Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Does this look normal or could it be possible damage from the hard landing?

I can tell you this much.  It didn't look like that before the Luke Field wreck. The first photo below was taken just before the flight to Hawaii. The second photo was taken at Luke Field the day before the accident.

[Ric Gillespie]

It's also apparent that there there was no such separation on other side of the airplane.  This photo was taken upon their arrival in Lae.

[Ric Gillespie]

If the separation was the result of the Luke Field wreck it seems like Lockheed would have fixed it during the rebuild.  That lower skin forward of Sta. 293 5/8 was one of the ones replaced.

[JNev]

May just be looking at a 'step' and a shadow resulting from it.  Sometimes replacement skins don't seat in as nicely as brand-new and you get a slight step; lighting can accentuate it.

[Dan Swift]

And look how low that antenna is to the ground!! 

[Ric Gillespie]

And look how low that antenna is to the ground!!

Now imagine the plane with a full fuel load on a turf field.

[Mark Appel]

Just realized (duh).  News about this new research is breaking on the 77th anniversary of the disappearance.  That may be why we're getting so much coverage.  People are going to assume we planned it this way but you guys know I'm not that clever.

Don't admit it... Just smile and wave to the crowd!

[Dan Swift]

"Now imagine the plane with a full fuel load on a turf field."

EXACTLY!! 

[JNev]

So many pictures - so many thoughts - not enough time!

Something that sticks out to me: the two rivets above the upper right corner of the window in the Miami detail. Not sure of the correct terminology, but the installer of the window added a vertical 'stiffener' at station (approx) 294-294.5? Note the small strip of metal left rearward of station 293 5/8. Not represented accurately in the Harney drawing. I do realize this was based on educated guesses and this picture wasn't available. Just noting in the interests of validating/invalidating the patch as an origin of 2-2-V-1.

The Pensacola reconstruction shows all sorts of wonderful details - especially around windows and partial circumferential stiffeners. Are the tapers at the ends of the partials a cap? A separate piece riveted onto the actual stiffener? Note the rivets attaching the 'cap' at the far right of the Pensacola picture. If the original partial at station 307 has a cap, does removing it result in a natural upper edge to the added lav window? How does this play out with the framing of the new window? Was the new window framed like an original window, with a rounded rectangular channel? Or was it just straight channel? That is, given the vertical channel that seemed to be added at station 294(ish), would there be a horizontal channel at the top edge of the new window? How is this actually constructed to hold a window. I know, these are not necessarily known details. But how does this play into the inclusion/exclusion of 2-2-V-1?

Finally, while the Purdue picture(s) don't give good indication of rivets, it does show pretty well the extent of the patch. You can count rivets in the Miami detail and see exactly where the upper edge of the new window is. From the Purdue picture this seems to coincide precisely with the upper edge of the patch. Something that I seem to notice, though it could just be illusions from the various angles involved, but is the rectangular patch out of line with the conical shape of the plane? That is, is the rear edge going farther up the plane than the front edge? The 'tapper' isn't matched? Does that have any bearing on including/excluding 2-2-V-1? Also, I wish Ric could have turned 2-2-V-1 180 degrees in the pictures he took at the New England air museum. I know that double row of rivets is trying to be matched to the bottom of the window, but it doesn't - at all. Would the upper edge of the patch have been double riveted to the upper skin of the aircraft? Does the wonky rectangle against the tapered fuselage and a horizontal stringer-cum-window-frame piece explain the odd pitch of the 2-2-V-1 double rivets?
Just things noticed that I thought I'd share.

Good observations in my view, Dave.

The 'big window' is an odd duck - unlike the rectangular windows further forward where the upper fuselage section is more constant, this appears to be a rectangle ('odd' shape is illustion, I believe) placed in a distinctly compound-tapering section - so the effect is a 'wonky' shape, i.e. the aft edge is out of visual proportion to the forward edge due to the shape of the landscape in the form of the tapered aft fuselage.  I do not believe that would exclude 2-2-V-1 from the running.

As to the double rivet row - I am having the same issue with that as you - the 'doube row' does not seem to match the pitch found along the bottom edge of the window to me.  Rotate 2-2-V-1 and consider whether the pitch matches - it appears to be close; then the question is, would the modifier have laid-in a second row, staggered, of rivets - and very well may have: in some pictures the upper edge of the 'patch' appears to be slightly tooled over, as if 'turning the corner' slightly to overlay the existing window frame and perhaps more tightly close the rain gap.  A second row of rivets would be ideal to do so.

So would a second row of staggered rivets be a natural if someone wanted to lay-in a doubler to both close the upper edge more effectively, and possibly restore rigidity by picking up added internal material where it may have been compromised earlier by the window cut?  I could see that possibility.

All conjecture on my part, I realize.  And I realize that there may be a stilted 'stiffener spacing problem' after 'inverting' 2-2-V-1, if one looks at where the inner-field rows are situated relative to the window edges (too close to edge to make sense?).  Of course I can only do so much from the armchair and by these photos and graphics and am not expert.  But the double row now does not look like a good fit to the lower edge double row to me; upper row pitch may be closer indeed.

[Bill Mangus]

The Harney drawing Ric posted just above (reply #145) shows a double row of rivets on both top and bottom.  Is this just a guess or did he have some source to work from?

[JNev]

The Harney drawing Ric posted just above (reply #145) shows a double row of rivets on both top and bottom.  Is this just a guess or did he have some source to work from?

I don't know answer to that, Bill.  It's obvious that Harney's drawings are not perfect to the real ship, but they are remarkably detailed and I'm far from dismissing that detail as completely inauthentic (but must take with risk / grain of salt).

Below is a highlight showing the upper 'tooled edge' I spoke of just up stream - meaning a slightly bend-form to the upper inch or so of edge material to perhaps cause it to lay into the original airplane skin after translating over the window coaming (assuming the coaming was left in place).  In this photo the light catches a slight but distinct change in plane along a fairly crisp line, consistent with gentle forming of such an edge for the reasons I've described.

[Ric Gillespie]

Here's 2-2-V-1 flipped so that the tab is on the top.  Remember, this overlay is a rough approximation. We'll need a much more precise rendering.

[Bill Mangus]

You might also take another photograph of 2-2-V-1 and flatten it out a bit.  Seems to me the curvature it now exhibits is a little more than the actual curvature of the fuselage at that point.

[Ric Gillespie]

You might also take another photograph of 2-2-V-1 and flatten it out a bit.  Seems to me the curvature it now exhibits is a little more than the actual curvature of the fuselage at that point.

I agree with you but I'm a bit hesitant to squish it. 

I had a thought (always dangerous).  The left side of the artifact failed by metal fatigue along a rigid straight edge.  If I butt the artifact up tight against Sta. 320, the "gap" in the "tab" comes enticingly close to Sta. 307 where they had to deal with the partial circumferential and one of the lines of #3 rivets lines up nicely with an existing stringer.  We need more precise graphics to work with.

[Dave Peterson]

This is maddening. What are the chances that this piece of metal, with the correct metallurgical characteristics, in this most remote of locations, that just so happens to juuuusssstttt fit this particularly odd piece of this aircraft, isn't this patch? It boggles my mind.

Yet, I'm about one inch or less from being convinced 2-2-V-1 cannot be the patch.

One of the most telling pictures for me is the one of the actual artifact held against the New England Air Museum Electra (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1490.msg32043.html#msg32043). For all the grainy uncertainty of all the post-patch pictures of NR16020 I think it's pretty clear that the patch was placed precisely in place of what Jeffrey calls the coaming. In fact, when I think about it, if I were the one placing the patch, wouldn't it make sense to drill out the coaming and use it as a template for the patch? Maybe add a little vertical length to double the top row of rivets (to seal it better because they patched the window because it leaked like a sieve? Maybe? Guessed Dave). But the horizontal length therefore must be less than the station 293 5/8 to 320 distance? Or more precisely, equal to the coaming vertical rivet holes?

Oh, and I have to say, I think it unlikely (not that I have any expertise, especially in respect to Jeffrey and those with actual aircraft construction experience) that the patch installer would have drilled new holes and placed the patch over the existing coaming. Considering the detail apparent in the Miami close up, the plane would be Swiss cheese at that point. Seems an Ocam's razor kind of thing - removing, templating, and reusing existing holes is way easier. And a cleaner result I would think. But, I admit, I know relatively nothing about the realities of aircraft construction and field maintenance.

Nothing absolute about it, but given the detail of the front edge of the window now available, and what can be seen in the post-patch pictures, is 2-2-V-1 too long to fit the patch? The picture of the actual artifact against the plane is more telling than the uncertain scaled Photoshop renderings. The patch appears to match the coaming width, and the coaming rivets are about an inch inward from stations 293 5/8 and 320 (see detail from Miami and Oakland pre-first attempt pics). If it was a 1-to-1 fit with the coaming, wouldn't these vertical rivets/rivet holes be on 2-2-V-1? Every time I strain to see clearly, yet try to be coldly rational about it, I'm convinced the patch as pictured on the actual aircraft is within the 293 5/8-320 frames, and that it's just too likely that it would be riveted directly in place of the existing coaming holes. Does that make 2-2-V-1 too long? The rivet holes would show? Maybe. Still, if 2-2-V-1 were just rotated ever so slightly in the pic at the NEAM I could believe that the vertical rivet holes wouldn't show on 2-2-V-1. It's really, really, close.

I'm starting to wonder if this horizontal dimension is crossing the line and excluding 2-2-V-1. It pains me, but (think Johnny Cochran), "if it doesn't fit, you must quit." Perhaps enough clarity in nailing down the horizontal dimension of the patch is enough to exclude 2-2-V-1? As much as it pains me to say so, but that seems a possible avenue of investigation if horizontal rivet rows can't be resolved. Or maybe that line of investigation can show that 2-2-V-1 is still possibly the patch?

Here's hoping a clearer picture of the patch shows up validating that 2-2-V-1 fits.