Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023663 times)

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #585 on: March 17, 2014, 02:49:13 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.

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

so maybe you should consider it more than an off the cuff thought   ::)
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #586 on: March 17, 2014, 03:50:09 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).

Yes that is what I meant but I also noted it may be a possible eliminator to other donors and I think Ric was noting it may be common for that ratio or scale.
 I think there are many other, much more difficult, hoops for other donors to jump thru. I doubt the shank depth will ever need to come into play.

 Layers could be added in "gas tight areas". Something to consider when looking at float planes with integral tanks.

Edit- the 1/32 gaskets seem to be at the integral gas tanks in the repair manual for a PBY. The water proof areas appear to have a very thin barrier added "All web repairs on watertight areas of bulkheads must be sealed with marine glue and fabric, zinc chromate tape or 1/64 inch synthetic rubber sheet"
3971R
 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 04:54:23 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #587 on: March 17, 2014, 04:57:50 PM »

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.

The example you cite of a contractor overestimating the time required so as to avoid pressure doesn't apply in this case.  As shown in the attached correspondence, this is what happened:

On May 10 Putnam wrote to Undersecretary of Commerce Johnson in Washington asking for a new letter of authority for Earhart to do her world flight. In that letter Putnam states that the plane has been "thoroughly repaired at the Lockheed plant under the direction of Department inspectors."

On May 13 Reining at the Bureau of Air Commerce in Washington wires the Supervising Aeronautical Inspector in Inglewood, CA asking him to  "wire status inspection repairs Earhart NR 16020." He wants the inspection report airmailed to him.

On May 14 Marriott, the Chief General Inspection Service wires Reining saying that "completion of repairs and inspection will take ten days."  Marriott has no reason to exaggerate the estimate.

On May 19 Marriott wires Reining that "Earhart Lockheed repairs completed [and] approved.  Report air mailed today."

Note that Putnam is in New York handling the correspondence with the government.  As shown in photos, Earhart is in Burbank on the shop floor.  Anecdotal accounts have her pushing for the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible.

Ric,

Thank you for posting the primary documents covering the communications involving Putnam, State Dept., Reining, and Marriot—interesting to see that.  I can see that Marriot tells Reining that the repairs would be completed in 10 days, but what these documents don’t help us with is why Marriot thought 10 days, rather than 5. My example about the contractor was only meant as an example of the kind of ‘back story’ that I wondered might be documented somewhere, that Tighar might know about. I gather that there isn’t any primary documention that explicitly states that there was a rush job, rather this is something you’ve inferred from the communication between these players in the story in those documents.
 
You mentioned that there was anecdotal information indicating that AE was pushing for repairs to be completed asap.  Looked around for more information about such accounts but didn’t find anything about that, although I did come upon a YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY_oiYC-jDU) that indicates her penchant for  first hand observation of work on her plane, but this anecdotal account would seem to suggest that her being on the shop floor at Burbank during the repair to her plane was typical for Amelia -- she liked to be involved in this way.
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 #588 on: March 17, 2014, 05:08:14 PM »

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

The PBY-5 did not have retractable gear.  It was a pure flying boat just like the PBY-2.  You're thinking of the PBY-5a.
Yes, the later models were heavier and had more powerful engines but to say they had were built with bigger rivets is waaay off the cuff and unsupported by any shred of evidence. 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #589 on: March 17, 2014, 05:25:16 PM »

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

The PBY-5 did not have retractable gear.  It was a pure flying boat just like the PBY-2.  You're thinking of the PBY-5a.
Yes, the later models were heavier and had more powerful engines but to say they had were built with bigger rivets is waaay off the cuff and unsupported by any shred of evidence.

yes... that post was more a reaction to your snooty response to me than a statement of fact... I did not appreciate it when I was trying to be helpful.

The picture linked by mr neville was a amphib.... so it would be at least a -5a. to dismiss all PBY's based on one later aircraft built during the war (which was stated to be the changover time to the new rivet in general) when there were pre war examples known to exist is also not the best way to handle this is it??

btw, I swear there was a coral head incident with a -2 on or around gardner. Martin, I'm horrible with the search... do we have the list of lost aircraft around niko handy?? may not have been a loss but at least an incident????

edit:

there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 05:32:10 PM by Kevin Weeks »
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 #590 on: March 17, 2014, 07:12:45 PM »

I gather that there isn’t any primary documention that explicitly states that there was a rush job, rather this is something you’ve inferred from the communication between these players in the story in those documents.

i would not expect there to be documentation describing the repairs as a "rush job."  It's important to understand the larger context in which repairs were made.There is a large body of correspondence between Putnam and various government agencies relating to preparations for the second world flight attempt. Dozens of letters and official radio messages.  There is an even larger body of archival material documenting the preparations for the first world flight attempt.  The contrast between the first attempt and second attempt is striking. Planning for the first attempt was methodical, even plodding, with lots of close coordination with the Bureau of Air Commerce and the Coast Guard.  The preparations for the flight were also very public, with all kinds of press events, interviews, photo ops, newsreel coverage, etc.   The second attempt was entirely different for several reasons. 
• The administration at Bureau of Air Commerce had changed. AE's buddy (some say lover) Gene Vidal was no longer in charge and Bill Miller, the Bureau guy Vidal had assigned to help Earhart and who had done all the heavy lifting in planning the flight, was sent to Australia on another assignment.  That put the full re-planning load squarely on Earhart and Putnam.
• Money was a huge worry.  Rebuilding the airplane and re-planning the flight were not in the budget.  Fund raising takes time and energy away from research, preparation and planning. Ask me how I know.
• The wreck in Hawaii had damaged Earhart's reputation. Favorable press coverage could no longer be assumed. TIME magazine was openly derisive, and syndicated columnist Maj. Al Williams called Earhart's flights "the worst racket in aviation." He publicly urged the Bureau of Air Commerce to deny her permission for a second attempt.  In response, Earhart and Putnam became highly secretive about their plans.
• Pressure to hurry came from the need to get Earhart's new book published by September, in time for the Christmas market.  AE and GP had gone heavily into debt to cover the cost of repairing the Electra. The plan had always been for Earhart, during the trip, to write daily travelogue stories for the Herald Tribune newspapers.  After the Honolulu debacle Putnam had cut a deal with Harcourt Brace to publish a compilation of the stories, with some additional chapters, as a book to be called World Flight.  Sales of the book would hep get them out of debt.  But the flight was going to take a month and it takes time to edit and publish a book.

Between the calls for the Bureau of Air Commerce to stop the flight and the need to get the trip done so that the book could be published by September there was lots of pressure to get the repairs completed as soon as possible. I think somebody should wrote a book about all this.


You mentioned that there was anecdotal information indicating that AE was pushing for repairs to be completed asap.  Looked around for more information about such accounts but didn’t find anything about that, ...

I wish I could remember who told me that. Over the past 25 years I've heard lots of stories from people who knew the lady. 
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 #591 on: March 17, 2014, 07:21:51 PM »

there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

There is one incident of a pre 5A model being damaged at Canton. On 16 March 1940 a PBY-2 BuNo 0487 hit reef on takeoff.  No mention of whether the airplane was a write off or was still flyable but in March of 1940 their were no repair facilities at Canton.  The U.S. military wasn't there yet and Pan Am only had a hotel and servicing facility.
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #592 on: March 17, 2014, 08:52:51 PM »

So the latest possible fit is directly across the cabin door where the taper has the lines closer together?  Was that area not selected before because the lines of rivets would have been too close together and is it  the possible deformation in the artifact that may now allow it to fit that area directly across the cabin door?

To be honest I don't remember why we didn't see the match before.

Is the pitch of the rivets in that new location the same as the previous location? If so, is the significance of the spacing of the rivets at 1” on the artifact and 1.5” on the airplane that this is evidence it was repaired?

I'm not sure about the rivet pitch in the new location. Scaling from the photos I have gives conflicting answers. I'll check it in person next Sunday when I'm at the New England Air Museum for a speaking engagement.  In any case, the fact that the artifact is from a repaired section of some airplane is based on the labeling that identifies it as metal that has been approved for use in repairs but original construction.

Was wondering about what Greg brought out before concerning the pitch for the outer 3/32nds rivets,... it has been discussed the reason that the 3/32nds keel row rivets were replaced with the larger 5/32nds rivets, may have been because of the elongating of the rivet holes there, ....I suspect a greater impact would occur upon the keel due to the underbelly design may cause this , however I am curious as to the repair procedure seemingly almost doubling up ( or one every inch on 2-2-V-1) the remaining 3/32nds rivets in the outer rows away from the keel. Greg mentions the underbelly may have 1.5 inch rivet pitch in that area..as per the ( underbelly photo of electra in new england air museum) ....if so it seems some / most of the original stringer holes may not have been used?....       
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 10:51:06 PM by Jerry Germann »
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #593 on: March 17, 2014, 10:38:40 PM »


"...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...   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.


Jeff,
I thank you for your kind words of praise- I'm very flattered.  Earlier tonight I found a brief but intriguing record of an accident on Canton Island that has gone un-noticed.         

"22-JUN-1942   Boeing B-17E Flying Fortress   41-9208     Short of Rwy, Canton Island, PAC"
"Written off (damaged beyond repair)"

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=B17
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/dbasn.asp?SN=41-9208&Submit4=Go
 
Large areas of the B-17 fuselage were covered with .032" Alclad-  most likely the wings were skinned with some .032" also.  The WW2 era "Design Analysis" of the B-17G, linked below, reports 3/32" rivets were used in the wings.  I hope you find this all fits into the specific, and not the spaghetti category.  :)

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30381.html#msg30381

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30273.html#msg30273

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 10:55:23 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #594 on: March 18, 2014, 06:03:01 AM »

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

I looked at the type I gave you a link for - did you look??  ;D
- 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 #595 on: March 18, 2014, 06:23:34 AM »

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.

I don't know specific details, but I do know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter... as the PBY-5 had more power and retractable gear as opposed to the strictly flying boat that the -2 was. this would have required a completely different internal structure around the landing gear.

so maybe you should consider it more than an off the cuff thought   ::)

First, I hope you will notice that I was not 'off the cuff' or dismissive in having perused the PBY-5 data rather carefully...

Kevin, if you "know that of course the PBY-2 was lighter" and all that then you are far more of a PBY expert that I will likely ever be, and apparently have access to at least as much data as I can hope to ever find, so why not jump in and help get this past the 'cuff'?  I'm sure we can use all the research help you can muster.

As Ric notes, six PBY-2 visits are recorded, so given your confidence in there having been a war on (somehow I had not overlooked that fact) and that there must have been a smothering of field repairs - including perhaps for the coral head strike at Gardner by a PBY-2 you "swear" happened then by all means, please jump in.  That's the first I'd ever heard of a coral head strike by a PBY at Gardner - where did that come from that you can swear it to have been true?

As interested as I am in getting to the bottom of every single lead, I cannot possibly do so personally and frankly, find it impossible to give priority to every single supposed-event or supposition about how a given variant was constructed.  It's great to brain storm possibilities, but as has been said (by me), those who would challenge 2-2-V-1 need to provide plausible alternates - meaning factually probable 'other types' that are a) known to have been within reasonable proximity (meaning the Phoenix area and Howland, etc.), and b) had some sort of history involving damage or destruction so as to make them a likely donor, and c) a former repair that became detached in the course of subsequent repair or salvage.

That means not just throwing ideas on the kitchen wall like Oscar's pasta surprise...

Not meaning to be snide, simply asking for your help if you sincerely want to explore these possibilities as I am simply unable to accomodate the meat sauce on the wall for now and foreseeably... if that sounds a bit too colorful, consider that simply tossing 'maybes' into this approaches no more than blowing smoke into the room.

I, with others, will be perusing rivet patterns on a number of types in Dayton in about 10 days - mayhaps you could help us define what to look at while there, do they have an example of the PBY-2, for example?  Can you find data for it?  Ric is populating a spread sheet with candidates for us to look at - HELP APPRECIATED.

You are welcome.
- 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 #596 on: March 18, 2014, 06:31:38 AM »


"...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...   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.


Jeff,
I thank you for your kind words of praise- I'm very flattered.  Earlier tonight I found a brief but intriguing record of an accident on Canton Island that has gone un-noticed.         

"22-JUN-1942   Boeing B-17E Flying Fortress   41-9208     Short of Rwy, Canton Island, PAC"
"Written off (damaged beyond repair)"

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=B17
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/dbasn.asp?SN=41-9208&Submit4=Go
 
Large areas of the B-17 fuselage were covered with .032" Alclad-  most likely the wings were skinned with some .032" also.  The WW2 era "Design Analysis" of the B-17G, linked below, reports 3/32" rivets were used in the wings.  I hope you find this all fits into the specific, and not the spaghetti category.  :)

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30381.html#msg30381

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30273.html#msg30273

"Design Analysis of the Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress"
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/B17/B17_articles/B17_IA_4412_DA.html

"...Over this basic truss structure is a layer of 24ST clad or 24SRT clad corrugated sheet which ranges in thickness from .064 gauge inboard to .016 gauge outboard, in turn covered with 24ST clad skin varying in gauge from .016 to .040. Attached to the structure with skin-type aluminum alloy rivets ranging in diameter from 3/32" to ¼", this corrugation, with the stressed skin, carries two-thirds of the wing loads..."

Thanks, Mark, excellent find on the B-17 accident at Canton, and the data.

I had noticed from data you placed here before that some fuselage areas did use .032" skins on the B-17; they also used "icebox" rivets - heat treated "DD" (as opposed to the "AD" rivet we find in 2-2-V-1) according to that data, in large degree in the fuselage, so my suspicion is that the outer wing panels you describe may be the most fertile ground to examine for a fit.

Not to say a complete view of the B-17 wouldn't be warranted, and I think I will make the effort to get a preview here at the "City of Savannah" being restored at the Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum in Pooler, GA (near Savannah, ya'll come...).  That would at least give me a bit of a leg-up on what will come at Dayton, etc.

Your contributions of data here really are appreciated and do much to help educate us on the possibilities - it helps focus attention where it counts - important because every one of us has limited time and resources, of course.  Thanks!
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #597 on: March 18, 2014, 06:48:06 AM »

there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

There is one incident of a pre 5A model being damaged at Canton. On 16 March 1940 a PBY-2 BuNo 0487 hit reef on takeoff.  No mention of whether the airplane was a write off or was still flyable but in March of 1940 their were no repair facilities at Canton.  The U.S. military wasn't there yet and Pan Am only had a hotel and servicing facility.

I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect? I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

16 March 1940    USN    PBY-2    0487    VP-25    Hit reef on takeoff from Canton.

January 1942    USN    PBY       VP-23    Lost near Canton during night takeoff. I did some research to check model of vp-23 they had -5's at this time

12 February 1943    USN    PBY-5    8033    VP-71    Engine fire on takeoff at Canton. Crashed and sank.

13 August 1943    USN    PBY-5          Beached at Canton after being shot up by Japanese Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

16 February 1944    USN    PBY-5          Sank off Canton


again, these are all non landing gear models...
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #598 on: March 18, 2014, 06:52:51 AM »

there were at least 4 incidents of crashed PBY flying boats pre 5A models that crashed at canton for various reasons.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

There is one incident of a pre 5A model being damaged at Canton. On 16 March 1940 a PBY-2 BuNo 0487 hit reef on takeoff.  No mention of whether the airplane was a write off or was still flyable but in March of 1940 their were no repair facilities at Canton.  The U.S. military wasn't there yet and Pan Am only had a hotel and servicing facility.

I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect? I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

16 March 1940    USN    PBY-2    0487    VP-25    Hit reef on takeoff from Canton.

January 1942    USN    PBY       VP-23    Lost near Canton during night takeoff. I did some research to check model of vp-23 they had -5's at this time

12 February 1943    USN    PBY-5    8033    VP-71    Engine fire on takeoff at Canton. Crashed and sank.

13 August 1943    USN    PBY-5          Beached at Canton after being shot up by Japanese Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

16 February 1944    USN    PBY-5          Sank off Canton


again, these are all non landing gear models...

Thanks, Kevin.

I enjoy Wiki a great deal, but it is subject to editing needs now and then... but where else would we find so much so easily?

From all this the PBY-2 looks like it deserves more understanding along the lines of how-built, per your earlier posting.  Can you dig out any structural specifics on it?  What about living examples to look at?

I don't think the -5 is a strong candidate - too beefy, not likely to have a patch on the order we see in 2-2-V-1 (not saying I wouldn't look one over, mind you).

Thanks for your help!
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #599 on: March 18, 2014, 06:58:26 AM »

I was using the ameliapedia for my list of the aircraft. Is the information there now considered incorrect?

I created and maintain that page (I created and maintain the wiki, too, although there
are several other excellent contributors who have helped fill it with information).

I would be happy to correct any errors on the page.

I have updated it this morning to add the 22 June 1942 incident.

Quote
I did see that VP-23 states no losses on canton

If you would be so kind as to provide a link to your source, I can update the page to include that claim, provided that the source seems reliable.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 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