Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1012989 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #690 on: March 23, 2014, 05:03:12 PM »


The "Canton Island Scenario" is not popular around here I know ::) but the evidence supporting it grows stronger and stronger.

I don't know about the relevancy of 'popular', why don't we continue to focus on that which is objective and not worry about popularity?  Of course many of us want to solve the mystery beyond doubt and no question we all tend to have favored ideas for reasons we each understand, no problem.  Keep feeding good information that can be evaluated and I'm happy, for one. 

Can you quantify "stronger and stronger" please?  I still see reasons to look, but I'm not sure that I see evidence in-hand that persuades me that Canton 'just has to be the place'.  What we need is conclusive results so far as possible, not fog...  What am I missing?


Jeff,
Now that we know the true significance of "AN-A-13" and when it came into use...

"The specification [AN-A-13] had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943".

...and if Ric found three examples of labeling that exactly match the font seen on 2-2-V-1, how could
AN-A-13 markings appear on a sheet of aluminum alleged to be from 1937?

Re-read "Matching the Markings"
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1993Vol_9/Markings.pdf

"Although it wasn’t much to go on, we reasoned that if we could match the size and style of the letters with labeling surviving on other aircraft we might be able to complete the picture. An exhaustive search of aircraft of World War Two and earlier vintage produced only three examples of aluminum bearing these exact markings:  In all three cases, the entire sequence of labeling reads: ALCOA T. M. .032" ALCLAD 24 S – T 3 AN – A – 13"

Now, re-read this message from a few days ago, but beware- "AN-A-13" does in fact appear on sheet thinner than .032" as Ric found and reported way back in 1993.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30572.html#msg30572

"The 1943 edition of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet clearly describes AN-A-13 as a "recent" specification that "permits a reduction in the thickness of the cladding on alclad sheet 0.064 and thicker." Unless the specification was later amended, the AN-A-13 designation should not appear on sheet thinner than 0.064.  Ergo, it was never on 2-2-V-1.

"We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943."


If you'll kindly look upstring, I think you'll find that I myself questioned whether we really know that this piece of aluminum ever bore "AN-A-13" for certain.  I understand the font match so far found; maybe I'm dense, but I'm missing that that alone makes this exclusively "AN-A-13" spec stock.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #691 on: March 23, 2014, 06:20:30 PM »

Amen.
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #692 on: March 23, 2014, 10:34:39 PM »

This thread has more twists and turns than an early M. Night Shyamalan movie.

If I understand it, we started out with the idea that the lettering on 2-2-V-1 indicated it to be special stock, pre-war, Alclad. But now we know the slant and san-serif ‘D’ are seen on WWII-era Alclad.  We have one example of an Electra — Earhart’s, in fact — on which we can see a different typeface than seen on 2-2-V-1. Do we know of any examples of pre-war Alclad with the same typeface we see on 2-2-V-1? 

At this point, what, if anything, about 2-2-V-1 suggests it is a pre-war airplane skin? It’s not the typeface on the ‘D’, and apparently the thickness of the aluminum and rivet type we see on 2-2-V-1 were also employed in airplane types that crashed at Canton. Is there still a reason why it is preferable to believe that 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra rather than a piece of a WWII airplane?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #693 on: March 23, 2014, 11:30:35 PM »

A rendering here I have not seen before. Not sure of the accuracy of all of the riverts but someone spent a good amount of time on it.

wide shot link
3971R
 
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 11:33:16 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #694 on: March 24, 2014, 06:36:23 AM »

This thread has more twists and turns than an early M. Night Shyamalan movie.

If I understand it, we started out with the idea that the lettering on 2-2-V-1 indicated it to be special stock, pre-war, Alclad. But now we know the slant and san-serif ‘D’ are seen on WWII-era Alclad.  We have one example of an Electra — Earhart’s, in fact — on which we can see a different typeface than seen on 2-2-V-1. Do we know of any examples of pre-war Alclad with the same typeface we see on 2-2-V-1? 

At this point, what, if anything, about 2-2-V-1 suggests it is a pre-war airplane skin? It’s not the typeface on the ‘D’, and apparently the thickness of the aluminum and rivet type we see on 2-2-V-1 were also employed in airplane types that crashed at Canton. Is there still a reason why it is preferable to believe that 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra rather than a piece of a WWII airplane?

Yes, it has taken some twists and turns, Steve.  I think it has been most educational.

I still find it 'preferable to believe' that it came from the Electra - the challenge will honestly be 'can it be shown to be such', and many possibilities have been thrown onto the wall in these 'twists and turns'. 

But to me, to accept the other possibilities without investigation just because there are other possibilities would be to toss 2-2-V-1 onto the 'could be anything' heap without further investigation.  Does 2-2-V-1 fit another regional type better than the Electra?  That seems to be the long-standing question, and a bunch of us are descending on Dayton Ohio later this very week to do our best to see what can be learned about that.

Each can make of that what they will, of course.  For me it's a quest to investigate as I might and to learn something.

Is 2-2-V-1 still a candidate for the Electra?  I believe it remains so - and that it remains an oddity even among the other airplane artifacts found at Niku.  These other possibilities are not enough to dissuade me from going and looking further. 

I can also understand where many might glaze over at the prospects that have bubbled up through the twists and turns you describe and fall away into 'could be anything' - just like I understand why a well-to-do but naive pilot / owner of a Bonanaza once didn't understand why I had to take such care to install an ELT for him when "some barn roofing would have done, I coulda bent that with a hammer and pop-riveted it in..."  He never could see the difference in his notion and a well-formed and braced bracket carefully attached to solid framing in the tail of his shiny bird; I was never able to help him see the difference in 2024 T and 'barn roofing tin', never mind the difference in 'pop rivets' and well-bucked AD solids.

Which is a bit of a gross example, I concede - you are smarter than what I had to deal with and actually I accuse none here of not 'getting that'.  But my point is, 'where is the better fit, not just the broad possibility' - and so far I still don't see a better fit: the PBY's are still too heavy by all I've been able to learn; the B-17 has a very regulated rivet pattern where #3 brazier AD rivets attach .032" skins over waffle plating (corrugated underskins); 2-2-V-1 is very clearly a 'repair' article to my A&P / IA eyes - eyes that have watched over the fabrication and installation of many doublers and skins for repairs and alterations, and that have inspected all-too-many repairs that were firm, but not so pretty - so which of those wrecked birds at Canton, etc. had such an existing piece?

It is approaching 77 years and many in the world still look for Earhart; the clues that may remain are thready and hard to find.  In my heart and soul, 2-2-V-1 deserves the very best attention I can give it.  If another would choose to walk by, that's their choice.  At what point someone chooses to walk by, or to dig in and look more closely, is up to the individual.  2-2-V-1 remains a strong draw for me - it is 'consistent with' so much that is known about the Electra, still; it also has some characteristics that suggest other installations.  But I've seen nothing specific enough to create a bigger draw among those so far, despite all the good information Mark and others have shared here.

Thanks for an insightful thought - I don't disagree; I merely have my own view and wish to continue the pursuit as I believe 2-2-V-1 still may have much to tell us.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 07:30:32 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #695 on: March 24, 2014, 07:49:33 AM »

Is there still a reason why it is preferable to believe that 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra rather than a piece of a WWII airplane?

Well, for one thing, the Electra is still the best fit. We may find a better fit on another airplane but until we do NR16020 is still the best candidate.

And then there's the failure sequence - lateral separation along one edge, then fracture on two edges from a fluid force hitting the interior surface, then metal fatigue causing the failure of the fourth edge - all of which fits our hypothetical scenario for NR16020.

What are the chances that some other aircraft suffered an accident involving that same sequence of failures?
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #696 on: March 24, 2014, 07:56:59 AM »

Is there still a reason why it is preferable to believe that 2-2-V-1 is from the Electra rather than a piece of a WWII airplane?

Well, for one thing, the Electra is still the best fit. We may find a better fit on another airplane but until we do NR16020 is still the best candidate.

And then there's the failure sequence - lateral separation along one edge, then fracture on two edges from a fluid force hitting the interior surface, then metal fatigue causing the failure of the fourth edge - all of which fits our hypothetical scenario for NR16020.

What are the chances that some other aircraft suffered an accident involving that same sequence of failures?

That helps clarify the point, Ric, thanks.

I don't think I've been giving the accident evidence in 2-2-V-1 enough credit.  That is truly one more telling feature.  Maybe there are some, but it definitely fits what must have happened to the Electra generally if it did come to grief on the reef, as we theorize.  And it was not 2-2-V-1 that got TIGHAR to that hypothesis - the artifact was found in the wake of the hypothesis' genesis.

So what other airplane would have credibly had an .032" alclad repair already existing when it came to grief in the region so as to lose this very part in the manner suggested by what we can see in 2-2-V-1?  That is a narrower slice of pie, for sure.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #697 on: March 24, 2014, 08:24:08 AM »

 
Jeff, somewhere up-string you wrote, "...those who would say 'this could be anything' need to pay more attention - they're missing or simply refusing to see a lot of crucial detail."

Please study the first two photos below that show Alclad markings from ca. 1936-1941. I'm sure you know one photo is an up-close shot of AE's Electra at the Lockheed factory. The second photo is also from Lockheed and appears in the 1941 Alcoa handbook "Aluminum in Aircraft."

If you study the font carefully - looking for crucial detail - you will see it has rather large serifs, and upright letters over one half-inch tall, and simply does not match the font Ric describes he sees on 2-2-V-1.   

"Faintly visible, but undeniably present, are the letters “A” and “D,” each measuring 1/2 inch in height and spaced roughly a third of that distance apart. The letters are set on a line which runs at an angle of 8° to that of the rivet holes, and are rendered in a distinctive sans serif type style. The left-hand leg of the A is noticeably skinnier than the right and the crossbar is set relatively low on the legs.  The arc of the D is relatively thick but tapers to join the vertical shaft. Both letters are canted very slightly to the right."

In 1992 Ric also reported he found three examples of Alclad labeling that matched the font of the letter 'D' on 2-2-V-1.  He believed these markings all dated to the year 1935, yet we now know those three examples must be from the WW2 era since they include the WW2 era "AN-A-13" designation.  I trust you understand the significance of this.

We now have good photos showing what Alcoa labeling looked like in both the pre-war and WW2 eras, -and one of those photos shows an Alcoa label on Earhart's Electra.  [I trust you understand the significance of this also.]

Steve asks a great question- where is the evidence Alcoa also used a sans-serif, canted, half-inch high font in 1936-7?  Can you find one example?  Allow me to paraphrase what you say above;

"...those who would say 'this could be a piece of Earhart's Electra' need to pay more attention - they're missing or simply refusing to see a lot of crucial detail."


Up-close photo of AE's Electra under construction ca. 1936


Photo from the Lockheed Co., "Aluminum in Aircraft" 1941 edition.


Up-close photo of 2-2-V-1


Labeling now suspected to be from B-24- #41-23766, crashed Dec. 20, 1942
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-24/41-23766.html


« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 09:05:22 AM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #698 on: March 24, 2014, 11:08:23 AM »

Steve asks a great question- where is the evidence Alcoa also used a sans-serif, canted, half-inch high font in 1936-7?  Can you find one example?

Where is the evidence they didn't?
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #699 on: March 24, 2014, 11:16:52 AM »


Steve asks a great question- where is the evidence Alcoa also used a sans-serif, canted, half-inch high font in 1936-7?  Can you find one example?

Where is the evidence they didn't?

"Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.:

"If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!"

 
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #700 on: March 24, 2014, 11:40:18 AM »

"Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.:

"If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!"


You have the shoe on the wrong foot.  If you are asserting that the artifact has been disqualified as having been part of NR16020 the burden of that proof is on you. We do not claim to have proven that 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020.  We're investigating that possibility.  You claim to have proven that it did not come from NR16020.  You're basing your claim of proof on the assumption that the style of lettering on the artifact is unique to AN-A-13 labeling which seems to date from circa 1942.  You have shown that some of the aluminum used to build some Lockheed 10s, including Amelia's, had labeling that differs from the labeling on the artifact, but our hypothesis does not hold that the artifact was part of original construction. So far, to my knowledge, no one has produced an example of the labeling used to repair Electras. 
ALCOA gave us a bum steer on the meaning of AN-A-13.  It is not "reserve stock" approved only for modification and repair - but I have a hard time believing that the guy who told us that simply made up the concept of "reserve stock."   
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #702 on: March 24, 2014, 12:35:47 PM »


So far, to my knowledge, no one has produced an example of the labeling used to repair Electras. 


"Lockheed 10A, cn 1015, delivered March 7, 1935 (later converted to 10E). Matching labeling was found on fuselage panels reskinned when the cabin windows’ shape was changed from rounded edge to square edge."

That's not a repair.  It was a modification and we don't know when or why the modification was done.  That airplane had a long and checkered career before being rebuilt by Linda Finch for her 1997 world flight. C/n 1015 is now enshrined at Seattle's Museum of Flight.  We also have the same labeling on a flap actuating rod cover from the cabin of c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum but we don't know whether the cover was original construction or a later replacement.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #703 on: March 24, 2014, 12:59:41 PM »


We also have the same labeling on a flap actuating rod cover from the cabin of c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum but we don't know whether the cover was original construction or a later replacement.


Now that we know the "Mavis" is really a B-24, there should be no controversy about when the US Gov. specification "AN-A-13" first appears on Alclad.  The flap rod cover on #1052, the re-skinning of #1015, and the patch on the C-47 in Dover can't be older than the WW2 era.

"We also now know what "recent" means.  I dug out my 1941 copy of ALCOA's Aluminum in Aircraft booklet. The wording is identical to the 1943 edition except no mention of AN-A-13 (see below).  The specification had to appear sometime between 1941 and 1943."

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30572.html#msg30572

« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 01:09:33 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 #704 on: March 24, 2014, 02:10:35 PM »

"Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.:

"If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!"


You have the shoe on the wrong foot.  If you are asserting that the artifact has been disqualified as having been part of NR16020 the burden of that proof is on you. We do not claim to have proven that 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020.  We're investigating that possibility.  You claim to have proven that it did not come from NR16020.  You're basing your claim of proof on the assumption that the style of lettering on the artifact is unique to AN-A-13 labeling which seems to date from circa 1942.  You have shown that some of the aluminum used to build some Lockheed 10s, including Amelia's, had labeling that differs from the labeling on the artifact, but our hypothesis does not hold that the artifact was part of original construction. So far, to my knowledge, no one has produced an example of the labeling used to repair Electras. 
ALCOA gave us a bum steer on the meaning of AN-A-13.  It is not "reserve stock" approved only for modification and repair - but I have a hard time believing that the guy who told us that simply made up the concept of "reserve stock."

Second that, well said.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 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