Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'  (Read 85403 times)

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'
« Reply #90 on: September 22, 2012, 09:01:20 AM »


Think cost/benefit.

think of the time lost hauling the whole Niku team to and from Howland.


If a trip to Howland Island finally ended all the speculation/discussion about artifact 2-2-V-1, [going on over twenty years now?], it would be well worth the cost. 

The whole crew doesn’t have to go, Jeff has already volunteered, but Tighar will have to cover his expenses. That’s not my department.   :)

Mark,

I think it would be great to have a close look at whatever remains at Howland if it can be done...  It could not hurt and if it didn't confirm that wreckage as a sort at least we'd eliminate one source for certain.

If I had a chance to get me or anyone to Howland to examine that wreckage I'd love to do it... 

Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'
« Reply #91 on: September 22, 2012, 02:45:09 PM »

Well, Mark, what I'd "love to do" and reality are too different things very often - and this is another good case of it I am afraid.  Marty's points are the reality.

Sure, it'd be great to see what that stuff could tell us - but as I mentioned I have a low confidence level that it is a source for the 'skin' we're talking about.  Recall we're talking about materials that are typical of pre-war, light skinned type.  The floats for the wreck at Howland are likely heavier / not likely repaired with such light grade, pre-war material.  Also take a look at the quality of the repair work being done on that float in the picture you linked: very regular hole pattern - 'by the book'.  That's not to say crazy things don't happen in the field out of necessity - they certainly do; that's actually one reason I've wondered so much about the Miami 'skin-over' - something done quickly, maybe on the ramp with a minimum of shop time.

I still think it is more productive to keep looking for photographic evidence that might tell us something.  If it is out there, it beats the travel! 

If we went to Howland and looked at whatever is there we'd have a chance to prove a couple of different things -
- that the metal DID come from there, which would be surprising to me for reasons mentioned, or
- the metal did NOT come from any of the remaining wreckage at Howland (which is not the same as saying it could not have come from some other part that is no longer present).

I suspect short of a) finding a definitive photograph placing this article on a definite airplane (slim chance), or b) finding NR16020 and b) finding the thing fits, we likely won't ever know.  One thing is clear - it is not production article stuff due to the hole pattern irregularities, etc. so it would be extremely hard to find barring a great deal of luck - or one of the above possibilities.

In any case, Marty makes the underlying sound point - so far (and not likely to change) there's no good way to go look at Howland.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2012, 12:39:49 PM »

Setting aside questions about the wreckage on Howland for the moment, is the large piece of aluminum shown in this video from long ago the very same piece of aluminum we are talking about today?  The piece in the video seems to be labeled '2-2-V-1' but it appears to have far more corrosion than the piece known as '2-2-V-1' today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0OlSPkZF_Y&feature=related


------------------------------------
"...The infamous section of airplane skin, Artifact 2-2-V-1, has a rivet of a style that was common before the war but went out of general use fairly early in the war and the skin has manufacturer’s markings that, according to Alcoa, likewise indicate that its an OLD piece of aluminum. And yet the only places where corrosion has penetrated through the .032 thickness is in one small spot where there was some kind of corrosive deposit (battery acid? bird dung?)."
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights1_20/highlights11.html

« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 01:36:54 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2949
Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2012, 03:02:06 PM »

Setting aside questions about the wreckage on Howland for the moment, is the large piece of aluminum shown in this video from long ago the very same piece of aluminum we are talking about today?  The piece in the video seems to be labeled '2-2-V-1' but it appears to have far more corrosion than the piece known as '2-2-V-1' today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0OlSPkZF_Y&feature=related

Yes, I think it is the same 2-2-V-1.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'
« Reply #94 on: February 05, 2014, 11:43:50 AM »

Since I started this string I now feel compelled toi update it with a closing statement -

In my opinion as an A and P Mechanic / IA of some 36+ years - 33 of those in various roles at a major airframer including engineering, compelling evidence has surfaced that suggests that this artifact could very well have originated from the belly repairs done to NR16020 prior to the world flight. 

I pursued the lav window location as a possibility because of the light guage metal and presence of light (no. 3) rivets in the majority of rows thereon; this was not consistent with primary structure in the typical case.  The Lockheed L10 proves herself a stand-out in yet another way: her belly skins do include a large number of no. 3 rivets as primary strucural fasteners. 

For that reason, and because there is now reason to also doubt a match to the lav area, and because of the relatively unique fastener on the L10 as I now understand it, I now believe this artifact is a strong candidate for having been a repair piece on none other than NR16020.

Are there other possibilities?  Of course - but a time has come for me to seriously suggest that they are very limited indeed: AN 455 brazier rivets of no. 3 size coinciding with a similar feature in the L10 is not so common, nor are the pre-war markings we find on this sheet.

One realizes that this sheet of ruined metal 'could be anything' to many eyes and minds - but training, experience and now observation and acceptance of some hard data (photographic - see later 2-2-V-2 posts in 'General Discussion' panel) make this complex item very pointed in its meaning.  The scales have tipped - if there is a better explanation as to where this came from given the web of circumstantial (but substantial to this writer) evidence we have - including plexiglass of correct curvature and thickness, etc. - I would respectfully ask the challenger to provide evidence of it.

This is of course my humble opinion, but I suggest the skeptic study and look hard if they'd offer a better idea of what became of the flight.  As to where found and how it got there - a worthy consideration, consider what now appears to be strong provenance as to this part: if it came from the Electran, but not at Niku - then where else?

I merely (but now strongly) suggest that there is not a wealth of other possibilities.  The reader must of course draw his own conclusions.  But mine, after quite a journey, is that somehow a unique piece of aviation repair history managed to beach itself on the shores of Niku - among other nested things that support the circumstance of a stranded L10E belonging to Amelia Earhart.

More will follow as for me this is a most peculiarly complex artifact and it is as if it tells me more now than I can readily put to words in one sitting.  It is my own opinion - others may of course play the odds as they will, but TIGHAR's pain-staking efforts have produced plausible material that reaches beyond reasonable doubt for me.  I will close this string once I have provided what I just promised elsewhere on this site. 

Hats off to those who care about and search for the lost aviators, whether they agree or not - may they always be reasoned and reasonable in their arguments.

This topic locked 1/6/2014 - see later discussions on this artifact / consideration of Electra belly skin repair.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 07:02:34 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP