According to the Tighar Bulletin titled ‘The Riddle of Artifact #2-2-V-1’ the opinion of the experts who examined 2-2-v-1 was
“The pitch (interval between rivets) of the #3 rivets is precisely and consistently 1 inch. This level of precision suggests factory-quality work. By contrast, the pitch of the staggered double row of #5 rivets is irregular and was probably dictated by features in the underlying structure that had to be avoided.”
At the time, the 2-2-V-1 Commission was pondering 2-2-V-1, these opinions were arguments against 2-2-v-1 being a repair to a WW2 airplane by USAAF personnel; as 2-2-V-1 Commission member Monty Fowler stated:
"To me, the most relevant new fact that developed as a result of this field trip was the unanimous conclusion that 2-2-V-1 is NOT a USAAF field-applied or field-depot level repair. It was created under controlled conditions in a factory. That narrows down the point of origin possibilities considerably.”
So, was the 2-2-V-1 Commission wrong in unanimously concluding that 2-2-v-1 was fabricated in a factory?
If it is reasonable to think that the 2-2-v-1 was a repair to the Electra done in Miami, isn’t it also reasonable to think that 2-2-V-1 could have been a repair to a WW2 era plane done by USAAF personnel?
With all due respect to you, Steve, and Monty's statement, and with regard to Ric's reply - as I see it "It was created under controlled conditions in a factory" was purely Monty's statement, not the commission's unanimous statement. If I've erred in that understanding until now, the record may be corrected henceforth.
The commission's position as I understood it was that we did not see 2-2-V-1 as consistent with any of the USAAF repairs we saw in Dayton, examples of which there were many. Personally, I've never believed that 2-2-V-1 was fabricated in a factory, although it bears evidence of both expediency (slightly irregular line spacing, hobbed rivet tail) and good craftsmanship (neatly spaced holes, straight fastener lines), IMO.
To suggest that the neatness of the fastener rows (straight, well spaced) leans toward USAAF exclusivity would be a miscarriage: while much of the war era work displayed something approaching that level of attention, other examples were clearly a bit more improvised and displayed more expedient patterns. Those who worked metal in the 30's were hardly primitives - many could easily match USAAF efforts IMO, so this approach to the matter can hardly be conclusive as to disclaiming a Miami-effected patch.
What is most vital in my mind is that after an extensive hands-on, eyeballs up close review of probably hundreds of repairs and skin sections on dozens of ships of various types - including a painstaking review of the types known to have been in the area of the Phoenix group, not a single one provided a truly apparent nesting site for a piece like 2-2-V-1 once the scale came out. Same for underlying structures - even the 'lightly built' B-24 exhibited a heavier construction methodology than 2-2-V-1 suggests.
It remains remarkable to me that the unique lav window of NR16020 just happens to provide a 'nest' of great potential, whatever one chooses to make of that in their own reading. People will no doubt again point to B-17 outer wing panels, and here and there on the B-24, etc. Knock yourselves out - I've already climbed, poked, shone light and laid scale and camera to these and others, and 2-2-V-1 does not come close. If it came from such a beast, there had to have been a bastardized structure there for it to nest to - rather like the bastard window in Earhart's plane that gave us an idea of just where such an oddball as 2-2-V-1 may have originated.
All just MHO, of course. At the crux here I seem to have needed to correct the now-emerging labored assumption that we unanimously agreed 2-2-V-1 came from a factory setting: no, 'we' did not; we did agree it did not appear to be the work that produced the war time repairs we were able to study. I respect Monty's belief, but suggest that his impression as given in that sentence is his own; it certainly was not and is not mine. If I've somehow erred until now in what the commission believed I ascribed to, the record is now corrected.
