Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023692 times)

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #285 on: February 23, 2014, 09:49:36 PM »

Ric,
A whole bunch of rivet questions:

It was reported that a Mr. Bill Prymak of Broomfield, CO held the repair records for AE plane – had you contacted him?

Finch is reported to have received “detailed” drawings from Lockheed via microfilm concerning the rebuild of her aircraft.  Have we looked at these drawings?

How do the rivets on the “Dados” compare to that of 2-2-V-1?  Do they suggest that this was a common rivet size used by Lockheed in the construction of AE’s plane?  Dados were reported as being .032 thickness same as 2-2-V-1!

There is a “Google” thread out there “Walt Disney 1942 Riveting” that seems to indicate how to rivet WWII aircraft, and I am wondering if you have looked at it in light of trying to eliminate WWII sources for 2-2-V-1?

I have also found references to proper rivet selections:  i.e. rivet length = sum of material thickness (.032 + .042) + 1.5 the diameter.  Also, max dia. of rivet = max thickness of sheet to be riveted e.g. .032 and .042 you use a .042 diameter rivet.  How does this formula work with 2-2-V-1 plus the stringer section (the rivet length) found on your training trip?

Ted Campbell
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #286 on: February 24, 2014, 05:11:55 AM »

I was just thinking of a way to accurately measure the rivet head indentation. Make a cast of one or more of the rivet holes. I use a material simular to this when casting parts for my models http://www.micromark.com/cr-900-high-strength-casting-resin-26-fl-oz,8154.html This stuff is liquid enough to find it's own level in the hole, and when cured (in minutes) yealds a nice hard absolute duplicate. All you would have to do is put a piece of tape over the back-side of whatever hole you are casting to keep the liquid from running out the bottom.
Brad

#4327R
 
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 #287 on: February 24, 2014, 08:32:58 AM »

It was reported that a Mr. Bill Prymak of Broomfield, CO held the repair records for AE plane – had you contacted him?

I've known Bill Prymak since 1989 when I turned down his application to be on our first Earhart expedition team. If he has repair records for NR16020 they're the same ones we have.  They're part of a standard Earhart file that anyone can get from the FAA. 

Finch is reported to have received “detailed” drawings from Lockheed via microfilm concerning the rebuild of her aircraft.  Have we looked at these drawings?

Finch had a set of the microfilmed engineering drawings.  We have those drawings in a digitized, cleaned-up, searchable database - far better than reels and reels of hard-to-read microfilm.

How do the rivets on the “Dados” compare to that of 2-2-V-1?  Do they suggest that this was a common rivet size used by Lockheed in the construction of AE’s plane?  Dados were reported as being .032 thickness same as 2-2-V-1!

Attached is the section of the NTSB Lab report relating to Artifact 2-1-18, known at that time as the "Dado" but now thought to be a heat shield.  Another extremely complex artifact and far more fragile than 2-2-V-1. This was an internal, non-load bearing structure.  The rivets, now badly corroded, were 3/32nd Round Heads.

There is a “Google” thread out there “Walt Disney 1942 Riveting” that seems to indicate how to rivet WWII aircraft, and I am wondering if you have looked at it in light of trying to eliminate WWII sources for 2-2-V-1?

Thanks.  I had never seen that.  It's a great example of how the country responded to wartime demands. 


I have also found references to proper rivet selections:  i.e. rivet length = sum of material thickness (.032 + .042) + 1.5 the diameter.  Also, max dia. of rivet = max thickness of sheet to be riveted e.g. .032 and .042 you use a .042 diameter rivet.  How does this formula work with 2-2-V-1 plus the stringer section (the rivet length) found on your training trip?

The skin is .032" and the tail on the existing rivet indicates that it was riveted to a structure .06" thick (which also happens to be the thickness of the stringer from the Idaho Electra), so the total thickness would be .092.  3/32nds is .0935" so it looks like #3 rivets would be okay.  Any idea when this guideline dates from?

This seems to be a different guideline than the line quoted by John Ousterhout:

"A rivet should have a diameter of at least three times the thickness of the thickest sheet being joined." (Aircraft Rivets and Special Fasteners) appears to be much newer than 1937, but if the rule was being applied when any particular aircraft seen in a museum was made, then the "thickest sheet" joined using 1/8th inch (dash-4) rivets would be no more than 0.042 inch, and a -3 would be used for skins no thicker than 0.031 inch."

In which case, a #3 rivet in a .032" skin would NOT be okay.  Is this the change in guidelines we're looking for?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #288 on: February 24, 2014, 10:30:48 AM »

Regarding the Oct 1996 Tighar Tracks that noted “The peaked wave shapes in the ”tab” protruding from the edge where the sheet tore along the line of 5/32 rivet holes indicates the presence of another row of similarly sized and spaced rivets approximately 2 inches away”
The keel looks to be about 1 ½” wide consisting of two ¾” wide channels.(estimated from picture with tape measure)
It appears if the first row is centered on one of the keel channels and the other row of rivets was 2” away it would miss the keel and the next stringer.
How do we know for sure if the rivets in the next row were 5/32”(“similarly sized) and if they existed? Could a repair method be to put the 2nd row thru just the skin and not thru the keel?
3971R
 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 10:33:31 AM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #289 on: February 24, 2014, 11:05:51 AM »

Attached is a hypothetical repair detail
3971R
 
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 #290 on: February 24, 2014, 11:24:53 AM »

This may help.  The attached is a screen shot of a detail from Lockheed engineering drawing 40500 "Fuselage Structure Assembly." It specifies the riveting to the keel in the subject area.  This is what we see in New England Air Museum airplane.
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 #291 on: February 24, 2014, 11:38:50 AM »

From the Lockheed drawing, it looked like the two rows of #3 rivets at the keel are 6/8ths of an inch apart.  The implied distance between the two rows of #5 rivets on the artifact is more like 1.5" - which tends to support your hypothesis. In your drawing, the #5 rivets are used in places where the rivet must pass through three surfaces, hence the need for a bigger rivet.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #292 on: February 24, 2014, 11:46:20 AM »

From the Lockheed drawing, it looked like the two rows of #3 rivets at the keel are 6/8ths of an inch apart.  The implied distance between the two rows of #5 rivets on the artifact is more like 1.5" - which tends to support your hypothesis. In your drawing, the #5 rivets are used in places where the rivet must pass through three surfaces, hence the need for a bigger rivet.
That makes sense to me.
3971R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #293 on: February 24, 2014, 02:33:51 PM »

If the 2nd  5/32” rivet row is closer to 1-1/2” instead of 2” it suggest a stiffener was added right next to the keel.

 Possibly at Luke Field, the bottom leg(flange) of the keel was bent or buckled on the port side and they added a stiffener. Also the starboard side could be buckled a bit there too. That could explain the extra rivet spacing at the tab. They may have had to adjust the spacing of a rivet at that area because the keel was damaged.
See sketch.
Note the direction of the tearing suggests an impact point where there is a gash.
It seems like some reef projection could have dragged the skin, and when it got to the point on the keel that was bent in the Luke Field accident, it tore thru and impacted the stiffener that was added. The stiffener being pulled away then tears the skin in the pattern we see in 2-2-V-1

Edit:also look at two stringers to the right. There is another possible impact point in line with the one at the keel. Almost like that stringer skipped on the projection
3971R
 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 03:59:27 PM by Greg Daspit »
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 #294 on: February 24, 2014, 04:27:03 PM »

If the 2nd  5/32” rivet row is closer to 1-1/2” instead of 2” it suggest a stiffener was added right next to the keel.

It all works.  Note that the hole is always to the left of the "peak" in the tear pattern.  The second row really does appear to have been 1 1/2" from the first row - not 2".

Would the addition of a stiffener have required an approved engineering drawing or just an E.O.?
Logged

Jay Burkett

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #295 on: February 25, 2014, 10:53:20 AM »

At that time probably just an E.O.
Jay Burkett, N4RBY
Aerospace Engineer
Fairhope AL
 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #296 on: February 25, 2014, 02:04:20 PM »

I am not aware of any museum B-24s in the U.S. with this pattern that could be inspected, but I admit I have not found good pictures of this area on all of them, since it is usually obscured by the shadow of the wing.

There's a B-24M at the Castle Air Force Base Museum in Atwater, CA./

Multiple rows of rivets roughly 3 to 4 inches apart with no crossing line for at least 24 inches are not that hard to find on WWII aircraft.   There's an area on the underside of a C-47 wing that fit that description. What is harder to find is a .032 skin with #3 brazier rivets in lines that taper.

http://miravim.org/avimlibrary/Manuals/Airframe%20Manuals/Douglas%20Aircraft/Douglas%20C-47%20C-47A%20C-47B%20C-47D%20AC-47%20C-117%20A%20C-117B%20R4D-1%20R4D-5%20R4D-6%20Handbook%20Structural%20Repair%20Instructions%20T.O.%201C-47-3%20Revised%2015%20November%201954.pdf

Here is a link regarding the skins/rivets on the Douglas C-47A ...the plane that crashed on Sydney....looks like a lot of 0.032 skin on the fuselage/wings/ nacelles.... however ; not sure if any rivets/ rivet pattern would match 2-2-V-1.  ....An alcoa ink stamp matching the stamp on 2-2-V-1 was found on a repair panel of a C-47A ... Tighar research has noted that some aluminum ( including the comb artifact) may have been brought over to Gardner from this C-47A.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 02:28:15 PM by Jerry Germann »
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 #297 on: February 25, 2014, 05:04:12 PM »

Here is a link regarding the skins/rivets on the Douglas C-47A

A wealth of information there.  Thanks.

...the plane that crashed on Sydney....looks like a lot of 0.032 skin on the fuselage/wings/ nacelles.... however ; not sure if any rivets/ rivet pattern would match 2-2-V-1.

I am. The C-47 was one of the first types we checked way back when we were first researching 2-2-V-1.  There's an area of parallel rows of rivets on the underside of the outboard wing but the rivets are bigger - at least #4s. We'll double check that when we go to Dayton.

  ....An alcoa ink stamp matching the stamp on 2-2-V-1 was found on a repair panel of a C-47A ...

Yeah, I found it.  The airplane is in the Dover AFB Museum collection. D-Day veteran. Cool airplane. I have a soft spot for Goonies. the labeling was on a patch in the skin beside the pilot-side rudder pedals. We have a photo somewhere.

Tighar research has noted that some aluminum ( including the comb artifact) may have been brought over to Gardner from this C-47A.

It's a possibility but none of the aircraft aluminum we've found on Nikumaroro is identifiable as having come from a C-47.  The few parts that are identifiable from stamped-in part numbers are from a B-24.
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 #298 on: February 25, 2014, 05:21:16 PM »

Let's see if we can set a date for the Dayton trip.  I've checked with Aris Scarla (Manager, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Grand Rapids, MI) and he's free the last week of March.  Karen Hoy also suggested that time frame.  Sounds like stars aligning.
Any time from Saturday the 22nd to Saturday the 29 would work. Is a week day or weekend better for you guys?  We'd probably figure on arriving the day before, having dinner together at a local hotel, and hitting the museum first thing in the morning.  Thoughts?
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #299 on: February 25, 2014, 05:24:51 PM »

Let's see if we can set a date for the Dayton trip.  I've checked with Aris Scarla (Manager, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Grand Rapids, MI) and he's free the last week of March.  Karen Hoy also suggested that time frame.  Sounds like stars aligning.
Any time from Saturday the 22nd to Saturday the 29 would work. Is a week day or weekend better for you guys?  We'd probably figure on arriving the day before, having dinner together at a local hotel, and hitting the museum first thing in the morning.  Thoughts?

Time frame sounds workable; weekend preferred.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 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