• 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

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
 
hawkeye52 said:
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lazarus said:
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.
Click to expand...

The TF-1 is the C-1A.

Dave
 
"...the bulge appears to be 5 to 6 inches wider than the frame (below the lap line)."
lazarus said:
At least that. Its pretty distinct.
Click to expand...

lazarus said:
Which is the TF-1? We used a number of TS-2A's.
Click to expand...
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? :icon_lol:

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
 
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.
 
Willy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 .
 
ok paintkit is done for my liking, currently it's 2048*2048 Milton.... will need reducing to 50% scale for FS9 if you want me to do that for you let me know :salute:
 
lazarus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have this 3-view as well. Aside from the labeling error, you might also pay attention to the bottom view that shows 2 bomb bay doors. :-/

There are lots of errors in any 3-view, not the least of them is the left and right sides rarely mirror each other, and the opposing views, say top versus bottom, or left versus right views do not match each other in shape, height, or width. It's just something we developers have to live with and adjust to accordingly.
Then when scaling up the 3-views to real world dimensions, the lines drawn are about 4" wide. So a 4" error on both sides can yield quite the spectacle if not careful. We usually model one side then mirror it for the other side so that at least we have symmetry. And although we can model to the 1/1000th of a meter, those lines are still 4" wide. :) There is just no substitute for having the aircraft in your back yard. :)

In all fairness to the craft of doing the 3-views, I believe we have better tools for modeling than they have for converting their raw drawings to 3-views.

EDIT: adding another 3_view I thought you might like pouring over. You might note that this drawing also shows 2 bomb doors. That's why I ended up doing the doors 3 times before I got them right, with only one set on the port side. :) All the other drawings also show 2 sets of doors.

EDIT2: Now note the S2F-1 drawing that shows that nice rounded bottom. Fiddle sticks! :)

EDIT3: Now note the nice flat bottom of the CS2F-2 from this excellent web site: http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/tracker_exterior_features.html

My error in producing the S2F-3 was not from the 3-views however. I modified the E-1B to create it, and although I flattened the bottom (side view), I did not "un-round" it. So, I will correct the bottom and the forward top bulge.
 
Smoothie said:
ok paintkit is done for my liking, currently it's 2048*2048 Milton.... will need reducing to 50% scale for FS9 if you want me to do that for you let me know :salute:
Click to expand...

Well thank you sir :)

Actually, I do not use the paint kit so it is not an issue for me. I suspect that texture artists will have no trouble modifying them for their work however. :)
 
On what few paints I do, I prefer to paint in oversize, then adjust down to fit.
 
Willy said:
On what few paints I do, I prefer to paint in oversize, then adjust down to fit.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did when making skins for F4U Corsairs in Il-2: Pacific Fighters and Il-2: 1946. It's an extra step, but I though it made making detailed skins a little easier as I wasn't working with blurry stencils or textures until finished and scaled down to 1024 x 1024.
 
S2F-3 Redo

Last night I started rebuilding the S2F-3 fuselage by eliminating the doors and overhead windows and fleshing out the mesh. Now I can reshape the the bottom and the "bulge".

I proceeded to handcraft the flatter bottom and bulge. I think I am getting close to the needed shape now. The bulge represents a "push-out of about 5" or so.
 
Milton Shupe said:
Last night I started rebuilding the S2F-3 fuselage by eliminating the doors and overhead windows and fleshing out the mesh. Now I can reshape the the bottom and the "bulge".

I proceeded to handcraft the flatter bottom and bulge. I think I am getting close to the needed shape now. The bulge represents a "push-out of about 5" or so.
Click to expand...

Milton, do you have adequate photos to help you visualize the upper fuselage bulge?

- H52
 
Stoof Profiles D/L

For anyone having trouble obtaining a COMPLETE D/L of the Stoof profiles ZiP file (on p.37 of this thread)....

I paused the D/L just as it reached the point where it cut off (6 MB in my case). Restarted it and it went the full 10MB.

- H52
 
hawkeye52 said:
Milton, do you have adequate photos to help you visualize the upper fuselage bulge?

- H52
Click to expand...

I think so H52. After about 8 hours work, I now have the fuselage reconstructed with a flatter bottom, the bulge, new pilot window, new crew window, a less rounded nose shape, and general mesh improvements.

I am ready to rebuild the windshield, cut in the access door, cut in the bomb bay doors, and rebuild the flare launcher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top