• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

SOH Team Project - Grumman Tracker, Trader, Tracer

Hooky722 said:
Forgive me for being ignorant but have any of these creations been completed and released yet for fs9? or am i jumping the gun a bit either way great work guys

Kind Regards

Hooky:salute:
Click to expand...

Hooky,

Thanks for your interest. :wavey: No, not released yet. Still very much in the Alpha development stage with several members here participating and many more contributing. Our biggest need now from a timing standpoint is for the panel and gauges. Everything else is moving along with gusto.

Thanks OBIO for jumping in with a response and kudos.
 
S-2T sounds

nigel richards said:
I'll take care of Turbo Stoof's sounds Milton.

(icon:he dashes off to the library to find a copy of 'Teach Yourself How To Make Turboprop Soundsets':icon)
:tgun2: other way, idiot! :running:
Click to expand...
Nigel,

Search on You Tube for fire tanker videos. I watched several videos of these while searching for data and they are LOUD!

Dave
 
p3aewguy said:
Milton,

Here's a CDF sheet with a few general specs.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your efforts here. Tom has the info you posted and is making adjustments. I realy appreciate your time in research. Maybe ultimately we will get some broader performance specs, maybe from the outfit that did conversions.

Meanwhile, I am working on the CDF variant trying to get the tank modeled. :)
 
S2T performance

mgr said:
From JANE's 1994-5:

Marsh S-2F3T:
1227 kW (1645 shp) Garrett TPE331-15AW
Hartzel 5 blade prop 9ft 7 in
max useable fuel 518 US Gal (1960 liters)
Empty weight: 6282 kg
MTOW: 13.163 kg
Max payload: 6881 kg
Wingload: 286.6 kg/m2

Max speed sealevel: 260 kts
Max speed at alt: 296 kts
Ceiling: 24.000 ft
Range (no reserve): 647 nm (1200 km).

Grumman S-2T Turbo Tracker:
1227 kW (1645 shp) Garrett TPE331-15AW
Dowty advanced technology four-blade prop
Max speed: 270 kts at 5000 ft

Regards,

Marcel

PS.
Just found the offical FAA spec on the Marsh version, you can get it here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...12a55dcc29fea86256b7b0059297f/$FILE/A51NM.pdf
Click to expand...

Milton,

The link in MGR's post is for the FAA Type cetrificate data sheet, which contains a lot of performance data, includung weights, CG, and speeds. Still looking for more.

Here's the link. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...12a55dcc29fea86256b7b0059297f/$FILE/A51NM.pdf

Dave
 
Performance data

Milton Shupe said:
Ah, that's great! I missed this one.
Thanks to your both. :jump:
Click to expand...

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave
 
p3aewguy said:
Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave
Click to expand...

Good points Dave. TG?
 
Heads Up for You Early Testers and Contributors

Mgr has pointed out that the clarity of the fuselage artwork is a bit lacking (my words), and asked if we should consider remapping for better resolution.

The paint kit for the E-1B is done so I would not ask for a redo on that aircraft paint kit.

Nick has not yet jumped into the S2F-3 paint kit so I would like to hear some feedback/input regarding remapping the S2F-3 fuselage (and future variants) to a higher resolution standard.

This means of course, that all of you who jumped in to do your own paint scheme, that would work on your current model of the S2F-3, but the newer model remapped would have to be revisited to reapply your work.

What say you?

Given the many paint schemes out there and the plethora of nose and window area artwork, should we remap for higher resolution?
 
p3aewguy said:
Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave
Click to expand...

Ill ask some of the Tanker pilots and see what I can come up with, but I cant guarantee anything :salute:
 
Milton Shupe said:
Given the many paint schemes out there and the plethora of nose and window area artwork, should we remap for higher resolution?
Click to expand...

Is the need for higher resolution to accomodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid. :kilroy:
 
The time to remap to support higher resolutions is now - not later. Speaking of FSX, I mentioned (awhile back) that the Concorde nose function does not work in FSX. Do we need to avoid any animations that use that function now - or can that be remaped later, when the FSX version is done? Milton: It looks simply superb!! Bill
 
AndyG43 said:
Is the need for higher resolution to accommodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid. :kilroy:
Click to expand...
Mapping to as high a resolution as possible for FSX (4096x4096 is what I usually do repaints in) is a nice idea, but what I've found is that sometimes folks want one of my repaints reduced to fit the FS9 format of 1024x1024 and by the time I reduce it (saved in 32bit for best clarity) the details are gone. So I don't see an advantage in doing textures oversized and then reducing as all that nice detail work you just did, won't remain. Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail. So in summary, doing oversized textures to get as much detail as possible, only to reduce them to fit a relatively small texture size is wasted effort.:salute:
 
falcon409 said:
Mapping to as high a resolution as possible for FSX (4096x4096 is what I usually do repaints in) is a nice idea, but what I've found is that sometimes folks want one of my repaints reduced to fit the FS9 format of 1024x1024 and by the time I reduce it (saved in 32bit for best clarity) the details are gone. So I don't see an advantage in doing textures oversized and then reducing as all that nice detail work you just did, won't remain. Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail. So in summary, doing oversized textures to get as much detail as possible, only to reduce them to fit a relatively small texture size is wasted effort.:salute:
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. The 2048 x 2048 format seems best for both worlds (FS9 and FSX) Just my 2 cents worth.

Dave

Edit: The use of DXT3 helps on older/weaker computers with respect to frame rate and loading. With my previous computer, I had to convert exclusivel to DXT3 or my video in FS was jerky or the video crashed completely.
 
falcon409 said:
Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail.
Click to expand...

I think that is just habit, it wasn't too long ago that 32 bit textures caused the dreaded stutters, but I think most people now have PCs that are more than capable; I've decided I'm doing all my repaints in 32bit, if people want DXT3 then they will be able to convert it themselves. DXT3 should be left for AI now - again, my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top