Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023529 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #570 on: March 17, 2014, 07:14:14 AM »

Regardless of when this photo was taken...  :)  ... does it appear to have just enough detail to show "crossing lines" of rivets in the same area 2-2-V-1, (which has no "crossing" rivet lines), is alleged to have come from?
Just asking.   

Is it not the case that the image below has appeared in this thread already?  Wouldn't an attentive researcher have remembered this picture of where TIGHAR thinks 2-2-V-1 might have originated?  Is it possible to make accusations in question form?

Just asking.



To answer Mark -

"No."  I can't see the area between stations 269 5/8 and 293 5/8 well enough in your photo (as nice as it is in other regards) to make such a determination.  However, the picture Marty has posted does reinforce my memory and clarify - that there are clearly no crossing members in the area we speak of, at least certainly in this ship we see up close by this picture.

Marty,

Thanks for posting this - and my understanding of the structure in this area is refreshed by it. 

Which raises a point of discussion about the fitment problem of 2-2-V-1 to known L10 airplanes, so far -

I had come to labor under an understanding somehow that the stiffeners merely butted-up against each structural bulkhead (often the case), and that therefore an altered placement of the rows could be easily explained.  Not so, as evidenced here.  This picture was one I was trying to find again to clarify this point (and I stand reminded by Marty's effort here that most such stuff already resides here, if only I'd get smarter in my efforts... ;)): the stiffeners do not abut each bulkhead and terminate - they actually pass through.

What does that mean?  For one, they are not merely station-to-station stiffeners, but light stringers after all.  For another, they are not so portable as to lateral displacement: notice that the u-channel style stiffeners pass through cut-outs in the bulkhead at station 293 5/8.  This means that displacement of the stiffeners to either side would require a 're-notching' of the bulkhead - at least as in the case we see before us, this particular L10.

So, as has been discussed, some fair questions as I see it are -

ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers?  For one thing, 2-2-V-1 is an extremely distorted piece of metal - it is difficult to get an accurate flat pattern off of something like that, and the bending and stresses it endured would also mean that it cannot be 100% true to the original pattern as-cut and installed.  The error between those considerations could account for a great deal of misalignment.  The large divergence seen at the 4th stringer would remain a bit suspect, but this is worthy of consideration.

Barring that -

Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason?  I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.

Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now?  I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics?  If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained.  I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no". 

A scab is usually an ugly thing anyway, and avoided in most cases except for the most expedient needs.  But they are sometimes used, often as a temporary measure in a needy situation until better repairs can be effected.

So we are still stuck with a real fitment problem of 2-2-V-1 in the belly of known L10 types so far.  What is hopeful is how closely the keel and first stiffener align; after that, divergence gets to be a problem.  Better questions might be -

What can we learn of any variations in this area, if any, between the E model and other L10 variants? 

Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?

Can we learn more about Earhart's own airplane?  Much discussed already and hard to find specifics beyond the anecdotal.

And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.

Nothing new, this has been with us all along.  I appreciate the visual clarification as to how the stiffeners are arranged relative to the bulkheads - the transverse members do dictate in substantial degree where the stiffeners lie in terms of lateral butt line, so errant placement would not be so likely - IF the L10E (NR16020 in point of fact) was true to this scheme.  It would be good to know more about possible variations in this area among the various L10 variants... (hows that for varying variables...).

"Is it possible... accusation... question?" - yes, it truly is, and you were nearly rabbinical in pointing that out, e.g. "so, what's wrong with a question?" - LOL!!! ;) 

I have to say those who constantly go after someone else's interest in a given pursuit by slinging so much pasta and sauce on the kitchen wall never cease to amuse me with the 'just gotta be something else' chase or the 'could be anything' dismissal...

This one, however, is refreshing.

Rarely do those who would prove us wrong behave so well or bring forth such an enormous amount of useful material to help - stuff actually that I would scarcely have the time to go out and find on my own.  So I hereby thank Mark, who tends toward gentle conduct in his effort whatever his motives, and I mean to encourage his continued contributions of material.  To me he's more of an ally in this search than not (and if he finds that to be more than he intends, I beg his forbearance).  This comes in the form of 'useful discussion' more than disruptive 'trolling' as I see it, a nice change.

So, in that vein, I will also challenge Mark to help us find more specific data on the L10 variants - let the chips fall where they will.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 07:22:29 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
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 #571 on: March 17, 2014, 07:48:34 AM »

ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers?  That error could account for a great deal.

That's a distinct possibility and, as I have cautioned before, the overlay is only a rough approximation. 
A true comparison of the rivet pattern on the artifact (prior to deformation) to the belly of a Lockheed 10 is a complex exercise that is beyond our capabilities.

Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason?  I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.

There is nothing in the Lockheed engineering drawings for the Model 10 that calls for different structures in the E.

Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now?  I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.

All Model 10s were built in jig. To change the spacing of fuselage stringers would essentially mean designing a whole new airplane.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics?  If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained.  I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no". 

I agree.

Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?

Grace McGuire's airplane is the only surviving Electra that was originally built as an E, but it has been extensively rebuilt.  To get a true comparison you'd have to find an historically preserved E.  Air museums and collectors almost never do true historic preservation.  That's why we have to visit crash sites to get reliable data.  We don't know of any E crash sites.

And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.

As Sherlock said, "Once you have eliminated all the alternative explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #572 on: March 17, 2014, 08:14:20 AM »

ADDED: How close is this 'flat pattern' of 2-2-V-1 to the real article, i.e. is it possible that there's enough distortion to account for the offset of fastener lines from the stringers?  That error could account for a great deal.

That's a distinct possibility and, as I have cautioned before, the overlay is only a rough approximation. 
A true comparison of the rivet pattern on the artifact (prior to deformation) to the belly of a Lockheed 10 is a complex exercise that is beyond our capabilities.

Was Earhart's airplane - an L10E with the highest HP engines and gross weight of the L10 variants - built the same as we see here, or does an "E" have a different placement scheme for these members for some reason?  I do not know the answer, but I do know that load paths, etc. are often reconsidered where higher loads are to be addressed in a variant model.

There is nothing in the Lockheed engineering drawings for the Model 10 that calls for different structures in the E.

Was Earhart's own L10E uniquely modified slightly for some reason during the repairs to re-space these stiffeners, or was it altered at some earlier point such that the repair would be as we see it now?  I do not know this answer either, except that hers was certainly not a stock L10.

All Model 10s were built in jig. To change the spacing of fuselage stringers would essentially mean designing a whole new airplane.

Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics?  If so, an alternate line of rivets could be easily explained.  I do not know, but the convergence of the rivet lines with those existing in the L10 as we see it here would be problematic, i.e. the rivet lines visibly cross through the bend-lines / vertical legs of the u-channels too much for reality, so my belief is "no". 

I agree.

Is there a "true" surviving "E" variant, or just "A", etc. re-engined and stuff added to bring close to "E" configuration?

Grace McGuire's airplane is the only surviving Electra that was originally built as an E, but it has been extensively rebuilt.  To get a true comparison you'd have to find an historically preserved E.  Air museums and collectors almost never do true historic preservation.  That's why we have to visit crash sites to get reliable data.  We don't know of any E crash sites.

And, of course, is there a better fit among the types that visited the area in the same era, i.e. potential donors that may also have had repairs of this sort done to them before being damaged or destroyed within a reasonable radius of Gardner?  We are of course pursuing this rather vigorously, Mark may rest assured.

As Sherlock said, "Once you have eliminated all the alternative explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Thanks for clarifying on these points, Ric. 

It is true - we look at the alternatives and what remains at the end is the best answer. 

ADDED: It would be lovely if we could refine the flat-pattern model before Dayton, somehow; I do realize that requres some sophisticated modeling, given that the metal is very deformed.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 01:12:47 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #573 on: March 17, 2014, 11:03:49 AM »



Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics? 

"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.
3971R
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #574 on: March 17, 2014, 11:44:27 AM »

So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

what about the PBY that used to resupply the loran station?? those were designed in 1935?? they were built until 1945. I can imagine that a flying boat like that may have sustained some damage/repairs due to the hazards of landing in and around the coral heads of gardner.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #575 on: March 17, 2014, 01:02:16 PM »

So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

what about the PBY that used to resupply the loran station?? those were designed in 1935?? they were built until 1945. I can imagine that a flying boat like that may have sustained some damage/repairs due to the hazards of landing in and around the coral heads of gardner.

The PBY type has been looked at, in fact recently by myself using the link supplied by Mark Pearce for tech data on the type where he raised the same point as to the PBY.  I was not able to find any promising use of #3 rivets that would come close, but other's review is of course welcome, of course.  What I found was substantially heavier fasteners in that type. 

You are correct about the vintage and PBY visits, of course.  I'm also not aware of any PBY mishaps or repair activity on Gardner, just visits with no reports of damage known. 
- 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 #576 on: March 17, 2014, 01:13:11 PM »

I'm also not aware of any PBY mishaps or repair activity on Gardner, just visits with no reports of damage known.

We have the flight reports and manifests for all the PBY re-supply flights to
Gardner.  We also have the colony's official daily diaries for the war years.  No aircraft mishaps were recorded in either source.
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 #577 on: March 17, 2014, 01:16:52 PM »

"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

I would expect to see stringers of that thickness anywhere #3 rivets were used in a .032" skin. It's a matter of scale.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #578 on: March 17, 2014, 01:21:13 PM »



Could 2-2-V-1 have been a scab patch that was laid-over the existing skin, the original perhaps not damaged enough to warrant removal and replacement during 'saw horse' repairs (best not to remove more than one must for reasons of alignment and stability), but ugly / dented / scraped enough to warrant covering for reinforcement and esthetics? 

"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

Thanks for that reminder on grip-length, you are of course correct.  Were it a 'scab' it would have shown more depth of grip.

Search is on, of course.  I know some of the pattern doesn't look right, but at times I still wonder about what covering might have been improvised for the large lav window.  I was privileged to see Grace McGuire's L10E in the Seattle Museum of Flight recently and while it has a similar window with cover, the cover looks like nothing I can discern of Earhart's.  McGuire's example was very neat and looked strongly braced, with vertical bracing.  Earhart's - while not distinct in the photos I've found, appears to have been done a bit more on the fly in Miami (picture attached).

- 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 #579 on: March 17, 2014, 01:26:05 PM »

"The NTSB said the length of the surviving rivet on 2-2-V-1 indicated attachment to an underlying structure about .06 inch thick. The section of stringer from the Idaho wreck is .06 inch thick"
Based on this information, if 2-2-V-1 comes from AE's plane, then it was not laid over another skin.
Seems like another "fit" to AE's plane and something else to look at to see if possible donors can match.

I would expect to see stringers of that thickness anywhere #3 rivets were used in a .032" skin. It's a matter of scale.

I think Greg means that a 'scab' would have caused the underlying .032" skin to be added to the existing .060" stringer - which I think he also quoted as measured on the Idaho wreck.  Accordingly, were 2-2-V-1 a scab, there should be around .092" clench showing beyond the scab patch (original skin plus stringer thickness).
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #580 on: March 17, 2014, 01:27:35 PM »

So I'd look for pre-war types operating in the region as a possible source and try to elminate from there.

Remember.  To qualify as an alternative source for 2-2-V-1 we need an American pre-war type that used #3 rivets in a .032 ALCLAD skin - and it has to have been repaired and then later destroyed in a way consistent with the damage we see on the artifact.

First, let's list all known pre-war (prior to December 1941) aviation activity at or near Gardner Island. It's a short list.
July 9, 1937 - Three Vought O3U-3 Corsairs launched from USS Colorado. Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
Dec. 1, 1938 - Supermarine Walrus launched from HNNZS Leander took aerial photos for the New Zealand survey. Not an American aircraft. Not damaged. Not a candidate.
April 30, 1939 - Grumman J2F Duck launched from USS Pelican took aerial photos for the Bushnell survey.  Aircraft not damaged. Not a candidate.
June 20, 1941 - Six Consolidated PBY2 aircraft took aerial photos for a strategic survey.  Aircraft not damaged.  Not a candidate.

That's it for pre-war aviation in the region.
During WWII the only pre-war type based at Canton Island were two Douglas B-18s.  No record of what became of them but there is no accident report either.  The B-18 was basically a bomber version of the DC-3.  I've inspected the B-18 in the USAF museum collection.  Big airplane. No #3 rivets.  Not a candidate.

In short, there are no known candidates other than the Lockheed 10 that is known to have been lost in the region.

We need to document when #3 rivets stopped being used for primary structure.

"...the practice of rivet sizing would lie with the airframer (in this case, Lockheed - unless this part is from another maker)."

Wouldn't rivet sizing be governed by Bureau of Air Commerce regs?

what about the PBY that used to resupply the loran station?? those were designed in 1935?? they were built until 1945. I can imagine that a flying boat like that may have sustained some damage/repairs due to the hazards of landing in and around the coral heads of gardner.

The PBY type has been looked at, in fact recently by myself using the link supplied by Mark Pearce for tech data on the type where he raised the same point as to the PBY.  I was not able to find any promising use of #3 rivets that would come close, but other's review is of course welcome, of course.  What I found was substantially heavier fasteners in that type. 

You are correct about the vintage and PBY visits, of course.  I'm also not aware of any PBY mishaps or repair activity on Gardner, just visits with no reports of damage known.

Jeff, what type of PBY were you looking at?? given the changes in the type over the years of production I wonder if a change from a smaller to a larger rivet was done.

this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf
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 #581 on: March 17, 2014, 01:30:31 PM »

I was privileged to see Grace McGuire's L10E in the Seattle Museum of Flight recently...

The airplane at Museum of Flight is the one Linda Finch rebuilt as NR16020 replica.  She later sold it to Mike Kammerer who later died.  Museum of flight but it from Mikes' daughter. It's a faux-10E, built as an A but later re-engined with the big R1340s.

Grace McGuire's airplane is the last true 10E and is still very much in her possession.  She still plans to finish the rebuild and fly it around the world. Hope springs eternal.
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 #582 on: March 17, 2014, 01:43:08 PM »

this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf

Later than what?  The manual is for the PBY-5, PBY-5a,  PBY -6, and Army OA-10.  Those are the wartime models.  The PBYs that flew from Canton were PBY-5s and -5as.  Six PBY-2s visited Gardner in June 1941 but none of them suffered damage.
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #583 on: March 17, 2014, 02:24:49 PM »

this link might be interesting, it is for later types though:
http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Catalina%20Manuals/Handbook%20of%20Structural%20Repair%20Catalina%20PBY%205%20-%20PBY-5A%20-%20PBY-6A%20&%20OA-10.pdf

Later than what?  The manual is for the PBY-5, PBY-5a,  PBY -6, and Army OA-10.  Those are the wartime models.  The PBYs that flew from Canton were PBY-5s and -5as.  Six PBY-2s visited Gardner in June 1941 but none of them suffered damage.

exactly what you state.. the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY. I thought the manual might give some interesting views on the recommended repairs from the time.

as for the damage... it's war time... expedient field repairs and all that.
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 #584 on: March 17, 2014, 02:35:02 PM »

the later dash 5 onward would be more likely to have the larger rivet type. an earlier -2 would more likely have the smaller prewar construction. just an off the cuff thought as I really haven't looked into the history of the PBY.

Perhaps you should do so. Until you find documentation that the PBY-2 was built any lighter than later versions of the airplane we'll consider it, as you say, just an off the cuff thought.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 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