Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1022999 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #540 on: March 15, 2014, 12:51:48 PM »

So the plane was at the Lockheed factory for 47 days.  That is plenty of time for the plane to be brought back to the "perfect condition" AE described.  She could be quite fussy from what I've learned.   

Jeff N. has emphasized the irregular riveting seen in 2-2-V-1 as a sign of work not done in a factory.

No, I have not, Mark - you have misquoted me.

What I have said is what I see is consistent with repair work, not original, work - I said nothing about the factory either way and happen to be well aware that Earhart's repairs were done at the Lockheed facility.

What we see in 2-2-V-1 is entirely consistent with what can happen during repairs at any facility, including off-line, post-production repairs at a factory - the occasional over-sized rivet holes are good evidence of that, IMO, whereas in new construction that doesn't happen so frequently.

If you are going to 'quote' me you need to get it right and not put your own twist into things...
- 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 #541 on: March 15, 2014, 01:05:18 PM »


"...what we can observe speaks strongly of 'not original', e.g. hobbed-over rivet tail, irregular rows, odd rivets sizes indicated numerous over-sized rivets installed where original holes were likely egged-out, etc."

"The 'rivet placement' on this piece tends to be 'very poor' and does not come close to Lockheed production patterns on the L10 - it is distinctly 'hand craft' as if done in a pinch."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg17867.html#msg17867


I have a very hard time believing the people at Lockheed would be responsible for this type of work.

"Besides advanced design, Lockheed aircraft were known for their high quality of construction and finish."
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/lockheed/

Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem with that kind of work coming out of Canton...  ;)

...and perhaps my words about the repair are unfairly harsh, given that time and exposure have so weathered this part.

Let us just say it is clearly 'repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features.  Those things are NOT unusual in repair work where one is trying to match to existing, damaged structure that may have been straightened to some degree, etc.  You work with what you have.

As to the bent shank - can happen anywhere, but especially in a relatively rushed repair job where the owner is in the front office pushing for attention on her bird...

Yes, exactly, it is clearly "...repair / alteration / other-than original' because Lockheed's known original work would not have so many irregular features."
 
On the other hand, that's exactly what I'd expect to see in a field repair done at Canton Island, or at any other repair station operating in a war-zone.  [The Japanese bombed the place from the air, and shelled it from submarines.]  But it's not the kind of work I'd expect to see from Lockheed employees, working in the safety of the Calif. factory, with every proper tool at hand, and with AE looking over their shoulders.  She was probably highly anxious to have the job done correctly, and hoped the repair could hide every trace of the accident at Luke Field.  The work had to be done thoroughly and properly - not "in a pinch" as you said.  The repaired plane's structure was even X-rayed!! To seek out flaws in the structure!!

What is your experience with this sort of work, Mark?  Great for you to have all these 'expectations' but I don't sense much background here backing that up - you don't seem well acquainted with hands-on repair work, field, factory or otherwise but argue in absolutes that aren't, IMO, well founded.

The x-rays would have been done to determine if hidden damage / cracks, etc. were present out of sight and to minimize the need to remove structure for the purpose of exploration or precautionary replacement, no mystery there.  It says nothing about what might have happened in terms of over-sized fasteners being needed or the finished quality of every rivet, etc.

Quote
[Everything I see here screams- WW2 repair job patch- later scavenged at Canton Island  and brought back to Gardener Island. 

Well, a scream is hard to ignore and I'm sorry you are being screamed at.  So if canton is it, where is the matching structure that it came from?  You have thrown a few 'possibles' on the wall - which are going to be looked at, so what is your point other than sharing that you hear screams?

Quote
http://www.sff.net/people/brook.west/arc/abdr.html
"Aircraft battle damage repair (ABDR)... the "quick fix and get it in the air again" brand of aircraft repair."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_562.htm
"...certain skin areas are classified as highly critical, other areas as semi-critical, while still other areas may be classified as non-critical."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_546.htm
"5. Rivets less than three thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter should not be used for any structural parts."

...and item 4 just before that last item 5 includes that protruding head rivets should be replaced with MS20470 / AN470 universal head rivets, nary a brazier mentioned...

All nice - and anecdotal / non-specific to Canton / real events / disproves nothing about Lockheed, etc.

--------------------------------------------------

Quote
"When Amelia Earhart's big plane was placed under a newly developed X-ray machine recently, several flaws were discovered which might have forced down the aviatrix at some point on her round-the-world-flight if they had not been corrected..."  Popular Mechanics, Aug. 1937, Page 178.


"Aviation experts recently utilized a new portable X-ray machine to locate possible structural defects in the huge transport plane in which Amelia Earhart, world famous woman flyer, recently crashed at Honolulu, Hawaii, while on a attempted flight around the world.  Rays developed by the apparatus were said to be strong enough to penetrate eighteen inches of solid aluminum and reveal motor or framework flaws as small as one millionth of an inch.  More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."
  Popular Science, August 1937, page 58


- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 01:44:07 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #542 on: March 15, 2014, 01:12:07 PM »

I know a little bit ... about a lot of things.

But mostly ... I know what I don't know.

LTM, who will now go back to pondering the cat box,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
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 #543 on: March 15, 2014, 01:22:53 PM »

"More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."

And not a lead apron in sight. Funny how none of those guys ever had kids.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #544 on: March 15, 2014, 01:39:42 PM »

"More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."

And not a lead apron in sight. Funny how none of those guys ever had kids.

"This thing makes my fillings feel funny..."
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #545 on: March 15, 2014, 01:42:01 PM »

To be fair, not much was known about the effects of x-ray radiation outside of the scientific community in those days.

Even as shoe stores rushed to add the machines, the dangers of X-ray radiation were becoming more evident. By the 1920s many X-ray pioneers -- who had received massive doses of seemingly harmless X-rays during their experiments -- suffered well-publicized, painful and often gruesome deaths. Even before the shoe-fitting fluoroscope was patented, the first, tentative national guidelines on radiation exposure were established.

While the theoretical dangers of excessive radiation exposure were already fairly well known within the scientific field, actual data on shoe store exposure did not appear until the late 1940s. Towards the end of that decade articles in medical journals began to document the potential health effects of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes (skin and bone marrow damage; growth problems). At the same time, other research discovered that a high percentage of the nearly 10,000 fluoroscopes in use in the United States emitted dangerous levels of radiation for both customers and clerks. Various health and industrial hygiene organizations began recommending against using the devices. On November 24, 1950, Milwaukee became one of the first cities in the nation to regulate the operation and location of the machines, and in 1957 Pennsylvania became the first state to outlaw their use. By 1960, 34 states had banned the machines.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/museum/artifacts/archives/002457.asp


This must be the place
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #546 on: March 15, 2014, 02:14:14 PM »

What tools will be needed and what are the methods for looking at possible donors?
Some items I can think of are:
Cameras
Measure tape, soft so not to scratch metal
Hand held camera jib to view hard to get at spots
Drawings of the canditate planes broken out into grids with checklist for each grid
Portable Lamps
What is a good tool to measure the rivets?
3971R
 
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #547 on: March 15, 2014, 03:53:18 PM »


• Your opinion about the work not being done "in a pinch" is not supported by correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies. GP was telling State Dept. officials that the repairs were completed and inspected when the inspector was telling his boss that the repairs would take another ten days.  In fact, everything was wrapped up in five days.  That's a rush job.

Ric,

Is there any other correspondence besides the one you refer to above, that bears on the question of whether this was a 'rush job'? From the correspondence you quote it is clear that GP misinformed the State Dept. about the progress of repairs (either accidentally or intentionally). But its not clear to me that 'Team Earhart' actually pressured Lockheed to finish the repair asap. It is a fact that the repairs were finished more quickly than the inspector told his boss, but it seems to me there are other reasonable explanations for why that was so, oner than it being a rush job. For instance, I have often seen contractors overestimate how long it will take to finish a job just to avoid getting pressured by their customers to finish on time, i.e. it was the opposite of a rush job! It seems to me that, unless additional documentation exists that indicating that Lockheed was pressured we can't be very certain that this was the case.


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 #548 on: March 15, 2014, 04:55:55 PM »

I have removed postings relating to theories about Malaysian 370.  Although interesting, they are off topic.  I'll allow the "Parallels of Flight" topic to remain but postings should be confined to that subject.
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #549 on: March 15, 2014, 05:07:13 PM »

"More than 1,000 X-ray snapshots were required to complete the examination."

Do you suppose that those were actual films? 

Wouldn't you like to find that stash of archived material.


amck
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 #550 on: March 15, 2014, 05:20:30 PM »

Wouldn't you like to find that stash of archived material.

It's also nice to have original source material but I'm having trouble imagining how it would help us find the plane.
Logged

Dale O. Beethe

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #551 on: March 15, 2014, 08:18:30 PM »

It might, if one of those films showed the piece you have.  I wonder how big those films would be, if they used films such as you see in the doctor's office.  Would they be large enough to show 2-2-V-1 (more probably the larger piece it was part of)?
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #552 on: March 15, 2014, 08:31:37 PM »

The film would be a bit larger than the piece being X-rayed.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #553 on: March 15, 2014, 08:55:25 PM »

For Jeff Neville primarily I guess...

I have no doubt that it would (sorry I know we don't like "would" but I lost my thesaurus) have been at least possible, given enough time, for the factory repair shop to bring the Electra back to virtually "perfect" in terms of strength, dimensions, rivet placement and any other measurable aspect, ie in all practical aspects indistinguishable from a virgin airframe.

If I understand correctly the theory about the rivet pattern not exactly matching what is expected is that stringers/keel/other structure were tweaked a bit in the ground loop and perhaps not restored to perfect placement.

So I'm trying to get a feel for what sort of magnitude of extra effort would have been required to get the underlying structure mentioned above back to "perfect" and if its reasonable that Lockheed didn't go that route. Are we talking a few hours, an extra couple of days, or weeks, assuming no extra repair crew or shift added?

I'm also raising a Spockian eybrow about the alclad stamp not being buffed off of 2-2-v-1...this was still a current production aircraft at the time of repair, as I understand it, and in the control of probably the highest profile customer Lockheed or any other manufacturer was likely to see and they don't take a few minutes to buff the repair patches to match surrounding?  What up with that? No doubt they would have been hoping to sell an Electra or two on the backs of our hapless duo so don't you make sure the demo model is tarted up to the max?

There was some discussion of why alclad marking is visible in another recent thread but no real answer that I saw.  When one is buffing something one uses lighting and varying view angles to ensure a quality finish leaving no trace of whatever one was trying get rid of
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 10:31:58 PM by Doug Ledlie »
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 09:44:13 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 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