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.
Thank you for that Jeff. As you'll recall, it was FAA Flight Standards District Manager Aris Scarla who, in Dayton, noted the precision of the rivet pitch and likened it to factory-quality work. Aris was with us in Wichita. We now have a much better understanding of what was done to install the window and later the patch. The rivet pitch on the longitudinal stiffeners is, indeed, precise work but not beyond the capabilities of a skilled mechanic. Aris is of the opinion that the artifact is the patch.
No problem - and I hope I didn't create any ambiguity. That was to me a unique and great team experience in Dayton, well worth the time and travel.
Scarla is a keen and very precise man in his observations and analysis. I noticed he is also not one to become easily excited about an idea without strong supportive evidence, and that he is frank where any doubt may exist. That equals tremendous and objective credibility in my view, a credit to your Wichita effort.
Aris did clearly demonstrate the precision work in the fastener rows that I had not noticed before - very evenly spaced rivets along very straight lines. That portion of the work - as you've pointed out, if taken alone might easily point to USAAF discipline. I merely needed to make the distinction that we do have oddly (but slightly) divergent / convergent (depending on observed vector) fastener lines (relative to each other) - which strongly suggests a 'Miami patch' scenario to me. We also have the one 'surviving' rivet that happened to be rather hobnailed instead of a clean buck, which suggests 'field work' that may have been a bit damped due to lack of an experienced helper (been there and coped with that too, you work with whom you have to get the bird moved).
Apparently now having observed this in the context of a real, very accessible L10, you all were similarly impressed. I don't know what the public reading will be - and that's always the long pole in these things. But I remain very excited about the prospects and very much look forward to the report. You guys are much appreciated for going to earth in Wichita to do this, as Wichita Air Service remains so as well, of course.
I'd like to add that I realize I throw a fair number of abstract observations in at times - like the oddity of the rivet row placements and the mal-bucked rivet, but these are to me tell-tale signs that underscore my suspicions about 2-2-V-1 as potentially being just what I have hoped it to be (openly admitted here more than once). Those things alone are not 'proof', but if one can add up enough 'coinkydinks' a story gets underlined; add more convincing finds and the story might go to bold print. Now we have your first-hand observations - looking forward to that.
In noticing these things, I am reminded of hands on experiences and real outcomes due to circumstances. As such, 2-2-V-1 has emerged to look to me like a 'patch' that was executed primarily by a skilled mechanic, but one who had to deal with a) hand-fitted realities in making a flat sheet lie well along a slightly compound-curved surface, b) without excessive oil-canning and puckering as a result, and c) verly likely a less-than fully skilled helper to buck rivets, etc. Been there more than once... and not a bad job in the least, just 'signed' by the above process IMO.
