SOH Team Project - Grumman Tracker, Trader, Tracer

[nigel richards]

But then I got a ride in it just before it's retirement to the Naval Aviation Museum. When one talks of the Lexington's Trader, this is the one that I think of.

lucky man Willy.

Lexington's Trader paint scheme? Yeah, I could live with that.

[Matt Wynn]

yup, be able to paint it soon.... paintkit is 99.999999% done, just gotta finalise the layering and flatten a few layers down and then it's off to uncle Milton for you 'oiks' to get your grubby paws on as for today.... i'm off to the Skydive Centre got some packing and jumping to do.... for once.... (Been 5mo since my last jump) so Milton, expect Kit tomorrow or Saturday!.... or maybe even late tonight at a severe push

[lazarus]

Lazarus, I've D/L'd the Profiles Zip file five times and it always cuts off at 6 MB rather than continue to the full 10.4 MB.

Is anyone else having this problem?

If so, can you re-upload the file, please?

- H52

Any one else getting an error on these?

[nigel richards]

Any one else getting an error on these?

Unfortunately too often Lazarus. Someone recently was kind enough to send me a textures folder; it must have taken 12 or so attempts!

As you state, it just kept 'completing' someway short of the actual full download.

I got it eventually, so just keep punching that download button!

[Milton Shupe]

Milton,

I found a brief reference to it on the Tailhook Topics blog as follows. "The TF-1 had a deeper and wider fuselage than the S2F-1 but shared its wing and vertical fin/rudder. It had the same horizontal tail as the S2F-2 and -3. One result of using the S2F wing is that there is no deice boot where the searchlight was located on the ASW aircraft" The E-1 was derived from the TF-1 (C-1A).

The blogs link is http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2...more-time.html

This is but one entry pertaining to the Stoof and it's progeny.

Save your current model to be shortened and used as the basis for the C-1A!

I have posted a comment on that blog to try and find out how much of a difference between the two. If I find out I'll post the info.

I thought it looked a little round and smooth but wasn't sure from the views. Don't be discouraged, this is a fantastic project!

Dave

Thank you Dave for that. The C-1A will be done and parts from each of what I have done will be useable to do that and the S2F-1 (Jan Visser volunteered to do this variant).
Not sure yet how I will proceed on the -3.

Thanks to everyone for the support; it is most appreciated.

[hawkeye52]

Lazarus, I have an S2F-3 (S-2E) 3-view which shows a section through the upper bulge about 2-feet aft of the cockpit side-window. Scaling off the drawing (always a bad idea!), the bulge appears to be 5 to 6 inches wider than the frame (below the lap line). Does that match what you know?

- H52

[lazarus]

Lazarus, I have an S2F-3 (S-2E) 3-view which shows a section through the upper bulge about 2-feet aft of the cockpit side-window. Scaling off the drawing (always a bad idea!), the bulge appears to be 5 to 6 inches wider than the frame (below the lap line). Does that match what you know?

- H52

At least that. Its pretty distinct. Which is the TF-1? We used a number of TS-2A's. The airframe was identical to the S-2A/CS2F-1 except that all the DeHavilland built birds had the early style fastback aft nacelles, where as Grumman built machines used the flat top fastback nacelles on the very early production block,then switched to the 'Hawksbill' high to nacelles- more room for larger tube and a few kts faster in cruise.

[lazarus]

At least that. Its pretty distinct. Which is the TF-1? We used a number of TS-2A's. The airframe was identical to the S-2A/CS2F-1 except that all the DeHavilland built birds had the early style fastback aft nacelles, where as Grumman built machines used the flat top fastback nacelles on the very early production block,then switched to the 'Hawksbill' high to nacelles- more room for larger tube and a few kts faster in cruise.

edit: section C lokslike a bulge at the top of the torp bay, its not. Thats the piano hinge og the door. It stands proud a bit, but only as a half round of the hinge.
The zip is downloading though. I think the systemwas feeling mal-adjusted last night.Kept kicking me off as soon as I went into the message manager. Doing it again. The only way I can stay logged is by reply with quote.

[lazarus]

edit: section C lokslike a bulge at the top of the torp bay, its not. Thats the piano hinge og the door. It stands proud a bit, but only as a half round of the hinge.
The zip is downloading though. I think the systemwas feeling mal-adjusted last night.Kept kicking me off as soon as I went into the message manager. Doing it again. The only way I can stay logged is by reply with quote.

Yup. kicks me out except for quote function. I think the confusion about fusilage width is due to variations in cockpit side bubble windows. There were a few variations in depth of the bulge- either based on who manufactued 'em, or maybe operational considerations. I could see no rhyme or reason. The structure and dimensions were constant except for model diferences noted. C/S2F-1 to S-2C were identical in dimension except for-later US production used the hawksbill aft nacelle, and the bulged stores bay of nuclear capable('Betty' depth bomb) -C's. S-2E/G's were a bit longer, more span across the wing and stab, rounded tips.

[p3aewguy]

At least that. Its pretty distinct. Which is the TF-1? We used a number of TS-2A's. The airframe was identical to the S-2A/CS2F-1 except that all the DeHavilland built birds had the early style fastback aft nacelles, where as Grumman built machines used the flat top fastback nacelles on the very early production block,then switched to the 'Hawksbill' high to nacelles- more room for larger tube and a few kts faster in cruise.

The TF-1 is the C-1A.

Dave

[hawkeye52]

"...the bulge appears to be 5 to 6 inches wider than the frame (below the lap line)."

At least that. Its pretty distinct.

Which is the TF-1? We used a number of TS-2A's.

As p3aewguy stated, TF-1 = C-1A. Prior to September 1962 the designation was TF-1. Post Sep.'62 the utility conversion of the S2F-1 became the TS-2A; the S2F-1 itself became the S-2A. Confusing, ain't it?

You can thank then-Secy of Defense McNamara.
This should help:
Aircraft Designations
and
Popular Names
Background on the Evolution of Aircraft Designations

http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/APP05.PDF

The S-2 is on p. 24


Lazarus, in the side-view u posted, note that sections "C" and "D" are mislabeled.

- H52

[Willy]

Navy designations confused McNamara so he ordered the change to the USAF system. I found the old Navy system to make more sense than the USAF system to me anyways.

[hawkeye52]

Here is a summary on Naval aircraft...for us more "visual" types!

BTW, the original list was on BuWeps Instruction 13100.7 of September 18, 1962. No clue if it is somewhere on The Net.

Attachment 49208Attachment 49209Attachment 49210Attachment 49211- H52

[AndyG43]

Navy designations confused McNamara so he ordered the change to the USAF system. I found the old Navy system to make more sense than the USAF system to me anyways.

I don't know if the story is apocryphal or not, but apparently he is supposed to have been in an Air Force briefing, discussing their new C-130 transport, then in the afternoon he went to a Navy briefing where they were discussing their new transport, the GV-1; he turned to one of his aides & said (very loudly) that the projects sounded remarkably similar, couldn't the two services co-operate - a rather embarrassed aide had to explain to him that they were, in fact, exactly the same aircraft - after that the change was inevitable.

[lazarus]

My bad. didn't see that. So the bulge on that section is the avioncs/radar cooling scoop. Right about the C-1. Whole new hull, wider, fatter. deeper to give a bit more room under the wing box .