Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric,

In the long time you’ve been pondering the origin of 2-2-V-1 I know you’ve examined the Alclad markings of several Electras and possibly other Electras and prewar aircraft as well.

How was the original (rather than modification or repair) Alclad skin marked in these planes, particularly on the Electras?  Did the markings match those we see on Earhart's Electra in  the photo Greg Daspit found in the Purdue Archives and the Alcoa handbook photo?

Electras in museums, by definition, had long careers before they ended up in museums.  Labeling on the aluminum is almost impossible to find because it is usually hidden by other structure. Although we know that Lockheed at least sometimes had the labeling on the exterior surface I've never seen an Electra in a museum with labeling visible on the exterior surface.   If you do find exposed aluminum on the interior of Electras in museums, the labeling is covered with green/yellow zinc chromate wash.  Remember the photos of the interior of c/n 1052 where we thin 2-2-V-1 fits?  Zinc chromate was developed as a corrosion inhibitor around 1939.
In short, finding aluminum labeling on existing Lockheed 10s is really difficult.

[Steve Lee]

As of December 2012, Tighar lists 16 survivors:

c/n    Owner
1011  Pima ASM, Tucson
1015  Linda Finch. sale to MOF pending
1026  Frederick Patterson III, American Canyon CA
1037  Science museum, London
1042  Grace McGuire
1052  NEAM Bradley Field,, CT
1076 Air maybe n Cert cancel 8/26/2011. Sale reported.
1091 Sold 2011. Rumored rebuilding in US
1095 Fuselage only  MOTAT Auckland NZ
1107 Yesterdays Air Force, Sydney
1112 National Aviation Museum in Ottawa
1116 Air Canada (not WCAM)
1130 Restored and on display at Naval Aviation Museum
1138 MOTAT Auckland.
1145 Rob Mackley, Auckland NZ
3501 NASM

Perhaps their owners would have some useful knowledge about Alclad labeling on their Electras.  It would be worth asking.

[John Ousterhout]

The "...AD" imprint that is visible on 2-2-V-1 would not have been visible after it was over-painted with primer and paint, assuming such was done.  The residual markings seen on 2-2-V-1 are "etched" (if I may coin a phrase) into the surface of the artifact, so there is not much reason to expect to see a marking of comparable quality on anything found on a "restored" example in a museum.  I would maintain that the absence of such evidence on any particular example proves nothing. Are there examples of Lockheed aircraft repaired in the late 1930's that can be examined?  If one of them exhibits the same type face on the sheet metal, then we've largely made our case - that the only way an example of a Lockheed repair could have appeared on Niku was by arriving on Amelia's aircraft.  The details would then  remain to be worked out...
On the other hand, if the type face is proven to have been resident on other aircraft common to later WWII activities in the region, then the evidence becomes ambiguous.
We need an unambiguous decision on type-face dates, don't we?

[JNev]

In what way are the markings a genuine hurdle, Mark?  I fail to understand, please explain if you will.

I could be snarky Jeff, and write as you did earlier that "I don't have the time", but I will say this much....

I wasn't being 'snarky' - just factual.
 

Ric discovered the font on 2-2-V-1 matches ALCLAD labeling now known to be from the WW2 period - it does not match the font in ALCLAD labeling known to date to the 1930s. 

That's the hurdle.  Spin things any way you wish, but go to Dayton with an open mind, and study any ALCLAD labels you see as carefully as the rivets.

Thanks for clarifying.  I'm spinning nothing, but "there you go again..." 

I'll be in Dayton and studying all I can, thanks.  To conclude with you, I don't think we have as much conclusory information as you think - we have examples to study, and I'm sure there's more to be found.  I simply don't accept your rather pointed context as all inclusive, but spin as you will... 

[Ric Gillespie]

We need an unambiguous decision on type-face dates, don't we?

Nicely put.  Unfortunately, we don't always get what we need.  All we can do is try.

[Paul Chattey]

Question from a long time lurker regarding imprint, is the "D" and partial "A" really below the surface of 2-2-V-1, etched, or do I misunderstand?  If so, what does side lighting show?  And I ask with some security that this has been done. 

[JNev]

We need an unambiguous decision on type-face dates, don't we?

Nicely put.  Unfortunately, we don't always get what we need.  All we can do is try.

Second that.

Contrary to what may have been suggested of late, I'm not afraid of whatever the outcome - let's find out all that we can, including the fate of the characters as it may be.

The point I'd make is that so far I've not seen evidence that we have conclusive information so far that says a sans-serif character cannot appear in the right time frame for a repair to NR16020.  If I've missed something on that, then I'd appreciate the explicit explanation - otherwise all I see is a mess of twists and turns.

Of course we've talked much here about looking at 'fit' - that's probably the most evident challenge, but what may not have been fully appreciated is that this merry band is a fairly curious and probing bunch, especially when spending time and money to 'go see' (I saw this among those who attended the Earhart Symposium in D.C. a couple of years ago).  So I'll point out that I doubt any of us travelers are in the habit of going on a blind rabbit hunt such that we'd be shaded into looking only at rivets and stiffener spacing.  Questioning and learning all we can about vintage structures - including any markings that can be discerned or learned of, is important - goes without saying.  That said, I am grateful for the full discussion here to push the thinking on that, so not meaning to be sour on fonts... just not convinced that we've fully exhausted the font front (say that fast a few times...). 

[JNev]

Question from a long time lurker regarding imprint, is the "D" and partial "A" really below the surface of 2-2-V-1, etched, or do I misunderstand?  If so, what does side lighting show?  And I ask with some security that this has been done.

It occurs to me that this would be one point that the 'Hyperspectral Imaging' effort might help with.  I don't know the answer as to how 'etched' was determined earlier, but it was probably apparent to the NTSB examiners.

BTW, I don't consider the etched character to be an unusual finding.  The ink might have done it by itself, or it could have been by a hydroscopic tendency of the residual marking that acted to concentrate moisture and contaminants there, resulting in visible etching.  Even the clad on alclad will do that.  Conversely, are the characters actually etched, or is it the surrounding material that is more etched (was the metal under the printing more preserved)?  Either way, what we have is visible contrast relating to what was originally printed on the metal and not the intact ink itself, apparently.

[Ric Gillespie]

It occurs to me that this would be one point that the 'Hyperspectral Imaging' effort might help with.  I don't know the answer as to how 'etched' was determined earlier, but it was probably apparent to the NTSB examiners.

Etched might not be the right word. The A and D show up as brighter aluminum than the surrounding surface, suggesting (as you have suggested) that the ink protected the metal for some period of time.

[Jeff Carter]

Here is another example where the "ALCLAD" marking effected how the surface and paint deteriorated.
http://colesaircraft.blogspot.com/2012/11/anatomy-of-p-51-mustang-loss.html
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DOpy0yjpbQY/UKWsw-GAmcI/AAAAAAAAAdI/YQSaCC4lyHo/s1600/IMG_2604.jpg

[Monty Fowler]

It occurs to me that this would be one point that the 'Hyperspectral Imaging' effort might help with. 

Good point, Jeff. We need to do this, but it won't be free. I sent my check in to help this effort - who else is on board?

LTM, who does what he can,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[JNev]

It occurs to me that this would be one point that the 'Hyperspectral Imaging' effort might help with. 

Good point, Jeff. We need to do this, but it won't be free. I sent my check in to help this effort - who else is on board?

LTM, who does what he can,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

I've been mulling that one over - I'm going to jump in too, maybe it can help discern more information about any lettering not yet seen, etc.

[Kevin Weeks]

I'm still searching for some data on the markings. I started looking for production aircraft pre WWII to see what they had. I came up with the seversky p-35. this plane started production in 1937 and ended in late summer 1938.

here are the wings being made, as you can see they bare the same markings as the photos of the electra:



edit: to clarify, the photo is proported to be a P-35 which ended production in 1938. it could also be a P-35A which remained in production into 1940.. I don't haven any way of knowing...

[Mark Pearce]

I'm still searching for some data on the markings...  I came up with the seversky p-35. this plane started production in 1937 and ended in late summer 1938. 

here are the wings being made, as you can see they bare the same markings as the photos of the electra:

edit: to clarify, the photo is proported to be a P-35 which ended production in 1938. it could also be a P-35A which remained in production into 1940.. I don't haven any way of knowing...

It's an extremely interesting photo either way Kevin.  Many thanks for posting it.

[Kevin Weeks]

I found this image of a B17F. the markings are not clear but I don't know if we have seen this one before?? this does not have the earlier "ALC24ST" marking. Neither do I see "AN-A-13T" listed on it.... could this be in between or are my eyes becoming too tired from squinting at 70+ year old pictures!