Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023587 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #600 on: March 18, 2014, 07:21:58 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.

Sorry, I missed that this was the 'Ameliapedia' in lieu of 'Wiki' -

In THAT case, it is FAR more reliable than Wiki...

Thanks, Marty.  I hope Kevin can provide the specifics.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #601 on: March 18, 2014, 07:47:34 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.

As I stated earlier I was being snide in my response to Ric. I do not know if the -2 was constructed using different methods. I only know that making the craft amphibious would be a significant redesign. I was and will continue to look for information that may give a clue one way or another.

I may be more useful in providing some assistance with regards to the New england air museum's 10A as I am about 10 minutes away.

Dayton has MANY aircraft that would be candidates to check on. just a quick look at the WWII aircraft they have includes
A later model amphibious PBY
B24
B17
B25
C47

all these planes had incidents on Canton but may or may not be viable candidates.... has Ric compiled his preliminary list??

edit: I also wanted to clarify, I am not saying that the panel is not from an Electra... I would love to be able to match it up to one... unfortunately we don't have her modified and repaired plane to match it to so the next best thing is to be able to positively say all other options were checked.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 08:31:28 AM by Kevin Weeks »
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #602 on: March 18, 2014, 07:57:57 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.

this is the link for the VP-23 information I had found. they tell when they group switched from the -2 to the -5 and whether there were losses or not. no losses were mentioned on Canton.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-23.htm

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 #603 on: March 18, 2014, 08:15:18 AM »

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

No.

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

The problem seems to be that you think the PBY-5A (with landing gear) came along later than the PBY-5.  Not so. It actually pre-dates the PBY-5 flying boat.  In the spring of 1939 the last production PBY-4 was converted to include retractable landing gear and was designated XPBY-5A.  The Navy ordered the first PBY-5 flying boats on December 20, 1939.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #604 on: March 18, 2014, 08:30:21 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.

this is the link for the VP-23 information I had found. they tell when they group switched from the -2 to the -5 and whether there were losses or not. no losses were mentioned on Canton.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-23.htm



Looks like the PBY-2's were traded in for PBY-5's in November 1941 - and based at Ford in Hawaii, interesting timing.

Thence a detachment of PBY-5's sent to Canton about a year later, and as you noted, no mishaps recorded.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 08:32:03 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #605 on: March 18, 2014, 08:48:07 AM »

Wondering about the C-87 (I think often grouped here as B-24) losses at Canton, particularly the one that hit the drink on approach.  I saw a reference to an accident report in Tighar's possession (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kanton_(Canton)_Island) - is this posted anywhere or otherwise available?


Here's where I'm going with this:

- B-24 skin diagram posted earlier by Mark Pearce showed areas of 0.032 skin in certain areas
including immediately aft of wings

- C-87 being a modified B-24 (modified not quite the right word as I think most were built as C-87 from the get go
on the same assembly line, not conversion of bomber post production) can we assume skin details to be similar?
Any way to document?, couldn't find any record of surviving air frames

- B-24's seem to be noted as likely to break apart in a predictable pattern notably immediately aft of the wings
in shall we say off-nominal landings/ditchings (ie Atka Island, Lady Be Good)

- If the C-87 broke up in the usual fashion, could the now exposed interior side of a section of 0.032 skin be exposed
to hydraulic forces (ie impact with water) that might provide similar features to 2-2-v-1?

- Accident report may note note how/if plane broke up

- Not sure about bouyancy but if there were attached empty o2 tanks in the area as in a B-24 or other floatables, who
knows what was recovered when the survivors were picked up or what washed ashore later...

- Do we have any skin/rivet info for B-24/C-87 that would rule out? Pictures seem to indicate all sorts of different rivet sizes and styles with some appearing close in general layout but of course no reference scale and without consideration to photo distortion.



Whether or not the above is deemed to have any weight, very good detail of a couple B-24 models here for general interest and worth a look:


Good resolution exterior photos
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/b-24m_liberator/index.php?Page=4

Internal panoramic views at various stations (very cool)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=494
note labelled 0.032 skin at radio operator station (replacement skin I assume)



Another B-24 thing...found one reference (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/VII/AAF-VII-7.html) talking about replacement horizontal stabilizers being brought in (Port Moresby so not to Canton specifically) after a number of failures.  Do we know any further details of this apparent stabilizer problem and if there might have been a lot of discarded stabilizers lying around, maybe even on Canton. At least could be eliminated as a possibility if skin guage, rivet details dont work
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #606 on: March 18, 2014, 08:52:21 AM »

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

No.

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

The problem seems to be that you think the PBY-5A (with landing gear) came along later than the PBY-5.  Not so. It actually pre-dates the PBY-5 flying boat.  In the spring of 1939 the last production PBY-4 was converted to include retractable landing gear and was designated XPBY-5A.  The Navy ordered the first PBY-5 flying boats on December 20, 1939.

as stated, I'm not a PBY expert. I did find evidence to the contrary though... my understanding of what I read was that the PBY-5 was already designed and ready for production when the -4 was converted to -5a (it didn't fly until november of 39) first navy orders were for the -5 not the -5A

http://www.catalina.org.uk/pby-catalina-history

As mentioned above, the final PBY-4 was not initially delivered to the US Navy for squadron use but was retained by the manufacturers for further design work. In fact, it was used for trials of the amphibious undercarriage system that was to provide future Catalinas with so much flexibility and that was ultimately to ensure the type’s longevity. Bu1245 had its weight increased by 2,300 lbs through the addition of two main wheel units, a nose wheel assembly and associated wheel well bays and doors. Although at first it was not fitted with blisters and it retained the original shape PBY-4 rudder, it became the prototype PBY-5A (XPBY-5A), first flying as such on 2nd November 1939. The US Navy, realising the type’s potential, decided that its then current order for PBY-5s should be amended to PBY-5As, and thereafter ordered many more. The British remained distinctly cool about the added wheels, however, and stuck to the pure flying boat variant, although one small order for twelve amphibious Catalina IIIs was placed.


notice the weight increase from the -4 to the -5A though!!
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #607 on: March 18, 2014, 09:05:38 AM »

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

No.

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

The problem seems to be that you think the PBY-5A (with landing gear) came along later than the PBY-5.  Not so. It actually pre-dates the PBY-5 flying boat.  In the spring of 1939 the last production PBY-4 was converted to include retractable landing gear and was designated XPBY-5A.  The Navy ordered the first PBY-5 flying boats on December 20, 1939.

as stated, I'm not a PBY expert. I did find evidence to the contrary though... my understanding of what I read was that the PBY-5 was already designed and ready for production when the -4 was converted to -5a (it didn't fly until november of 39) first navy orders were for the -5 not the -5A

http://www.catalina.org.uk/pby-catalina-history

As mentioned above, the final PBY-4 was not initially delivered to the US Navy for squadron use but was retained by the manufacturers for further design work. In fact, it was used for trials of the amphibious undercarriage system that was to provide future Catalinas with so much flexibility and that was ultimately to ensure the type’s longevity. Bu1245 had its weight increased by 2,300 lbs through the addition of two main wheel units, a nose wheel assembly and associated wheel well bays and doors. Although at first it was not fitted with blisters and it retained the original shape PBY-4 rudder, it became the prototype PBY-5A (XPBY-5A), first flying as such on 2nd November 1939. The US Navy, realising the type’s potential, decided that its then current order for PBY-5s should be amended to PBY-5As, and thereafter ordered many more. The British remained distinctly cool about the added wheels, however, and stuck to the pure flying boat variant, although one small order for twelve amphibious Catalina IIIs was placed.


notice the weight increase from the -4 to the -5A though!!

I had to re-read to get a clear picture of the weight increase - that isn't an 'improvement', it's apparently more of a penalty due to the weight of the retractable gear, associated doors and bays, etc.  That may be why the British were cool to the idea - may have liked the pure performance advantage of the lighter airframe.
- 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 #608 on: March 18, 2014, 09:14:25 AM »

Wondering about the C-87 (I think often grouped here as B-24) losses at Canton, particularly the one that hit the drink on approach.  I saw a reference to an accident report in Tighar's possession (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kanton_(Canton)_Island) - is this posted anywhere or otherwise available?


Here's where I'm going with this:

- B-24 skin diagram posted earlier by Mark Pearce showed areas of 0.032 skin in certain areas
including immediately aft of wings

- C-87 being a modified B-24 (modified not quite the right word as I think most were built as C-87 from the get go
on the same assembly line, not conversion of bomber post production) can we assume skin details to be similar?
Any way to document?, couldn't find any record of surviving air frames

- B-24's seem to be noted as likely to break apart in a predictable pattern notably immediately aft of the wings
in shall we say off-nominal landings/ditchings (ie Atka Island, Lady Be Good)

- If the C-87 broke up in the usual fashion, could the now exposed interior side of a section of 0.032 skin be exposed
to hydraulic forces (ie impact with water) that might provide similar features to 2-2-v-1?

- Accident report may note note how/if plane broke up

- Not sure about bouyancy but if there were attached empty o2 tanks in the area as in a B-24 or other floatables, who
knows what was recovered when the survivors were picked up or what washed ashore later...

- Do we have any skin/rivet info for B-24/C-87 that would rule out? Pictures seem to indicate all sorts of different rivet sizes and styles with some appearing close in general layout but of course no reference scale and without consideration to photo distortion.



Whether or not the above is deemed to have any weight, very good detail of a couple B-24 models here for general interest and worth a look:


Good resolution exterior photos
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/b-24m_liberator/index.php?Page=4

Internal panoramic views at various stations (very cool)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=494
note labelled 0.032 skin at radio operator station (replacement skin I assume)



Another B-24 thing...found one reference (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/VII/AAF-VII-7.html) talking about replacement horizontal stabilizers being brought in (Port Moresby so not to Canton specifically) after a number of failures.  Do we know any further details of this apparent stabilizer problem and if there might have been a lot of discarded stabilizers lying around, maybe even on Canton. At least could be eliminated as a possibility if skin guage, rivet details dont work

I can't answer many specifics on the C-87 / B-24 variants or their problems, but as has been pointed out here (by Mark Pearce, I think) these were relatively lightly-built heavy bombers (and transports in form of C-87).  I do know the C-87's had a reputation for in-flight break-ups - and my dad actually witnessed one do that in Burma.

IMO, we need to pay attention for airplanes that had a prior repair - 2-2-V-1 does not appear to be factory original material, to me, but a repair of some sort.  If my belief on this is correct, then 2-2-V-1 would not be merely a peeled away original skin, but something done for repairs before the ship met with such grief as to release this part to the wilds (or to human salvagers).
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #609 on: March 18, 2014, 09:53:36 AM »


I had to re-read to get a clear picture of the weight increase - that isn't an 'improvement', it's apparently more of a penalty due to the weight of the retractable gear, associated doors and bays, etc.  That may be why the British were cool to the idea - may have liked the pure performance advantage of the lighter airframe.


agreed! that's a big jump in weight....

Tried to download some PBY inspection manuals but the files won't unzip! anyone else want to give these a shot??

http://pbycatalina.com/pby-catalina-canso-manuals/
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #610 on: March 18, 2014, 10:37:38 AM »

this is the link for the VP-23 information I had found. they tell when they group switched from the -2 to the -5 and whether there were losses or not. no losses were mentioned on Canton.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-23.htm

Thanks for the link.

While it is true that no Canton losses were mentioned, the page doesn't claim to be complete.  Nor does it say, "There were no losses on Canton."  The timeline is called "Chronology of Significant Events."  It may be that the Canton accidents were not considered "significant" by the author of the chronology.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
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 #611 on: March 18, 2014, 11:12:15 AM »

We have to make the assumption that the actual total number of Canton and regional losses is unknown and unknowable - so we have to look at every type that came through Canton and the region. That list is knowable. That's what makes the investigation of 2-2-V-1 different from all other artifact investigations.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #612 on: March 18, 2014, 11:14:00 AM »


Jeff,
...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
 

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...  ...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, 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!

My pleasure Jeff.   

Yes, .032" sheet was used in the B-17 wings...  :)

http://746project.wordpress.com/parts/right-wing/left-wing/

Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #613 on: March 18, 2014, 11:17:45 AM »

this is the link for the VP-23 information I had found. they tell when they group switched from the -2 to the -5 and whether there were losses or not. no losses were mentioned on Canton.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-23.htm

Thanks for the link.

While it is true that no Canton losses were mentioned, the page doesn't claim to be complete.  Nor does it say, "There were no losses on Canton."  The timeline is called "Chronology of Significant Events."  It may be that the Canton accidents were not considered "significant" by the author of the chronology.

possibly... continuing to look.

I found another source that lists a loss of VP-23 aircraft in jan. of 42. but lists the location as hawaii??

http://www.vpnavy.com/mishap_summary.html
VP-23 --- 11 JAN 42 A/C: PBY-5 LOCATION: NAS Pearl Harbor, Hawaii BUNO: 2452


these are all losses listed involving canton... none are from VP-23

VP-25 --- 16 MAR 40 A/C: PBY-2 LOCATION: CANTON ISL BUNO: 0487
VP-42 --- 30 JAN 42 A/C: PBY-5A LOCATION: Canton Islands-Suva, Fiji.(Makin Island) BUNO: 2413
VP-71 --- 12 FEB 43 A/C: PBY-5 LOCATION: Canton Island, SP BUNO: O8033
VP-106 --- 12 OCT 43 A/C: PB4Y-1 LOCATION: Canton to Funafuti BUNO: 32102
VP-108 --- 18 NOV 43 A/C: PB4Y-1 LOCATION: Canton, northwest of Funafuti BUNO: 32123



Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #614 on: March 18, 2014, 11:54:54 AM »

We have to make the assumption that the actual total number of Canton and regional losses is unknown and unknowable - so we have to look at every type that came through Canton and the region. That list is knowable. That's what makes the investigation of 2-2-V-1 different from all other artifact investigations.

agreed... which puts the scope of the search to huge proportions.

Canton was on the southern ferry route for Hawaii to australia... that has to be almost every long range plane used in the pacific theater??
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 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