Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1022767 times)

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 #450 on: March 07, 2014, 06:50:52 AM »

"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.

It couldn't get there by itself so, unless the occasional post-evacuation visitors were distributing scrap metal, it must be presumed that the artifact was brought to the island during the period of habitation (late 1938 to 1963) - unless it was already there someplace when the first workers arrived in December 1938.

Getting a positive ID may prove impossible but, how it got there may be the biggest clue.

The artifact is loaded with information about its travels since leaving whatever airplane it was once part of.  It spent considerable underwater in relatively shallow water.  It spent sufficient time being scrubbed around against sand or coral for its edges to be worn smooth.  For that to happen, the piece had to by lying exterior (convex) side up.  At some point, a heavy irregularly-shaped object (probably a big hunk of coral) impacted the interior (concave) surface and left a big dent.  For that to happen, the piece had to be lying exterior (convex) side down.  At some point, somebody crudely pried off remnants of remaining sections of stringer.  At some time, a large portion of the sheet was exposed to enough heat to alter the ductility of the metal. That sure as heck didn't happen when the piece was underwater.   All of these things happened, but in what order?

One thing is certain.  The artifact's history is far more complex than simply being salvaged from some airplane and brought to Nikumaroro.
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 #451 on: March 07, 2014, 07:01:57 AM »

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.

If none of the aircraft types that were at Canton or anywhere in the region have #3 brazier rivets in a .032 skin in a pattern even close to what we see on the artifact, then those aircraft can be ruled out and what we're left with is the one aircraft that we know fits those criteria. QED

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.

I think you'll find that virtually all manufacturers put the labeled side of the aluminum on the interior.  The one exception we've seen is the pre-war construction of Lockheed Model 10s. Museums are not likely to let us tear their aircraft open to see what the labeling looks like, but we have plenty of photos of aircraft under rebuild that show the labeling. 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #452 on: March 07, 2014, 08:54:21 AM »

Some B-24's had large skin panels with seven vertical rivet rows on the starboard side above the rear bomb bay doors.  A clear example is on this page http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/liberator_A72-176_walkaround.html in the image http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/Liberator_A72-176_051_med.jpg.

The panel size is approx. 2 1/2 feet x 3 feet which would place the rivet rows approx. 3 1/2" - 4" apart.  There are no crossing patterns of rivets. 

This particular example is a B-24M, and a B-24M was damaged landing at Topham Field on Canton Island in 1945.  Some sources show a similar rivet pattern on B-24Js, but I have not been able to confirm or deny.  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/)

I do not have B-24 repair/structural manuals or blueprints to identify skin thickness or rivet size, but I do have factory photographs showing at least some B-24s/C-87s used .032" skin on the fuselage sides.

This rivet pattern does not appear on all B-24s.

These photos show the same rivet pattern on original B-24s (not restorations), so the pattern is not just a mistake in restoration  (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863286/in/photostream/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/34076827@N00/5717863344/in/photostream/).

Jeff, here is a plating diagram for a B-24- no telling what model it is.  It turned up here-
http://forum.armyairforces.com/Olive-Drab-Painting-quotOddityquot-m237620-p2.aspx

There are about ten areas shown to be .032".  It would be interesting to see what "by the book" repairs to a B-24 called for.  It's unlikely they were all done that way on Canton Island however. 

If we agree 2-2-V-1 shows evidence of being a 'repair' piece, I believe it's too early to rule out a repaired Canton Island B-24 as the 'donor'.     


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 #453 on: March 07, 2014, 10:53:57 AM »

Jeff, here is a plating diagram for a B-24- no telling what model it is.  It turned up here-
http://forum.armyairforces.com/Olive-Drab-Painting-quotOddityquot-m237620-p2.aspx

There are about ten areas shown to be .032".  It would be interesting to see what "by the book" repairs to a B-24 called for.  It's unlikely they were all done that way on Canton Island however. 

If we agree 2-2-V-1 shows evidence of being a 'repair' piece, I believe it's too early to rule out a repaired Canton Island B-24 as the 'donor'.     

Thanks Mark.  I've colored-in the .032 skins to make them easier to see. This plating diagram confirms our general impression that wartime bombers were heavily built.  It should be easy enough to check the style, size and pattern of rivets in the few places where .032 skins were used.

To my knowledge, the B-24M damaged on 24 April 1945 is the only Liberator known to have been repaired at Canton.  The airplane landed with the nose gear retracted.  It's hard to see how that would effect any .032 skin, let alone result in damage anything like what we see on 2-2-V-1.

The B-24J that lost power after takeoff and crashed on the reef 19 July 1944 would seem to be a much better candidate IF any of the .032 skins had #3 braziers in a pattern similar to 2-2-V-1.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #454 on: March 07, 2014, 12:30:25 PM »

It's an oxymoron almost, but there is a general consensus that the B-24 was a 'lightly built heavy bomber'.   If the areas of .025 in the diagram are highlighted, I think this will become apparent.  It would be good to know how the wings were skinned- thinly probably.  Here's an good overhead view.   

http://forum.armyairforces.com/download.axd?file=0;233070&where=&f=B-24 8b.jpg

Chances are many B-24s were repaired at Canton Island.
 
"The placement of the B-24's fuel tanks throughout the upper fuselage and its lightweight construction, designed to increase range and optimize assembly line production, made the aircraft vulnerable to battle damage."

ref; Winchester, Jim. "Consolidated B-24 Liberator." Aircraft of World War II: The Aviation Factfile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator

Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #455 on: March 07, 2014, 05:03:01 PM »

I was just trying to put these thickness listed in some sort of context. For example, .032 is about the thickness of my debit card (.030). A sheet of printer paper is about .004, a US 1 cent coin measures .056 and a US Dime is about .052. When you put it in this light, its a little easier to visualize these dimensions.
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 #456 on: March 07, 2014, 05:20:34 PM »

Chances are many B-24s were repaired at Canton Island.

And every B-24 (or other type) that was repaired at Canton (or anywhere else) had sustained damage that was, by definition, repairable.  The B-24M is a good example.  Landed with a retracted nose wheel. The C47 that later crashed on Sydney Island had been repaired after a taxiing accident that dinged a wingtip.  Minor occurrences.  The aeronautical equivalent of "fender benders."

Now look at 2-2-V-1.  It's a hunk of structure that was blown out of the middle of a larger structure by a sequence of three types of forces -lateral tearing, a massive fluid blow to the interior surface, and finally cycling of the flap of skin back and forth until it failed from fatigue.   Describe for me the kind of accident that could result in damage like that and would leave the airplane repairable.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #457 on: March 08, 2014, 10:44:33 AM »

It's impossible to know for certain how the thing became separated from the original structure.  I will agree that  'final cycling back and forth until it failed from fatigue,'  brings up a picture of a Niki Islander scavenging metal from one of the many wrecks on Canton Island, or Funafuti Island, the C-47 wreck on Sydney Island, or the wrecks said to be on Baker Island, etc...
 
"...[T]he wreck [of the C-47 on Sydney Island] became the chief source of aluminum for the islanders, who had learned on Canton Island to make women’s combs and other ornaments from this material. Eventually almost nothing remained of the aircraft."
 
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_1/sydney.html
 
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1991Vol_7/SydneyCrash.pdf
 
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/07_Sydneycrash/07_Sydneycrash.html

As a side note, the DC-3 repair manual calls for AD3 rivets- [or size 3/32"]  to be used in wing tip skin repairs- "...replacing type and pattern of original rivets."   The C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island- a military model of the DC-3- by chance, had it's wing tip repaired on Canton Island just days before the crash.   
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #458 on: March 08, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »

Chances are many B-24s were repaired at Canton Island.

And every B-24 (or other type) that was repaired at Canton (or anywhere else) had sustained damage that was, by definition, repairable.  The B-24M is a good example.  Landed with a retracted nose wheel. The C47 that later crashed on Sydney Island had been repaired after a taxiing accident that dinged a wingtip.  Minor occurrences.  The aeronautical equivalent of "fender benders."

Now look at 2-2-V-1.  It's a hunk of structure that was blown out of the middle of a larger structure by a sequence of three types of forces -lateral tearing, a massive fluid blow to the interior surface, and finally cycling of the flap of skin back and forth until it failed from fatigue.   Describe for me the kind of accident that could result in damage like that and would leave the airplane repairable.

It is fascinating that the 'heated' area is somewhat coincident to what would logically be the original fracture lines.  It is very much as if an explosive force did first partially dislodge the piece, leaving it vulnerable to other receptive fatiguing forces, and finally a sitting duck to some shearing force by which it may have been cleaved away from the airframe.

Who blew up a wrecked airplane that had a previous repair present and left it to the wilds of nature, and where was such a craft?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #459 on: March 08, 2014, 11:23:09 AM »




It is fascinating that the 'heated' area is somewhat coincident to what would logically be the original fracture lines.

I was thinking heat from friction transmitted thru the overlapped skin at the keel, but under water, not likely.
Would the loss in ductility in the metal fit with a tear like that? Something about the tear tells me it was still ductile when it tore.  The "peaks" of the tear being kind of long and stretched looking. That could be an indicator of the heat being applied after the fracture.
Another theory is user tested it on the fire to see if it would melt or work for what he wanted to use it.
or
Maybe he wanted to make it more brittle so he could break a cleaner edge without having to cut it.
3971R
 
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #460 on: March 08, 2014, 11:48:49 AM »

If you are looking at a wreck and see a flap of loose aluminum down in the shallow water that you want and you bend it back and forth (like breaking a wire)until it breaks and then take it home and use it to cook fish on over an open fire, it is going to look just like that...
And chances are likely you will hang onto to cook on again...

Could be anywhere and end up anywhere; also could never have left the island where it was found!
(and if you leave it down by the water some night and a storm comes through and a wave washes it into the water...then what's next??)

And it would look just like  2-2-v-1, I'm thinking.

Simplest answers can be the most likely...
But I'm listening !?!

Bill
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
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 #461 on: March 08, 2014, 12:02:12 PM »

It's impossible to know for certain how the thing became separated from the original structure.

I disagree.  We have three distinctly different kinds of failure - lateral tearing, fracture (both across and with the grain of the metal), and fatigue from cycling - and they had to occur in that order for the piece to end up looking as it does.

  I will agree that  'final cycling back and forth until it failed from fatigue,'  brings up a picture of a Niki Islander scavenging metal from one of the many wrecks on Canton Island, or Funafuti Island, the C-47 wreck on Sydney Island, or the wrecks said to be on Baker Island, etc...

Perhaps to you, but not to me - perhaps because I have a better understanding of how mobile the laborers on Gardner Island were (or rather weren't). We've gone to great lengths and expense to locate, photograph, and digitize the daily diaries kept on Gardner Island.  If you take the time to read them you'll understand how absurd it is to think that "Niki Islanders" cruised around the Pacific scavenging wrecked airplanes.
 
"...[T]he wreck [of the C-47 on Sydney Island] became the chief source of aluminum for the islanders, who had learned on Canton Island to make women’s combs and other ornaments from this material. Eventually almost nothing remained of the aircraft."

The "islanders" referenced were the Sydney Islanders.  None of the airplane debris found on Nikumaroro can be traced to the Sydney crash.  There is one anecdote about the comb but even that is purely speculative.  We do have several documented B-24 parts.

 
As a side note, the DC-3 repair manual calls for AD3 rivets- [or size 3/32"]  to be used in wing tip skin repairs- "...replacing type and pattern of original rivets."   The C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island- a military model of the DC-3- by chance, had it's wing tip repaired on Canton Island just days before the crash.

If C-47 wingtips were .032 sheet we'll have to see if the rivet pattern is anything like 2-2-V-1.  What kind of accident would leave a wingtip looking like 2-2-V-1?

Your postings are increasingly following a well-known pattern.  When critics are unable to offer valid challenges to hypotheses they start throwing around alternative explanations that ignore or dispute established parameters.  That's trollism.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 12:25:26 PM by Ric Gillespie »
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 #462 on: March 08, 2014, 12:24:06 PM »

If you are looking at a wreck and see a flap of loose aluminum down in the shallow water that you want and you bend it back and forth (like breaking a wire)until it breaks and then take it home and use it to cook fish on over an open fire, it is going to look just like that...
And chances are likely you will hang onto to cook on again...

Could be anywhere and end up anywhere; also could never have left the island where it was found!
(and if you leave it down by the water some night and a storm comes through and a wave washes it into the water...then what's next??)

And it would look just like  2-2-v-1, I'm thinking.

Simplest answers can be the most likely...
But I'm listening !?!

Bill

I'm with you Bill.  The separation of the piece from the aircraft by metal fatigue could have been the result of wave action or human action.  I can't think of a way to tell.  But we do have pry marks that suggest human salvaging and an anecdotal account of a similar piece being used for cooking.  A pyrotechnic explosion would leave telltale pinpricks that aren't there.  A fuel/air explosion wouldn't expose the aluminum to enough heat for long enough to cause the loss of ductility.  Heat from a cooking fire seems like the best explanation. 

The artifact was found washed up near the head of the landing channel that was blasted through the coral to facilitate the evacuation of the island. Everything that left the island came out through that channel and the channel is often exciting as rollers from the ocean come sweeping in toward the beach.  It's easy for stuff loaded in a skiff to fall overboard (ask me how I know).  It's not hard to imagine the artifact being lost during the evacuation and being washed back up in the next big storm.  We know the storm that hit between 1989 and 1991 was the next big storm because the large cement beacon and the Co-Op store were still standing in 1989.
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #463 on: March 08, 2014, 12:45:57 PM »

I am very fond of the 'hi def noaa radar app' that shows current weather on a world wide satelite map...
I use it to watch for weather approaching Alaska (especially when the 'pineapple Express is going(it keeps us warm here))...I've been keeping track of Niko since before i joined the forum.
What interests me is to see how relatively unaffected niko is by the storms continually tracking from west to east along the aleutians to the west coast to the east coast and on towards Europe...
The mostly cut south of Niko to hawaii and on to here and or to South america and Europe etc.
Lots of them pass south...can see why there is a lack of water.
I have yet to see a really big storm (lightning strikes and moisture, at least) hit the island...doesn't mean it doesn't happen; just not while i was looking, in the last several years...
But there must have been some real rip-snorters !?!

But really, it seems to be off the main storm track...discouraging if you are praying for rainwater...
just an observation, on the dis-interest of the Weather Gods...
Bill
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
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 #464 on: March 08, 2014, 04:08:34 PM »

But really, it seems to be off the main storm track...discouraging if you are praying for rainwater...

Yes, the Phoenix Group is in a rather benign weather area.  Big storms are rare but there have been, as you say, some real rip-snorters.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 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