The Question of 2-2-V-1

[JNev]

Wow ... talk about tough! They don't make 'em like that anymore.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

And yet you couldn't certify that airplane in today's world - "unsafe" by modern standards.

If the bent stuff weren't bad enough, consider locked controls and having to fly with the tabs only... one tough airplane and one gutsy crew.  Kind of a shame that one wound up buried out there - ought to be sitting in a museum, bent but proud, as testiment to one of aviation's truly noble moments.

[Mark Pearce]

Here are two more Canton Island accidents/losses that turn up on the web.     

Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express
7 February 1943
"...The C-87 rolled and dived into the water while turning on finals to Canton Island. The flight was being operated by United Airlines under contract to the Army Air Transport Command. It was deemed possible that an asymmetric flap deployment caused the accident."
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19430207-3
-------------------------------

Consolidated B-24M-35-CO Liberator
Apr 23, 1945.
42473 damaged in landing accident at Topham Field, Canton Island,
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1944_4.html

[The same accident is listed here-]
April 23, 1945    B-24M   44-42473   Edward A. Dibler, Jr. Pilot.
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/AARmonthly/Apr1945O.htm

[JNev]

One thing we should probably look for and document while at Dayton (and during any other studies of museum articles) are repairs that may be in evidence.  I realize that restorations often eliminate that possibility, but just in case.  It would be good to note, for instance, details like whether brazier head rivets were applied at some point in lieu of flush, etc. if we're lucky enough to find old field repairs still intact.  Seems it would be good to have a sub-catalogue of repair characteristics.

As an aside -

Another thing I noted regarding repairs in Earhart's time was a dirth of information on sheet metal repair per CAM 18 of 1937 (FAA's RGL site).  What was in there was strong information to use the manufacturer, or the manufacturer's endorsed repair agency for stressed skin repairs.  Apparently the state of the art was still new enough at the time for there to be little general information lying around and for the authorities to have a strong reliance on the original designers for specifics. 

One might think this would mean that repairs would always be highly standardized, but we don't know that.  At that stage it may have still been very much an art form on the shop floor to have to restore a damaged machine, whereby the engineers themselves may have used a fair bit of license to make things work out quickly.  Just sayin'...

[Mark Pearce]

...2-2-V-1 remains an enigmatic and telling artifact - it is complex in its own way.  Yes - there are discrepancies between the rivet patterns and the known Lockheed original design, but not beyond reach considering alterations and repairs that NR16020 easily may have had given her known history.  To turn away from what this part is telling us so far means to find a better match elsewhere, or more compelling information about how repairs were being done on nearby Canton, etc.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/IV/AAF-IV-9.html

"Army Air Forces in World War II- Vol. IV the Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan; August 1942 to July 1944"

"...In planning to base air units on these outlying islands, as much in some instances as 2,000 miles from the Hawaiian Air Depot, the Seventh Air Force faced difficult problems of service and maintenance. In the forward area, anything approaching standard service facilities could be expected only at Canton, where the 422d Sub-Depot and a detachment of the 17th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron were located after July 1943.
Page 294

Mark, I read the article with particular attention to the references to Canton, and other than the rather general statement you cited above didn't find anything that set me on fire about Canton being a heavy maintenance depot.  What I get from all this was that Canton was better off than most other outposts - grant you that.

That's not to demean the excellent research in your finding and sharing these things - just that we have to focus on the meaningful details and not just point to the general condition of a fairly busy but remote island / airfield. 

Jeff,
Meaningful details can be found in unexpected places- see for example this huge web page devoted to the history of the 465th Sub Depot.  It gives a great picture of what went on at these repair stations- interesting excerpt pasted below.  Chances are the 422d Sub Depot on Canton Island found it impossible at times to find 'correct' rivets for their repair jobs too.  :)

http://www.b24.net/support/465thSubDepot.htm

"The Sheet Metal shop under M/Sgt Donald Leahy is one of the busiest shops in our Sub Depot.  No matter what time or day it is, whenever you go inside you can see men working and usually there is a lot of noise.  Most of the work in this department is patching up battle-damaged ships, flak holes causing most of the headaches.  Sometimes a ship will make a tail skid landing and this usually tears up one to three bulkheads.  In the last six months, this department has repaired twelve such ships.  Four ships which landed on the nose were repaired.  Near the end of May 1944, a B-24, No 41-28862, landed lop-sidedly and consequently all the weight was put on the right landing gear.  This ripped out the auxiliary spar and required replacing the whole spar assembly.    The boys of the Sheet Metal Shop got to work and removed the broken spar and procured another spar from a salvaged wing.  The removing of the spar entailed removing sixty rivets that were heat-treated in the factory and were impossible to get at this station. Consequently, the holes had to be reamed out most carefully to avoid having off-size holes for over-sized bolts.  The bearing surface of the bolts had to be the same the whole way round or else the wear on the bolts in landing would soon cause the landing gear to collapse again.  However, the boys took great pain to see that the complete assembly lined up and was as secure as the original one.  It took the men four weeks to complete this ticklish job.  To date the plane has flown three missions, once landing with a full load of bombs and the landing gear is still as good as new."

[Hal Beck]

We have the following from Paul Squires of the Ventura Memorial Flight Association .  Apparently a Mr. Beck wrote to him asking about the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a PV-1 Ventura.  The Lockheed Model 18 (Navy PV-1, Army C-60, civilian "Lodestar") was one of several later derivatives of the Model 10 and we have a known PV-1 loss on Canton.  I've look at the C-60 in the NMUSAF collection in Dayton. My recollection is that there are some small non-flush rivets in the fuselage under the horizontal stabilizer but I think they're bigger than #3.  We'll look at the airplane again later this month.

I finally gather enough material for a post and he steals my thunder. Sigh :'(

[Ric Gillespie]

We have the following from Paul Squires of the Ventura Memorial Flight Association .  Apparently a Mr. Beck wrote to him asking about the possibility of 2-2-V-1 being from a PV-1 Ventura.  The Lockheed Model 18 (Navy PV-1, Army C-60, civilian "Lodestar") was one of several later derivatives of the Model 10 and we have a known PV-1 loss on Canton.  I've look at the C-60 in the NMUSAF collection in Dayton. My recollection is that there are some small non-flush rivets in the fuselage under the horizontal stabilizer but I think they're bigger than #3.  We'll look at the airplane again later this month.

I finally gather enough material for a post and he steals my thunder. Sigh :'(

Know all men by these presents.  All credit for my posting on the PV-1 goes to Hal Beck.

[Jerry Germann]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/files/2012/07/Earharts-Lockheed-Electra-Repair-5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/2012/07/02/amelia-earharts-disappearance-75-years/2089/&h=1065&w=1400&tbnid=3D5lxQKXPDiGVM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=118&zoom=1&usg=__r_UT4DPDWWaqEY7YrQVxCE5zO-0=&docid=d9r2wDuSttMNWM&sa=X&ei=Hg0ZU-6MLoj4yQGDiYDICw&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAg

Probably been covered before, however ....Where would the panel that is leaning on the stand supporting the starboard wing fit? Would it provide any more insight on the repair procedure?

[richie conroy]

Hi All

Here is a link i found of interest  http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200074.html only the passenger cabin was covered in 24st 0.32 skin

I also found a site relating to sometime between 1934 and 1937 the aluminum used in Lockheed Electra landing gear and tail wheel design were beefed up to prevent similar collapse on impact situations.

Will attach link soon as i find it.

Thanks Richie

[Steve Lee]

If I had to chose a plane on Tighar's list of Canton airplane wrecks as the source of 2-2-V-I, I think the one I'd put my money on is the PBY-2 that went down on 16 March 1940. I say this based on Ric's comment that 2-2-V-I appears to have spent time in a surf environment. The PBY-2 is listed as 'hit reef on takeoff' , so this seems the likeliest of the Canton plane crashes to have left parts on the reef, where the edges were smoothed off by mother nature until, a la the beachcomber hypothesis a Gardner Island worker collected it and brought it home with him — the lack of sharp edges would have made it easier to schlep home on the Viti (or whatever colonial ship was in use then) than a piece of sharp-edged wreckage from a purely terrestrial crash site.

Why not the example of 27 March 1943 - USN  PBY-5A of VP-54 - Destroyed in Japanese bombing attack on Canton -

2-2-V-1 also bears evidence of severe trauma in terms of forced removal from the mother structure and signs of heat damage (loss of ductility) in some areas.  It does not bear the tell-tale pock-marks of explosive damage per one expert who looked at it (upstring - the gent who worked TWA 800 before being retired from NTSB), but perhaps another modus of explosive force, e.g. gasoline creating a rupturing scenario, etc. could have done it (whew - run on...).

Oddly enough, BTW, given the heat damage and suggestion of explosive force, I've found myself wondering a bit lightly whether Hooven might have been right...  8)

That said, the main problem I have with the PBY is that we've already looked at the manual for it and the fastener size and type is wrong, unless somebody put a really light, down-scale patch on something for some reason I cannot imagine: the entire structure uses heavier fasteners than what we see in 2-2-V-1.

But that's not to disclaim it away - if we get to examine one I'd happily clambor all over it to see what can be learned (a bit tongue in cheek... no worries Ric, I realize the museum will have some limits on how much touch is allowed and I won't embarrass the family...  ;D).

Jeff,

I was just trying to connect Ric's observation about 2-2-V-I appearing to have been in a shoreline environment with the list of Canton wrecks, and on that sole basis, the PBY-2 looked like the best fit. By the way, at this site is a brief mention of a PBY wreck on the beach:

"Thomas S. Equels adds:
While working for contractor H&N on Canton Island in 1971, we saw the hull of the troopship and nearby on the beach was the fuselage of a PBY with a radial engine close by";

So this wreck was on the seaward, high energy surf environment shore, but which of the wrecked PBYs was it?...I definitely think every Canton plane type should be considered a possible donor and carefully researched. And, if clambering over a PBY to research is fun research, all the better...

But, thinking about how narrow the rim of Canton is, I suppose it might not have just been seaplanes that ended up in Canton's nearshore environment. Looking the airphoto of the island at this site you  can see how close the runways were to the water (I know I've seen better photos of this, but this is what I came up with).

[Ric Gillespie]

Here is a link i found of interest  http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200074.html

Fascinating article.  It shows the Model 10 with a single tail and the backward-slanting windshield that was in fashion in the early '30s.

only the passenger cabin was covered in 24st 0.32 skin

Skinning diagram below.

[Ric Gillespie]

Where would the panel that is leaning on the stand supporting the starboard wing fit?

Probably part of the wheel well.

Would it provide any more insight on the repair procedure?

Not that I can think of.  The entire right wing was replaced.

[Mark Pearce]

One thing we should probably look for and document while at Dayton (and during any other studies of museum articles) are repairs that may be in evidence.  I realize that restorations often eliminate that possibility, but just in case.  It would be good to note, for instance, details like whether brazier head rivets were applied at some point in lieu of flush, etc. if we're lucky enough to find old field repairs still intact.  Seems it would be good to have a sub-catalogue of repair characteristics.

...One might think this would mean that repairs would always be highly standardized, but we don't know that.  At that stage it may have still been very much an art form on the shop floor to have to restore a damaged machine, whereby the engineers themselves may have used a fair bit of license to make things work out quickly.  Just sayin'...

Jeff, here's a photo of a Russian P-39 with a rear fuselage reinforcement doubler.  Brazier head rivets have been applied in lieu of flush it seems. 

http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1515.0

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/

During testing and combat reports, the one thing the Soviets were discovering was that the P39 suffered a structural weakness of the rear fuselage. After thorough testing, the Soviet LII (Flight Research Institute) and TsAGI (Central Aero and Hydrodynamic Institute) recommended a number of improvements to be undertaken at repair workshops from mid 1944."

"These were recorded as: -
Defect and modification. - Twisting of rear fuselage and skin deformation.
All Q models up to and including the Q21 to have the following.
a. Two additional skins around radio compartment hatches."

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

"By the early 1960s Nikumaroro, Orona, and Manra were all abandoned"

Which begs the question how did 2-2-V-1 end up on uninhabited Nikumaroro about thirty years later. Even of it was salvaged from an as yet unidentified airplane it remains a mystery as to how it arrived on Nikumaroro. Has it been there since WW2 and the PISS settlement days and lay undiscovered? Was it brought there when the island was subsequently uninhabited? Or was it washed up during a storm from the remains of something close by?
Getting a positive ID may prove impossible but, how it got there may be the biggest clue.

[Tim Collins]

Jeff,
Meaningful details can be found in unexpected places- see for example this huge web page devoted to the history of the 465th Sub Depot.  It gives a great picture of what went on at these repair stations- interesting excerpt pasted below.  Chances are the 422d Sub Depot on Canton Island found it impossible at times to find 'correct' rivets for their repair jobs too.  :)

http://www.b24.net/support/465thSubDepot.htm

"The Sheet Metal shop under M/Sgt Donald Leahy is one of the busiest shops in our Sub Depot.  No matter what time or day it is, whenever you go inside you can see men working and usually there is a lot of noise.  Most of the work in this department is patching up battle-damaged ships, flak holes causing most of the headaches.  Sometimes a ship will make a tail skid landing and this usually tears up one to three bulkheads.  In the last six months, this department has repaired twelve such ships.  Four ships which landed on the nose were repaired.  Near the end of May 1944, a B-24, No 41-28862, landed lop-sidedly and consequently all the weight was put on the right landing gear.  This ripped out the auxiliary spar and required replacing the whole spar assembly.    The boys of the Sheet Metal Shop got to work and removed the broken spar and procured another spar from a salvaged wing.  The removing of the spar entailed removing sixty rivets that were heat-treated in the factory and were impossible to get at this station. Consequently, the holes had to be reamed out most carefully to avoid having off-size holes for over-sized bolts.  The bearing surface of the bolts had to be the same the whole way round or else the wear on the bolts in landing would soon cause the landing gear to collapse again.  However, the boys took great pain to see that the complete assembly lined up and was as secure as the original one.  It took the men four weeks to complete this ticklish job.  To date the plane has flown three missions, once landing with a full load of bombs and the landing gear is still as good as new."

Are there supply records for such shops? Surely they weren't expected to work ENTIRELY from cannibalized materials.

[Matt Revington]

It appears that its going to very difficult to rule out the possibility that this piece was salvaged from Canton or elsewhere based on the rivets etc.

There is ( at least) one other thing that needs to be looked at carefully when comparing skins/patches on museum aircraft and that is the type of ALCLAD stamp on the pieces. One of the things that supported the idea that this piece was from the Electra was the pre-war type of aluminum stamp found on it. 

Its not impossible that prewar stocks of aluminum were used for assembly/repairs during the early part of the war but it seems more likely (to me)  that this piece came from a prewar plane.  One way to test this is to get a look at what kinds of stamps are on the planes that you are going to see in the museum, I know these are hard to see and may be buffed off in many cases, but they are worth checking for, (it may that they show up better using different camera filters (or digital photographic processing) or under UV light). If we can find that type of stamp used on the exterior of any wartime aircraft then this value of this piece as evidence of the Electra would be substantially less but if not then it I think it points very strongly to the NIku hypothesis being correct