me in as one who would like to attend. Never been to Wright Patterson museum and this would be a great opportunity!
Jeff Lange

# 0748CR
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #244 on: February 21, 2014, 10:02:07 AM »

Never been to Wright Patterson museum and this would be a great opportunity!

Oh Lordy.  You're in for a treat.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #245 on: February 21, 2014, 10:17:54 AM »

Ric,

At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-

http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

"Aircraft Riveting; A Guide for the Student"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024027644;view=1up;seq=1
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #246 on: February 21, 2014, 11:06:50 AM »

Has a mold been taken of 2-2-V-1?  It would allow a copy to be made to play with, without endangering the original.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Mark Appel

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #247 on: February 21, 2014, 11:33:21 AM »

Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio? 

Good gravy. VERY, SERIOUSLY, INTERESTED. With all the usual caveats, timing, permission from superior ranking family members etc. But yes. What a treat.
"Credibility is Everything"
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #248 on: February 21, 2014, 12:14:42 PM »

Has a mold been taken of 2-2-V-1?  It would allow a copy to be made to play with, without endangering the original.

I wouldn't worry about damaging the original.  It's not the least bit fragile.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #249 on: February 21, 2014, 01:15:45 PM »

Speaking of travel:

How many of you Rivet Heads - KoolAid drinkers and skeptics alike - would be interested in getting together to look at 2-2-V-1 in the flesh and comparing it to aircraft in the National Museum of the United States Air Force collection at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio?  They don't have a Lockheed 10 but they have examples of most of the alternative possible aircraft - and that's what we need to focus on.

I may be able to get some special cooperation from the museum and special rates from a local hotel if we have a decent sized group.  We'd want to pick a date later this spring when the weather is a bit more reliable.  It would be a chance to do hands-on verification of some very important issues and it's always great to get people together in person.

Let's have an initial indication of who would be interested in attending, then we'll see if we can agree on a date.

I'd love an excuse to go back to the Air Force museum - count me in.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #250 on: February 21, 2014, 01:25:43 PM »

I'd love an excuse to go back to the Air Force museum - count me in.

Jeff Lange
Mark Appel
Jeff Neville

I can already see that this is going to be a great group.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #251 on: February 21, 2014, 01:50:17 PM »

Ric,

At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-

http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

"Aircraft Riveting; A Guide for the Student"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024027644;view=1up;seq=1

The remaining rivet in the artifact could be measured for head diameter to be sure, but I think it is apparent that it is a brazier and not a modified brazier (#3).

I did scale and check the museum bird rivets (pictured upstring) again for grins, and a bit surprisingly, the rivets in that bird may actually be 'universal' AN470 replacements for the original #3 braziers because they appear to measure at about .180" across the head.  .180" is too large for a 'modified brazier' in #3 size, and too small for a 'brazier' of #3 sizing - these look like mama bear's porridge - just right for AN470s.  I say 'appear' because it is a bit hard to be precise with that photo due to shadowing.  But what I can discern there is consistent with a #3 universal AN470 head according to the data you found and linked.  And good find, by the way. 

If you are thinking "why AN470 universals" - keep in mind that replacements with AN470s really isn't a shock - AN470s would have been the normal replacement in the decades following the war if a belly skin had been replaced for some reason, and if the original holes were good there is no reason to oversize them.  Belly skin replacments are not uncommon.  Of course using #3s flies in the face of what I was taught, but given that the originals were #3... plus I've been 'corrected' where pre-war structures are concerned: use of the #3 rivet was prolific on pre-war lighter-structured airplanes like the Electra.

Now to the actual artifact 2-2-V-1 -

Even a good visual of shank vs. head tells us something: a brazier head is distincly more than 2x the shank in diameter, while the 'modified brazier' head is less than 2x the shank - very apparent.  Look at the actual artifact rivet in the photo - the head is rather flat, but still has the dimple of an "AD" rivet in evidence so it was not severely worn flat but is close to its original shape and dimension: a 'brazier' does have a relatively flat head (bigger radius) compared to the more sharply radiused 'modified brazier'.  More telling is the head diameter in the artifact rivet compared to the shank diameter: head diameter is clearly in excess of 2x the shank diameter.

The artifact rivet is clearly a 'brazier' #3, not a 'modified brazier'.

- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #252 on: February 21, 2014, 01:55:36 PM »

The artifact rivet is clearly a 'brazier' #3, not a 'modified brazier'.

And let's be careful with the spelling.  It's "brazier," never "brassiere."
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #253 on: February 21, 2014, 01:56:27 PM »

I'd love an excuse to go back to the Air Force museum - count me in.

Jeff Lange
Mark Appel
Jeff Neville

I can already see that this is going to be a great group.

I hope the museum will cooperate - what a great chance to see some rare birds in a special way.

It is also a great idea - no other place, short of the NASM, would offer such a chance to find examples of the flying iron that found its way to the area and look for alternate parent craft to the Electra.

And as a bonus, if we find a match to 2-2-V-1 on one of the other types there, I'll sit down and eat my wool hat (still safe despite recent other attempts to have me eat it), live - in front of the TIGHAR crew - kool-aid drinkers and skeptics alike...

NOW who's in???  That ought to draw one or two more...  ;D
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #254 on: February 21, 2014, 02:00:56 PM »

The artifact rivet is clearly a 'brazier' #3, not a 'modified brazier'.

And let's be careful with the spelling.  It's "brazier," never "brassiere."

True -

"Brassiere" should only be used with regard to the ubiquitous 'round head' rivet and comes in 'letter sizes'...  8)

Round head rivets always were a more interesting study than the flatter brazier variety...
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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