Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 85   Go Down

Author Topic: 2-2-V-1 - patch?  (Read 1105839 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1095 on: December 22, 2014, 09:09:28 AM »

That thin metal (.032) laying on the surface of the outside skins is gonna play havoc with trying to figure
out the forward and rear edges due to lighting in those photos. The Miami photos are probably
influenced by the lighting as far as forward and rear edges go.

No doubt ...and that's my point.  We're arguing over fractions of an inch when our estimation of where the edges of the patch were could be off by at least a couple inches.  We've confronted this problem many times in many different contexts.  It's always tempting to grasp for precision that isn't there.  I'm reminded of a favorite expression of TIGHAR board member Capt. Skeet Gifford "Measure with micrometer. Mark with chalk.  Cut with an axe."
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1096 on: December 22, 2014, 04:13:26 PM »

I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines.

It’ll be interesting to discover what can be seen in a better version of the Purdue photo.  I wonder if Purdue might have some information about the source of the Darwin photo.  I am guessing George Putnam donated it to Purdue; perhaps he provided some notes explaining who the photographer was, who sent it to him?  As I recall, Earhart mailed photos back home as she flew around the world, but I don’t think this is one of them, because the same photo appeared in an Australian Newspaper:  http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/1903/rec/6
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1097 on: December 22, 2014, 04:16:00 PM »

I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines.

I should have taken more care in wording my question— in that Darwin photo we can see rivet lines on the fuselage around the patch, but none on the patch (as you note) and that is the problem I wondered if Jeff Glickman had considered.  Rivet lines below the level of the patch are not so easy to see, but at the level of the patch, and above it, they are more apparent.  I will attach a cropped image of the area of the patch with arrows pointing to some of the rivet lines external to the patch, some which terminate at the patch.  I’m not sure how well they will show up in the resolution of the photo I can upload.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2014, 04:19:21 PM by Hal Beck »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1098 on: December 22, 2014, 05:31:41 PM »

in that Darwin photo we can see rivet lines on the fuselage around the patch, but none on the patch (as you note) and that is the problem I wondered if Jeff Glickman had considered.  Rivet lines below the level of the patch are not so easy to see, but at the level of the patch, and above it, they are more apparent.

In the attached photos is have numbered your arrows and numbered the corresponding rivet lines on a standard Lockheed 10 (c/n 1052 at the New England at Museum).

Your rivet lines 1 & 2 are present on the standard Lockheed 10.
Your line 3 is the vertical line at Station 307.  It should not be present on the patch and it isn't.
Your line 4 is the rivet line at Station 320 and it is right where it should be.
Your line 5 doesn't exist on the standard Lockheed 10 and I suspect it doesn't exist in the Darwin photo.
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1099 on: December 22, 2014, 06:28:54 PM »

Ric,

I realize that my wording still is a bit ambiguous so let me try asking it a different way:

I understand that the rivet lines you’ve marked 1 to 4 don’t extend across the patch.  But if we can see rivet lines 1 to 4 in the Darwin photo why don’t we see the three lines of 3/8 inch rivets, and one line of 5/8 inch rivets that are on 22v1?

That was what I was wondering about— can Jeff Glickman think of reasons why the 22v1 rivet lines on the path would be less visible than nearby rivet lines on the fuselage.

Sorry this was so confusing, hope it is clearer now.
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1100 on: December 22, 2014, 06:31:09 PM »

I agree that we need to take a close look at the Purdue print of the Darwin Fueling photo, but don't confuse skin edges with rivet lines.  I can see skin edges in the photo but I can't see rivet lines except for some possible vertical lines.

It’ll be interesting to discover what can be seen in a better version of the Purdue photo.  I wonder if Purdue might have some information about the source of the Darwin photo.  I am guessing George Putnam donated it to Purdue; perhaps he provided some notes explaining who the photographer was, who sent it to him?  As I recall, Earhart mailed photos back home as she flew around the world, but I don’t think this is one of them, because the same photo appeared in an Australian Newspaper:  http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/1903/rec/6

By the way, TROVE, the Australian Digital Newspaper Archive, has the July 3, 1937 issue of the Melbourne Argus.  two additional Darwin photos, one in the Purdue Archive, one not, are on the back page of that issue.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 04:31:57 PM by Hal Beck »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1101 on: December 22, 2014, 06:43:19 PM »

That was what I was wondering about— can Jeff Glickman think of reasons why the 22v1 rivet lines on the path would be less visible than nearby rivet lines on the fuselage.

Look at the double row of rivets just above Ric's #5 as shown on Ric's photo of CN 1052.

Why doesn't that row show up on the photo?

My guess: lighting, lens, grain.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1102 on: December 22, 2014, 07:10:57 PM »

I understand that the rivet lines you’ve marked 1 to 4 don’t extend across the patch.  But if we can see rivet lines 1 to 4 in the Darwin photo why don’t we see the three lines of 3/8 inch rivets, and one line of 5/8 inch rivets that are on 22v1?


Apologies.  Apparently I too am having difficulty communicating.  My point is that we can't see some rivet lines in the Darwin photo that we know are there and you saw at least one line that almost certainly isn't there. Bottom line: the Darwin Refueling photo is not a reliable source for determining where there were rivet lines.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1103 on: December 23, 2014, 07:02:00 AM »

In the attached photos is have numbered your arrows and numbered the corresponding rivet lines on a standard Lockheed 10 (c/n 1052 at the New England at Museum).

Your rivet lines 1 & 2 are present on the standard Lockheed 10.
Your line 3 is the vertical line at Station 307.  It should not be present on the patch and it isn't.
Your line 4 is the rivet line at Station 320 and it is right where it should be.
Your line 5 doesn't exist on the standard Lockheed 10 and I suspect it doesn't exist in the Darwin photo.

Actually, line 5 does exist on the standard Lockheed 10, as is visible in the Darwin ramp photo (especially as it continues aft along a consistent waterline), and it corresponds to the double row that stitches the skin lap together for skins 42 and 43.

- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 07:11:01 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6097
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1104 on: December 23, 2014, 08:03:09 AM »

Actually, line 5 does exist on the standard Lockheed 10, as is visible in the Darwin ramp photo (especially as it continues aft along a consistent waterline), and it corresponds to the double row that stitches the skin lap together for skins 42 and 43.

To my eye, Hal's Line 5 is too far down to be the double staggered row that stitches skins 42 and 43 - but let's assume you're  right.  What may be a double row of rivets at Line 5 looks much like the known double staggered row that aligns with the bottom edge of the patch. If Line 5 is a double staggered row of rivets it does not appear to extend across the patch.  That's consistent with the artifact. What we can't see in the Darwin photo is the single row of rivets that runs horizontally roughly half way between the two double rows of rivets aft of the patch.  If we can't see horizontal lines of single rivets that we know should be there, why would we expect to see horizontal lines of single rivets on the patch?

Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1105 on: December 23, 2014, 09:45:36 AM »

Not to argue, but I can see the double row rivet line at "5" just as clearly as I see the one at the bottom of the 'patch' - plus can discern a suggestion of a faint shadow along the bottom of the lower double row where the skin lap well might produce such an effect. 

I believe your impression that "5" is not at the right height is an understandable misread - it is easy for the eye and mind to resolve things a bit out of scale for their own subjective reasons.  Consider, for one, that the reason the lower double row may be more visible is the shadowing along its lower edge - that adds emphasis that the upper row ("5") does not have.

I agree that I do not see the single midline row (between upper and lower double rows) you point out as not visible - unless I look between stations 331 and 343 on the Purdue site at the 'original' - there it becomes faintly apparent.  It is true that this one is faint or disappears, although "2", "3" and "4" are single rows and are visible - their being in somewhat more favorable light possibly being the reason.  The midline row, being a single row, also lacks the bulk of the double rows - but it also suffers from lying in a less favorable light plane, I think.  The double rows in this area may have enough mass to make up for that loss of favorable light just sufficiently to be seen, whereas the single row may simply not quite make it. 

I can also easily see another longitudenal single row below the patch / below the lower double row, between 298 5/8 and 307 - a slightly different area, of course - but low and not up in the light that tends to highlight the other higher areas.

I agree that I do not see rivets along the face of the patch, possibly for the same reason you suggest, or possibly because they aren't there.  If they are there and are discernable, it is beyond my reach to detect them - and the same reason as for the midline single row may well be the reason.  If anything bothers me about that, it would be simply that there are more rows on the artifact - 4, in fact, so out of those 4 perhaps a line or two might emerge?  But I can't say that any one of the four would with any certainty, of course.

And as you've pointed out before, we're not experts at this kind of analysis, so perhaps we're missing something anyway.

That said, many of the rivet lines that do show up clearly enough can be validated as corresponding to known L10 structure; in that others do not where we know they must be is also, as you point out, somewhat telling about expectations for other locations in the same plane of light.

As to the Darwin ramp photo -

This particular picture remains vexatious to copy effecitvely: it is a bit grainy and light seems a bit scattered and much can be lost, I've noticed, even when working with a high-quality copy in tiff format if not careful.  My belief is that more can be seen if it is simply viewed directly at the Purdue site, and not at much enlargement at that - much over 50% starts costing noticeable detail.  But, if a high-quality copy - like in tiff, is made at around 50% enlargement, contrast can also be sharpened slightly to bring out some detail as well.

Just for fun while we're gazing -

I have found, as an enthusiast, that it helps to study this photo and others like it as an astronomer might study the faint heavens at night - with 'averted vision'.  Allow the eye to relax and not stare directly at the chosen detail, and much information can be realized and resolved than by trying to enlarge and pinpoint things among the pixels.  Simply enlarge and soon you're chasing lots of tiny, false images.  That 'star gazing' technique may work for some, all I can do is suggest it.  It works well for me.  Soft ambient and screen lighting helps. 

I've used that technique a great deal since learning it as a boy to great effect in many situations, including this one.  It's not exactly a science, and the results of course can be quite subjective if one is not careful - but it's an interesting technique and one might be surprised at what one can discern.  I suggest avoiding the cloud bunny effect if one goes down this path - it is exceedingly easy to see what one's mind wishes to see if not careful.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 10:07:34 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Hal Beck

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1106 on: December 23, 2014, 10:50:30 AM »

Ric/Marty,

I agree with Jeff Neville that my line 5 is that double staggered row on the fuselage; it looks to me to be in the correct position relative to the patch, about 1/6th of the way between the upper and lower left hand corners of the patch.  As Jeff also noted, viewing the image directly at the Purdue web site provides a bit better resolution than what I uploaded.  Take a look at line 5 in the Purdue image—I think you can quite clearly see it there and quite clearly follow it all the way back until it is blocked by a piece of the tail in the foreground; if line 5 isn’t that double row of rivets, what do you guys think it is?

Ric, you said “If Line 5 is a double staggered row of rivets it does not appear to extend across the patch.  That's consistent with the artifact.”  The point I am making is that we can see line 5, as well as lines 1-4, and other rivet lines I didn’t number as well, yet we don’t see any rivet lines on the patch, even when they would be within an inch or two of visible external rivet lines. The fact that we can’t see rivet lines on the patch while nearby external rivet lines are quite apparent is precisely the problem that is not consistent with the artifact.  External rivet lines are indeed more difficult to see around the lower portions of the patch, so it is easier to understand why we cant see riveting on lower portions of the patch, but on the upper portions of the patch it seems more problematic that we don’t see the 22v1 rivet lines. 

Incidentallly, in the mark-up of my photo you posted yesterday, it looks to me as if your black line denoting the upper edge of the patch is placed a bit too high—I can see the STA 307 rivet line, and the bright upper edge of the patch, beneath your black line.  Although it is best to look at the Darwin photo at the Purdue site (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/284/rec/14).  I will upload another cropped image of that image here, hoping that it is a bit better resolved than the one I posted yesterday.

Happy Holidays to all Forum Members!


« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 04:32:44 PM by Hal Beck »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1107 on: December 23, 2014, 11:22:16 AM »


320 line may be a smidge over 12.5" from the 307


Questions regarding Station Lines:
Jeff noted that the Wichita plane appears to be less than 13" between Sta. 320 and Sta.307 which if accurate seems odd to me.
Why wouldn’t they be 13” apart? The Station lines are 13” apart? Construction tolerance? Restoration of the plane?
What are the Station Lines supposed to be to? The center of the original form work for the Circumferential stiffeners?
The center of the structure or the center of the rivet lines?
I thought maybe that if one of the circumferential stiffeners with a “Z” shape was put in backwards it could change the distances between rivets.  But from the interior pictures of the Wichita Plane, both 320 and 307 stiffeners seem to be oriented the same, with rivet lines forward of the former.
I did notice that on some interior photos of other L-10 planes, the rivet lines seem to be forward of the former, but in one picture of AE’s plane the rivet lines seem to be aft of it. Do any of the available drawings show details of the Lav window area and reference the station lines with rivet lines?

Regarding the “ghost stiffener” near 307. If the patch installer didn’t want to remove existing rivets above the patch to splice it in, they may have spliced it to vertical part of the Z on the aft side instead. Another possibility is that the added horizontal stiffener was so close to the existing horizontal frame of the window, it made I difficult to attach it at all to the existing Circumferential stiffener.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 12:08:47 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1108 on: December 23, 2014, 11:46:37 AM »

The point I am making is that we can see line 5, as well as lines 1-4, and other rivet lines I didn’t number as well, yet we don’t see any rivet lines on the patch, even when they would be within an inch or two of visible external rivet lines. The fact that we can’t see rivet lines on the patch while nearby external rivet lines are quite apparent is precisely the problem that is not consistent with the artifact. 

What is your theory for how the patch remained in place for roughly 21,000 miles in the air?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: 2-2-V-1 - patch?
« Reply #1109 on: December 23, 2014, 11:52:23 AM »

Ric/All,

If you enlarge Hal Beck's picture on "Reply no. 1110" and concentrate on the double rivet line along the lower edge of the patch you may be able to see  the "off set" rivet that appears on the artifact.  Let your eyes (in peripheral vision as Jeff suggested) focus about a third of the way aft of the forward edge of the patch.

Perhaps Glickman can enhance the photo a little more in order to prove or disprove what I think I am seeing.

If that "off set" rivet is in fact there it's one heck of a vote for the  patch being from AE's bird.

Ted Campbell
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 85   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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