Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 858584 times)

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #840 on: April 03, 2014, 04:43:33 PM »

Hi All

What is it you all want to know ?

Is it the date 2024 T3 was first made ? or do you's want to know when fonts were first used on aluminum skin ?

 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Jeff Carter

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #841 on: April 03, 2014, 05:44:54 PM »

Good list.  To these you might add the Seversky wingtip and the 2-3 examples in Alcoa aluminum book from 1941.  The DC-2 example is a bit tentative due to small size of image but might also be worth listing. 



Thanks Steve, but I specifically refrained from suggesting the markings on 1052 "proved" anything. I said it was "interesting" and still think so. I am fully aware it may be a replacement piece. In any event we now appear to have other examples of sans serif italicized fonts used prior to WWII and serif roman fonts in WWII. We also have examples that fit somewhere between, design-wise.

These are interesting data points, but we are far from being able to say anything definitive or exclusive about font styles vs time periods yet. Clearly, when it comes to this issue, we literally haven't even counted all the variables...

... I don't even know if one can divide the font styles into the arbitrary categories "Pre War" and "WWII." I made those terms up. I do think it's interesting that examples of a variety of font styles and sub-styles is emerging. Some seem to be associated with pre-war and some seem to be associated with WWII.

The sans serif typeface is on #1052. Original, replacement, or otherwise. It's there. That's a fact. Therefore it's "associated" with a pre-war aircraft. So that's "interesting" to me. The Enola Gay example seems to represent a reversion to any earlier sub-style. But I ain't claimin' any of that to be "true." Only "interesting." And "as best as we can tell," while true, is not definitive.

In fact, you may ignore anything I've said except for, "we clearly haven't fully characterized the typographic labeling variations and permutations on aircraft aluminum c 1935-1945."


Mark, I find it "interesting" that we can now study photographs showing Alclad labels that are without question from the Pre-War period.  Of course we have to keep an eye out for 'design nuances' and 'variability' you and others properly identify are important factors in the big picture here.  Maybe we can find the Pre-War fonts fit a pattern, or have things in common with War era fonts.  Maybe they don't.  I also find it interesting that no one has yet found an example of a sans-serif font, 'close to' or 'similar' to the one seen on 2-2-V-1 that is without question Pre-War.  It's worth remembering what Ric stated earlier-

"All we have are the letters AD in the same font used on aluminum that bears the AN-A-13 designation. We do not know that this was the first or only time that ALCOA used that font. How many pre-war aircraft have we looked at to see what the labeling looked like?
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30892.html#msg30892

Good question.  Were any labels we have not seen before - from any time period - photographed during the trip to Dayton?  I've put together the images below to make it easier to compare some labeling.  Let's build a detailed data-base showing "...variations and permutations on aircraft aluminum c 1935-1945."

Photos that are without question Pre-War;
 
1) Douglas TBD Devastator -  ca. 1937-1939 [from Steve Lee.]

2) Cal-Tech photograph- ca. 1938 [from Hal Beck.]

3) Seversky P-35- ca. 1937-1938 [Kevin Weeks]

4) Amelia's Earhart's Lockheed L-10E - 1936 [Greg Daspit]


Labeling on flap actuator cover, Lockheed Electra cn 1052.
[Matches half inch font on 2-2-V-1.  Includes the War period spec. "AN-A-13"]


Labeling on fuselage modifications, Lockheed cn 1015
[Also matches font seen on 2-2-V-1, and includes the War period spec. "AN-A-13"]


Ca. 1939 Douglas TBD Devastator


1938 Cal-Tech


Ca. 1938 Seversky P-35


Amelia Earhart's L-10E, 1936

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg31086.html#msg31086
Link to Jerry Germann's photo of the L-10E
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #842 on: April 03, 2014, 06:54:26 PM »


...Now as to 'labels', no argument - "T3" appeared later than the more archaic "S-T", etc. by all I've learned here.  Should "T3" surface on 2-2-V-1 as a certainty, then you may have something that puts it out of time-frame due to when the new designation of T3 emerged (and nice if we can pin down more precisely as we still seem to have slightly loose ends on that for now).

Thanks for providing specific references to data above...


Yes, the focus is on the labeling, not the technical process.  Thank Steve for bringing this new detail to our attention.

This article in Light Metal Age discussing international temper designation conventions provides useful background on the adoption of a standard temper designation system here in the US.  Of particular note is the part that reads:

"Subdivisions of the T temper for wrought aluminum alloys are based on assigning to a thermally treatable alloy the letter T followed by numerals 1 through 10, i.e. T1 through T10 (Table II). This basic T temper subdivision like the H temper subdivision has been utilized since 1948 in the U.S and published in the 1962 issue of the ANSI H35.1 standard."

So, it looks like the changeover from 24S-T (no number after the T) to 'T3' (e.g. 24S-T3) labeling,  as we see on c/n 1015, reflects an industry standard that was established 1948.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 09:29:46 PM by Steve Lee »
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #843 on: April 04, 2014, 06:09:44 AM »


...Now as to 'labels', no argument - "T3" appeared later than the more archaic "S-T", etc. by all I've learned here.  Should "T3" surface on 2-2-V-1 as a certainty, then you may have something that puts it out of time-frame due to when the new designation of T3 emerged (and nice if we can pin down more precisely as we still seem to have slightly loose ends on that for now).

Thanks for providing specific references to data above...


Yes, the focus is on the labeling, not the technical process.  Thank Steve for bringing this new detail to our attention.

This article in Light Metal Age discussing international temper designation conventions provides useful background on the adoption of a standard temper designation system here in the US.  Of particular note is the part that reads:

"Subdivisions of the T temper for wrought aluminum alloys are based on assigning to a thermally treatable alloy the letter T followed by numerals 1 through 10, i.e. T1 through T10 (Table II). This basic T temper subdivision like the H temper subdivision has been utilized since 1948 in the U.S and published in the 1962 issue of the ANSI H35.1 standard."

So, it looks like the changeover from 24S-T (no number after the T) to 'T3' (e.g. 24S-T3) labeling,  as we see on c/n 1015, reflects an industry standard that was established 1948.

This may be true as a "standard" for labeling. As all of us who have searched for labeling images can attest to, there was a fair degree of variability in the labels before the war. Most publications I have read about 24 series ALCLAD mention that it was introduced in the T3 temper in 1931. To me this indicates that the "T" type nomenclature was used well before 1948. There was also mention of other labeling (letters and numbers) after the 24 that indicated temper differences. So even though they may have created a labeling standard to follow in 1948 we have seen that these designators were in use prior to that point. I'm sure the the standard was issued as a result of all the variability we are seeing in the labeling.

I don't think you can apply such a broad brush in this fashion.
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #844 on: April 04, 2014, 06:37:25 AM »

Kevin,

What I am saying based on the LMA article (and supported by the NACA titles) is that after the standard was adopted, the '3' was added to the '24S-T' labeling to be consistent with the standard. Maybe someone can find a well-dated pre-1948 example of Alclad marked as '24S-T3', but I don't think it'll happen. 

added comments: By the way, you say "As all of us who have searched for labeling images can attest to, there was a fair degree of variability in the labels before the war".  Isn't it in fact the opposite? I think in all the definitively pre-war examples we've seen, the labeling is more consistent than in the WW2 (or later) examples. 

« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 07:15:17 AM by Steve Lee »
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #845 on: April 04, 2014, 08:00:12 AM »

Kevin,

What I am saying based on the LMA article (and supported by the NACA titles) is that after the standard was adopted, the '3' was added to the '24S-T' labeling to be consistent with the standard. Maybe someone can find a well-dated pre-1948 example of Alclad marked as '24S-T3', but I don't think it'll happen. 

added comments: By the way, you say "As all of us who have searched for labeling images can attest to, there was a fair degree of variability in the labels before the war".  Isn't it in fact the opposite? I think in all the definitively pre-war examples we've seen, the labeling is more consistent than in the WW2 (or later) examples.

Sorry, I meant to put "before the end of the war"
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #846 on: April 04, 2014, 08:49:30 AM »

Does TIGHAR have engineering drawings of the 10E model that include the material callouts?  I would expect the temper to be referenced there, as well as the designation.  It might be helpful to see how Lockheed described it.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #847 on: April 04, 2014, 08:57:04 AM »

Does TIGHAR have engineering drawings of the 10E model that include the material callouts?  I would expect the temper to be referenced there, as well as the designation.  It might be helpful to see how Lockheed described it.

I don't know whether the drawings are that specific.  I'll see what I can find out when I can find the time.  Right now I'm working on the draft of the 2-2-V-1 Commission Report.
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #848 on: April 04, 2014, 09:24:58 AM »



 I think in all the definitively pre-war examples we've seen, the labeling is more consistent than in the WW2 (or later) examples. 


I see a lot of consistency in the pre-war fonts too.
This font - Engravers' Roman Bold BT - is not exact I know, but it comes fairly close. The serifs are 'off' [too thin] compared to the photo, but the number '2' is extremely close.  The thesis says [page 6] the stringer spacing was 5", and rivet spacing was .75"  The photo can be enlarged to a full sized -1/1- view.  The characters appear to be about 5/8" tall.  http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2706/1/Dunn_lg_1938.pdf

http://www.ffonts.net/Engravers-Roman-Bold-BT.font?text=ALC24 S T 


Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #849 on: April 04, 2014, 11:34:51 AM »

How many plants produced alclad in 1937 and would their stamps be the same?  Why would a hand stamp be the same? 
3971R
 
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #850 on: April 04, 2014, 12:18:59 PM »

How many plants produced alclad in 1937 and would their stamps be the same?  Why would a hand stamp be the same?

I don't know the answer, I do know that aluminum production requires a tremendous amount of electricity to produce. during the war hydro plants were selling electricity to these plants at extremely reduced rates so that they could produce more product. I think that alcoa had a patent on the alclad (it was disputed to have been a government funded product and a suit was filed at one point) so in the 30's I believe they may have been the only producer. Duralumin (17ST) was a separate patent for a different alloy.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #851 on: April 04, 2014, 12:50:47 PM »

3971R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #852 on: April 04, 2014, 12:56:50 PM »

Good stuff, Greg, thanks.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #853 on: April 04, 2014, 07:55:16 PM »

Does TIGHAR have engineering drawings of the 10E model that include the material callouts?  I would expect the temper to be referenced there, as well as the designation.  It might be helpful to see how Lockheed described it.

I don't know whether the drawings are that specific.  I'll see what I can find out when I can find the time.  Right now I'm working on the draft of the 2-2-V-1 Commission Report.

Ric,

I think it would be a great idea to have the Commission Report reviewed by two outside reviewers before final 'publication'.  It's always good to get unbiased input from well qualified people who weren't directly involved in the work and can look at it with fresh eyes.

Just a suggestion.

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #854 on: April 05, 2014, 07:06:12 AM »

Ric,

I think it would be a great idea to have the Commission Report reviewed by two outside reviewers before final 'publication'.  It's always good to get unbiased input from well qualified people who weren't directly involved in the work and can look at it with fresh eyes.

Just a suggestion.

If you will think about it for a second you'll see that it's a suggestion that doesn't make any sense.  The Commission Report will be the consensus of the members of the 2-2-V-1 Commission on the results of the research conducted at the National Museum of the United States Air Force on March 28.  How could anyone who wasn't there "review" their conclusions? 
Membership on the Commission was wide open to anyone who wanted to come to Dayton - whether proponent, critic or agnostic about 2-2-V-1. Most were TIGHAR members.  Some were active Forum contributors.  Two of the Commission members - Aris Scarla, Manager of the FAA Flight Standards District Office in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Greg Hassler, Restoration Supervisor for NMUSAF - are neither TIGHAR members nor Forum subscribers.  Your suggestion that the Commission's report will be biased is merely evidence of your own bias.
You are free to disagree with the Commission's findings.  The essence of scientific research is the replicability of results.  Once you've read the report I would be happy to try to arrange a visit to the museum by the 2-2-V-1 Naysayers Commission so that you can duplicate our research and see if you come up with different results. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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