Grumman S-2 Tracker and derivatives

[GTX_Admin]

Since Kinetic released their 1/48 S-2 Tracker kit a while ago, does anyone know if there are any S-2T Turbo Tracker conversions on the market yet or planned?

Kinetic kit:



Turbo Trackers:

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Take the expensive but easy way out and kit bash the Tracker with the Greyhound or Hawkeye for the wings and engines.  Then you could go retro with the Hawkeye or Greyhound and give it some radials :)

[GTX_Admin]

Ah, but they are different engines with different looks though.  The  Greyhound/Hawkeye use the T-56 whereas the S-2T uses the TPE33.

[elmayerle]

In 1/72, there was a conversion made by an Argentinian company, but I have no idea if it is still available.  I don't know of any 1/48 conversions, yet.  Is there a 1/48 Tucano T.1 kit?  A couple of those would give you close to the new nose shape.

[Litvyak]

So, is there an option for modelling a Tracker in 1/72?

[GTX_Admin]

  Is there a 1/48 Tucano T.1 kit?

There are a couple of Tucano kits out.  I just wish someone would release a Super Tucano in 1/48

[upnorth]

So, is there an option for modelling a Tracker in 1/72?

Yes, that's the old Hasegawa kit. It was reissued by Revell Germany a few years ago. It's not up to the current Hasegawa standard, but still the only way to go for the beast in 1/72.

This link shows you the various box art of the different Hasegawa and Revell issues of the kit:

http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=127763

Hobbycraft Canada did a rather lacklustre knockoff of that kit many years ago and I recomend leaving that one well alone if you see it.

[Litvyak]

Thanks for that - I'll be keeping an eye out for it. If I'm not wrong, those are the short-fuselage version, no?

As for Hobbycraft... the only things of theirs that I'll touch are Canadian subjects that are otherwise unobtainable.

[ChernayaAkula]

And in 1/72, there are conversion sets for Turbo Trackers. LINK!

[GTX_Admin]

I suppose one could always convert the Tracker to jet...

[jcf]

Take the expensive but easy way out and kit bash the Tracker with the Greyhound or Hawkeye for the wings and engines.  Then you could go retro with the Hawkeye or Greyhound and give it some radials :)

Indeed.


S2F-4 came very close to being a production aircraft.

 

[GTX_Admin]

What about a Tracker with Bristol Centuarus engines?

[upnorth]

What about a Tracker with Bristol Centuarus engines?

I like that idea, sort of a Tracker/Brigand love child. Might look really fetching on an E-1 Tracer too.

I wonder what would be good to use if you wanted to go to turboprop power in an earlier time frame than was actually done. Armstrong Siddeley Mamba, perhaps?

[jcf]

As for Hobbycraft... the only things of theirs that I'll touch are Canadian subjects that are otherwise unobtainable.

Why? The 1/48th P-26, P-35s and P-36s are actually pretty good kits. Their early 109s are also not
shabby, ditto the Buchon and Mezek. The 1/72 X-1 and F-86s, while simple, are also nice little kits.

Sure they all have their warts, but those, amongst others, don't deserve the dismissive appellation
Hobbycrap.

[kitnut617]

And in 1/72, there are conversion sets for Turbo Trackers. LINK!

Now those are something that's going on the shopping list

[Jeffry Fontaine]

How about an Attack Tracker?  While it was powered by a pair of R1820's in real life, what if it had been fitted with R2600's or R2800's?  Take out the the TACCO and SENSO stations and turn that area into a full size weapons bay.  Remove the drop down radar abaft the bomb bay and put a more appealing nose on the thing to house an attack radar and you all of a sudden have a rather interesting looking little attack aircraft.  I have been experimenting with a 1:72nd scale Hasegawa/Minicrapht S-2 Tracker to see how it would look with a full bomb bay.  A bit of careful scribing to determine the other bomb bay door and some extra careful razor saw action to remove it and you have a rather spacious cavity that can be filled with bomb racks and some equipment racks.  I sanded off the access door on the starboard side but that could be left as a maintenance access panel if you don't want to obscure it.  I figure the crew would be two: Pilot and a Bombardier/Navigator like on the A-6 and have access to the cockpit being through the cockpit transparencies on either side (just like on the OV-1 Mohawk).  Stores pylons under the wings can remain but that pesky searchlight needs to go unless you want to convert that to your radar pod.  The MAD unit at the rear was trimmed away and sanded so that it is no longer showing as that feature.  I was toying with the idea of adding a ball turret from a B-17 or B-24 to the space previously occupied by the surface search radar since the hole is large enough but doing that means you have to add in another crew member and once inside the turret there is no getting out of it so I ruled that out.  Still it is a possible version to consider if you wanted to experiment with alternatives to a standard S-2 Tracker.

[elmayerle]

Bob the MAD boom much like the EP-3E bobs the P-3's mad boom.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Bob the MAD boom much like the EP-3E bobs the P-3's mad boom.

No need for it in the "strike" mission so it was simple enough to remove and sand the existing features down to blend in with the tail. 

[finsrin]

And in 1/72, there are conversion sets for Turbo Trackers. LINK!

Now those are something that's going on the shopping list

Nice conversion sets and other stuff  :)      PB4Y-2 
Is there english version?   
Prices in $?
How to order?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

And in 1/72, there are conversion sets for Turbo Trackers. LINK!

Now those are something that's going on the shopping list

Nice conversion sets and other stuff  :)      PB4Y-2 
Is there english version?   
Prices in $?
How to order?

 

Bill, there is an eMail address on Wolfram Witschel 's "Wolframs Bastelecke" main page so you can contact him directly about pricing and availability.  I am quite sure that his command of the English language is as good as or better than our own attempts :)

[Jeffry Fontaine]

To avoid going further off topic I am responding to the comments made on The FAA go American topic in the The Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda GB so it is not overwhelmed with things that are capable of taking it off topic and allow Harold to continue with that discussion of his rather lovely Panther.  So taking up where we left off over there we have the following from Mike (cliffyB)

Jeff, have you ever seen the Grumman XTB2F-1?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_XTB2F

It was meant to replace the Avenger on board the CVBs but the USN was too weary of running twin engined aircraft off of carriers at the time (not sure why...).

You can't deny that it had some influence on the Tracker and it could certainly be viewed as a ancestral attack version.  It also had a dorsal and ball turret with twin .50s in them along with a 75mm cannon in the nose like the B-25s.  Something to think about maybe?

I have a 3-view drawing of it if you want one.

Hi Mike, yes, I would certainly like to have a copy of that three-view drawing if you want to share it with me.  I had found some information on the XBTD-1 previously and Jon (jcf) has shared some of his references with us in the past on that subject to. 

I would imagine that the big belly Tracker/XTB2F hybrid would not be carrying much in the way of guns if it were to be a strike aircraft.  Maybe a gun package as an option for the bomb bay with a battery of four or six 20mm cannons and a fuel tank for such a mission that could be removed and normal bomb bay doors installed again.  The belly turret was a neat idea but I soon realized that secluding a crew member to the nether regions of the tracker all by his lonesome was kind of cruel.  So I am steering away from a belly turret for any project I undertake with the "Strike-Tracker-Attacker". 

If the attack Tracker were flying at low level the need for a belly turret to defend from below is no longer necessary.  Several forward firing weapons would be desirable for a torpedo attack if only to make the pilot and bombardier feel more proactive about the mission.  So maybe a couple of .50 BMG along the side of the fuselage?  I had thought about the gun packs/package guns that were installed on the B-25 and B-26 bombers for the strafing mission as these would be ideal with the guns clear of the airframe and the ammunition magazine could be installed between the bomb rack assembly and the fuselage.  So four package guns/gun packs with two on each side of the aircraft would provide the desired forward firing weapons in a nice tight group around the outside of the aircraft. 

IRL the Tracker had only a 3500 pound weapons capacity when powered by the R1820's.  If it were powered by R2600's then there should be a corresponding increase in payload should there not? 

[jcf]

From Grumman Aircraft since 1929.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Perhaps as a competitor to the Grumman Design 55 (XTB2F-1) for the cancelled Avenger follow-on?



Grumman Design 55(XTB2F-1)
Span: 74'
Length: 52'
Max speed: 338mph
Ceiling: 31,600'
Range: 3,060 miles
Two 2,000hp R-2800-22
Two power turrets each with twin .50MG
Two fixed .50MG and 75mm cannon in nose
Two .50MG in each wing
Single torpedo or up to 36 100lb bombs in ventral weapons bay.

'Grumman Aircraft since 1929', Rene Francillon, Putnam/NIP

Mmmm.... off topic, but I could imagine a Tracker bashed into an attack bomber.

Not off-topic now :)
That three-view was what inspired me in trying to find a way to turn the Tracker into some kind of attack bomber/torpedo carrier.

[Volkodav]

Ideal for a back dated service type too, a carrier based heavy torpedo bomber in 1944/45 also used as a medium/attack bomber against land targets.  Opens up some really good colour schemes, especially if you could have an early 1943 service entry.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Ideal for a back dated service type too, a carrier based heavy torpedo bomber in 1944/45 also used as a medium/attack bomber against land targets.  Opens up some really good colour schemes, especially if you could have an early 1943 service entry.

I have carved up a 1:72nd scale S-2 Tracker to see if I could put a full bomb bay into the thing.  That worked out better than I had imagined.  On the Hasegawa kit you have the engraved access door on the right side that will need to be puttied over and smoothed out.  Crew access could be through the bomb bay when it is open or through the top of the cockpit like the A-20 or A-26.  There is a nice big hole in the fuselage where the surface search radar was located, you can keep the radar or opt for the belly turret from the B-17 or B-24 as either one will fit nicely since it is pretty much the same model turret.  I cut up a section from the bomb bay in an Academy B-29 to add four stacks of bomb racks to the S-2 with two sets of racks on each side.  There should be enough room inside to hold two MkXIII torpedoes if you can figure out how to attach the things to some kind of centrally located suspension racks.  If you add guns to the Attack Tracker they could be in the form of those blister packs often seen on the B-25 and B-26 with two on each side.  Another option might be to add a blister to the bomb bay holding four 20mm cannons like the P-70 (A-20) used.  I am pretty sure there are other more radical options that could be considered but I have kept my own modification quite conservative.

[Kerick]

You mentioned the Mohawk earlier and I was thinking the Attacker Tracker would look cool with those bulged out side windows. Sounds like you have a whiff half done.

[elmayerle]

For the new, more aggressive nose, how about something patterned after the original solid-nose of the Neptune, with guns?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

For the new, more aggressive nose, how about something patterned after the original solid-nose of the Neptune, with guns?

That is way more work/surgery than I want to invest in converting the Tracker.  Package guns should be sufficient for strafing ship type targets during the torpedo run to the target.  For any air-to-ground work the four guns and rockets under the wing should be enough to pulverize most targets.  Other missions such as mine-laying would not require the guns as speed and range would be more valuable for such missions. 

[Gingie]

oh, scheme it in SEAC with black undersides a-la B-52, AC-130 etc

[Jeffry Fontaine]

oh, scheme it in SEAC with black undersides a-la B-52, AC-130 etc

For the time period, I would imagine the Attack Tracker would have been in overall dark sea blue. :)

[kitnut617]

For the new, more aggressive nose, how about something patterned after the original solid-nose of the Neptune, with guns?

Hmm!  think on this I will  --------   

[Volkodav]

A B-25H type nose, or one incorporating a 57mm Molins gun, or two/three/four? 

[M.A.D]

Take the expensive but easy way out and kit bash the Tracker with the Greyhound or Hawkeye for the wings and engines.  Then you could go retro with the Hawkeye or Greyhound and give it some radials :)

Indeed.


S2F-4 came very close to being a production aircraft.

 

JCF, what else do you have on this (I assume turboprop-powered) S2F-4 variant in the way of info/data? Would be very interested!!
M.A.D

[Daryl J.]

S2-T
US Army

[GTX_Admin]

S2-T
US Army

In a heavy CAS style role?

[M.A.D]

Im pretty sure the US Army in 'real-world' terms studied an actual COIN related derivative of the Tracker during the time of the Vietnam War.....now where did I read that.... 


M.A.D

[finsrin]

With Sand Point NAS near by remember lot of Trackers flying over neighborhood as a kid.  Later when in P-2 squadron were plenty Trackers around.  Attack/bomber version is interesting subject.

[M.A.D]

Ok, I found one of the articles I read about the USAF (and not the U.S. Army!) want to use the Tracker in COIN role in Vietnam:

The U.S. Air Force Wanted to Turn Navy Sub-Hunters Into Attack Aircraft
https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-air-force-wanted-to-turn-navy-sub-hunters-into-attack-aircraft/


M.A.D

[finsrin]

Ok, I found one of the articles I read about the USAF (and not the U.S. Army!) want to use the Tracker in COIN role in Vietnam:

The U.S. Air Force Wanted to Turn Navy Sub-Hunters Into Attack Aircraft
https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-air-force-wanted-to-turn-navy-sub-hunters-into-attack-aircraft/


M.A.D

A most interesting article.  Seems good if had the S-2s and done it.

[apophenia]

G-112 study for an improved S-2F:

http://thanlont.blogspot.ca/2016/01/grumman-s2fs-2-tracker-monograph.html

[ScranJ51]

Re Trackers and COIN, I seem to remember an old RAN filmclip about a HMAS MELBOURNE deployment to NZ, and that had vision of a Tracker firing 5 inch FF Rockets at a range. 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Re Trackers and COIN, I seem to remember an old RAN filmclip about a HMAS MELBOURNE deployment to NZ, and that had vision of a Tracker firing 5 inch FF Rockets at a range. 

The 5.0"/127mm HVAR were an integral part of the Tracker for many years with solid shot warheads being carried to punch holes in surfaced submarine targets.  Other warheads for the HVAR could be carried but that would depend on the mission and targets to be encountered.  Other weapons (rockets, bombs, gun pods, etc.) compatible with the S-2 would also have been included for use in the COIN mission.

As far as the COIN mission envisioned for the Tracker, this comment from Greg Goebels Air Vectors appears to describe it best for sharing here:

(Source Page Link) * One of the might-have-beens of the Tracker story was consideration of its use as a gunship in Vietnam. The idea wasn't ridiculous, the Lockheed P2V Neptune having seen some use as a "jungle fighter" in the conflict. The Air Force was looking for a "Self Contained Night Attack (SNCA)" platform that could locate targets on its own at night and engage them; the Tracker seemed to have the payload capability to do the job.

The gunship Tracker was to be designated the "AS-2D". It was to be fitted with "forward looking infrared (FLIR)" and "low light level TV (LLLTV)" sensors to obtain targets, with the Tracker's standard searchlight slaved to the LLLTV. Weapons were to consist of cluster munitions dispensers in the bombbay and stores carried on the underwing pylons. Two "YAS-2D" evaluation machines were planned, but the effort ran into technical and organizational difficulties, with the Air Force pulling the plug on the exercise in early 1968. It would have been interesting to see what the Tracker would look like in jungle camouflage.

[The Big Gimper]

Not sure what was in my coffee and peanut butter and jam toast this morning but here is the result.


S2-LD-Stretch-final by Big Gimper, on Flickr

[GTX_Admin]

Need side view or at least a normal version alongside for comparison

[The Big Gimper]

I can give you the original drawing and the side view of how I will build it.  Still working on the full colour side view.


S2-LD-Stretch-V1 by Big Gimper, on Flickr


S2-LD-Stretch-final by Big Gimper, on Flickr


S2-P-Stretch-V1 by Big Gimper, on Flickr

[GTX_Admin]

So what;s the proposed role of this creature?

[Old Wombat]

Well, I've done a flying-boat Tracker (you may remember her) ...



... & I have 2 more in the stash, one of which will be Real World from my Tracker Whacker days.

The third is going to be whiffed as a Coastal/Maritime Patrol & Surveillance aircraft, with a turboprop conversion, to be employed by the Royal Australian Navy Coast Guard.

Now, what I would like from you guys is some inspiration for this future build.

Let's start with a little list of areas to look at;

1.) Engines* - obviously the Garrett/Honeywell TPE331 (T76) or Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A but are there any other possibilities?

2.) Surveillance packages* - what would be some useful data gathering & interpreting systems suitable for general coastal/maritime ELINT?

3.) Patrol packages* - optical & electronic search systems suitable for general coastal/maritime detection & observation tasks?

4.) Integrated systems - how would these packages be incorporated into the airframe with minimal alteration of the existing lay-out (remembering that this is not meant to be a weapons carrier).




* - Any photo's you may have of the visible aspects of any suggested options would be greatly appreciated (with measurements, please).



Cheers!

[Kerick]

What time frame are you looking at? Modern or maybe 1980's?

[elmayerle]

You've listed the two main engine options.  The only others I can think of possibly being used are the Turbomeca Astazou and the Walter engine used on the LET-410.  The first seems to get replaced, a lot, by the Garrett?Honeywell engine (for example, the prototype MU-2 had Astazous, all production MU-2s have Garrett/Honeywell TPE331s; TPE331s replaced Astazous in later models of the Jetstream) and I doubt the Walter engine would be used much outside the Eastern Bloc.  Engine choice might depend on time frame as it was not until the 1990s that the PT6A, with FADEC, developed the same throttle responsiveness as the TPE331; if that is a concern.

For maritime patrol activities, you might want to add bulged side windows, as on the MU-2S maritime patrol variant of the short MU-2. 

[GTX_Admin]

the Walter engine used on the LET-410 .... I doubt the Walter engine would be used much outside the Eastern Bloc. 

The engine is the  Walter M601. In the industry it's often considered as an Eastern block PT6.   It is useable on non Eastern bloc platforms though given that GE now offer uprated derivatives called the H75 (750 shp), H80 (800 shp) and H85 (850 shp).  I suppose they could follow the PT6 route and develop a big version in the 1700 shp range to equate to the TPEs/PT6s.

Re other options, both the Argentine and Taiwanese S-2Ts have TPE-331-15AW turboprops rated at 1645 shp each:




Whilst the Turbo Firecat has PT6A-67AFs rated at 1700 shp each



Other options might include the GE CT7/T700 which starts out at about 1,622 shp and goes up from there (it is used on multiple platforms such as the CN-235 shown below).  One advantage from a Royal Australian Navy  POV would be that the basic engine is the same a the T700 used in the SeaHawks.



Another option might be something such as a member of the P&W 100 family (maybe a PW118, PW120 or PW123) which range in power from 1800 - 2400 shp and are used on multiple platforms scubas as Dash-8s or CL415s amongst others:

[GTX_Admin]

1.) Engines* - obviously the Garrett/Honeywell TPE331 (T76) or Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A but are there any other possibilities?

Answered above.

2.) Surveillance packages* - what would be some useful data gathering & interpreting systems suitable for general coastal/maritime ELINT?

Maybe look at either the Singaporean Fokker F-50 Enforcer Mk.2 aircraft or RAAF AP-3C. Both have ELTA surveillance systems incorporating advanced ELINT equipment - look at the wingtips/bellies of both to see the sort of antenna etc you may wish to add on:




If doing a RAN platform, having similar systems to the AP-3Cs in particular will be useful.

3.) Patrol packages* - optical & electronic search systems suitable for general coastal/maritime detection & observation tasks?

Again, I would follow the AP-3C route and try to adopt as common suite as possible.  FYI, the AP-3C via Projects AIR 5140 and AIR 5276 added in the following systems:

• AN/ALR2001 ESM system;
• Elta EL/M-2022(V)3 radar - either this or a variant could be retrofitted into the S-2 instead of the original AN/APS-38 radar;
• Star Safire III electro-optical and infrared system - this could easily be added in, either in a retractable or non-retractable fitting;
• UYS 503 acoustic system - again, this or something akin to could be added in; and
• Other computer processors, comms suite and glass cockpit/navigation systems.

Another option might be to adopt the systems/sensors etc of the S-3B Viking (see here for useful walk around photos) or even ES-3A Shadow.  Given both the S-2 and the S-3 have 4 person crews and are of roughly similar size and role, one could easily see an argument for shoehorning the S-3 systems into a upgraded S-2T.

All of this will depend upon the timings of your proposed aircraft build.  If the early/mid '80s I might go with the S-3B stye fit out.  If a decade or so later, I might go for the AP-3C systems.

4.) Integrated systems - how would these packages be incorporated into the airframe with minimal alteration of the existing lay-out (remembering that this is not meant to be a weapons carrier).

If ou are happy to give up the weapons bay you could put a lot in there.  Either way, one should be able to add in most items with only external antenna (such as the examples shown above) visible on wingtips and fuselage

[GTX_Admin]

Of course, there's also this route:

[Old Wombat]

What time frame are you looking at? Modern or maybe 1980's?

I was thinking the 1980-to-2000 period, after the RAN FAA de-commissioned its Trackers in my time-line (as opposed to RW, when they were de-commissioned in 1984 & pretty much left to rot).

The Trackers will be used purely for the patrol/surveillance role & have no weapons or ASW-specific equipment fitted; think Customs, Immigration, Fisheries, Shipping Control & EPA as the primary functions, with some ability to carry out surveillance of foreign warships & military aircraft which come too close to Australian waters/airspace.

Thanks heaps, Greg!

I had a look at the Walter 601's but none of them had the power I was looking for.

The GE CT7/T700 & P&W 100's look pretty good - especially the P&W's, as I think I'll have to scratch build the engines & they appear to have simpler nacelles.

Saving the photo's to the appropriate folders, now.

[GTX_Admin]

What scale are you building in?

[Old Wombat]

The true One True Scale, Greg ... 1/48!

[GTX_Admin]

The true One True Scale, Greg ... 1/48!

Good man! 

[GTX_Admin]

I was thinking the 1980-to-2000 period, after the RAN FAA de-commissioned its Trackers in my time-line (as opposed to RW, when they were de-commissioned in 1984 & pretty much left to rot).

That makes sense.  Maybe have the story being that after the RAN retires them, the aircraft are acquired/provided to someone such as Surveillance Australia (more on this below) to form the Coastwatch style organisation a few years earlier than in the real world.

The Trackers will be used purely for the patrol/surveillance role & have no weapons or ASW-specific equipment fitted; think Customs, Immigration, Fisheries, Shipping Control & EPA as the primary functions, with some ability to carry out surveillance of foreign warships & military aircraft which come too close to Australian waters/airspace.

So, something akin to the real world Surveillance Australia/Coastwatch program.  In this case, you can so away with a lot of equipment and simplify things.  I would still give them a new radar and EO system, probably similar to that used by the Dash 8 aircraft - see here.  You could also use the Australian Customs IAI 124N Sea Scan aircraft as a point of inspiration.

[kitnut617]

So something like these Dash 8's that are used for Surveillance. They've got all sorts of lumps and bumps on them

[apophenia]

So something like these Dash 8's that are used for Surveillance. They've got all sorts of lumps and bumps on them

Yup. All those lumps and bumps on the Coastwatch and NASP Dash 8s are similar but, for anyone who cares about such things, the techno-blather varies.

The Coastwatch aircraft carry Raytheon SeaVue 1022 search radar and Wescam 16DS (later MX-15) E/O turrets. (The sensor input is synthesized with data from the Australian Maritime Identification System.) On the radar, the SeaVue XMC (eXpanded Mission Capability) was trialled but I'm not sure if it ever became standard ... anyone know?

The NASP DCH-8-100M has a Swedish MSS 6000 Maritime Surveillance System (EO/IR turret, 360° search radar, and 2 x SAAB SLAR antennae on the sides). NASP aircraft also carry an IR/UV line scanner to track oil slicks (although a belly window is the only hint). [/nerd mode]

[Old Wombat]

Thanks, kitnut!

I was thinking the 1980-to-2000 period, after the RAN FAA de-commissioned its Trackers in my time-line (as opposed to RW, when they were de-commissioned in 1984 & pretty much left to rot).

That makes sense.  Maybe have the story being that after the RAN retires them, the aircraft are acquired/provided to someone such as Surveillance Australia (more on this below) to form the Coastwatch style organisation a few years earlier than in the real world.

The Trackers will be used purely for the patrol/surveillance role & have no weapons or ASW-specific equipment fitted; think Customs, Immigration, Fisheries, Shipping Control & EPA as the primary functions, with some ability to carry out surveillance of foreign warships & military aircraft which come too close to Australian waters/airspace.

So, something akin to the real world Surveillance Australia/Coastwatch program.  In this case, you can so away with a lot of equipment and simplify things.  I would still give them a new radar and EO system, probably similar to that used by the Dash 8 aircraft - see here.  You could also use the Australian Customs IAI 124N Sea Scan aircraft as a point of inspiration.

In my time line (the same one for the RAM & the Grumman Grebe, et al.) the RAN Coast Guard is formed shortly post-WW1 with a few CMB's & some fast ex-pearling luggers as a counter to smuggling activities across the Top End. A lack of dedicated funds & some questionable activities saw it fold in the mid-30's. However, immediately post-WW2 a few Dog Boats (Fairmile D's) & a couple of corvettes (Bathurst's), plus a small number of Catalinas were allocated for training & small-scale operations to be the seed of a larger & more professional RAN CG covering both RAN & civilian agency patrol & surveillance requirements.

The Trackers are merely transferred directly to the Coast Guard, rather than sold (the CG operating on a mix of hand-me-downs & new, purpose built equipment).

The Dash-8's look like a good starting point for base-line surveillance systems with some ELTA lumps & bumps added for improved ELINT. Not sure how the SeaScan nose would work on a Tracker but maybe something similar added low & just aft of the cockpit on an extended forward fuselage might work.

The technical details may, of course, be a little bit ... um .. fudged to suit whiffability &, to some degree, the Rule of Cool.

Thanks for the ideas!

[Kerick]

This is very interesting to see develop. I hope you are able to create a great whif.
BTW the Taiwanese tracker looks like a whif already.

[kitnut617]

I've got a few of the Hobbycraft Dash 8's in the stash which will have various CCG schemes,

but this one (top pic) I decided to take further in the scheme of the bottom pic (notice it has different lumps and bumps)

[Old Wombat]

The more I look at it the more I'm liking the GE CT7/T700 as an engine option, as it has heaps of power, a history of reliability & leaves open the possibility of eventual replacement of the Trackers by a CN-235 variant.

[tankmodeler]

The more I look at it the more I'm liking the GE CT7/T700 as an engine option, as it has heaps of power, a history of reliability & leaves open the possibility of eventual replacement of the Trackers by a CN-235 variant.

No, no, no!

As a fellow member of the Commonwealth, you need to put Canadian-designed and -built PW-100s in your bird! And the PW150 has bags of power.


 

[GTX_Admin]

The more I look at it the more I'm liking the GE CT7/T700 as an engine option, as it has heaps of power, a history of reliability & leaves open the possibility of eventual replacement of the Trackers by a CN-235 variant.

In that case you could model your nacelles one one of the existing users of the type such as:

SAAB 340:


CN-235:


Let L-610:


Or even Sukhoi S-80:


Personally, I like the CN-235 or L-610 look which would look different on the Tracker though its up to you.

[kitnut617]

You could put the undercarriage in some side sponsons, that would look cool ---

[apophenia]

... the bottom pic (notice it has different lumps and bumps)

Very interesting kitnut'. AFAIK, the CCG Dash 8s didn't carry any surveillance suite in 2001 when that photo was taken.

Those fuselage-side bulges resemble Provincial Aerospace's photo ports ... except there's no window    So what the heck are they?

[Old Wombat]

@Greg: I was thinking of the CN-235 type as a base, as it looks easier to scratch-build & fit into the contours of the Tracker nacelle.

Prop's are going to be the issue, I can't seem to find anything suitable in Aus at the moment.

The US is out-of-bounds; I tried to order a pair of 1/48 resin wheels ... $7 for the parts, $50 for postage!

UK could be similarly ruinous & HLJ don't seem to have what I need either.

[Kerick]

Those postage rates are ridiculous! How is anyone supposed to do business?

[kitnut617]

I found that out myself when I was sending some spare bits to Fred in Ozz. It was parts for a 1/72 ball turret and the post office said C$35 please. I just said 'you're joking' and was told Australia is the most expensive country to mail things to.  But I managed to get it down to C$10 as a non-tracking airmail item but now it's tied up somewhere because of the postal workers strike action (even though they've had a back-to-work order) so don't know where it is at the moment.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

$50 for postage!

No kiss on the cheek or the courtesy of a reach-a-round for the schtooping you get from the post office. 

[GTX_Admin]

What sort of props are you after?

[Old Wombat]

Probably 4- or 5-bladers, I was looking for Herc/E-3 props but have recently wondered if Fury props would cut it.

[GTX_Admin]

Probably 4- or 5-bladers, I was looking for Herc/E-3 props but have recently wondered if Fury props would cut it.

If you are looking for something to give a modernised look, I would tend towards the 5 blade prop as well.  That said, if you look at the Taiwanese S-2Ts, they have 4 bladed props:



Though the Argentine ones have 5 bladed ones:



If we use the latter as a guide, they are 11ft (3.35m) diameter Hartzell ones one could look at a couple of options in the 1/48 scale:

Sea Fury:  Was Rotol 5 bladed of 12ft 9 inch (3.89m) diameter
Spitfire XIV:  Was Rotol 5 bladed of 10 ft 5 in (3.18 m) diameter  you can get copies from the likes of Quickboost with some available at BNA Model World her in Australia



Spitfire Mk. 21 - 24 and Seafire 46/47 (non-contra prop):  Was Rotol 5 bladed ofs 11 ft (3.35 m) diameter - you can get copies from the likes of Quickboost or Barracuda Studios.



Personally, I would go for the last option with the 11 ft props.  I think the Sea Fury ones will be too large.  There are some of all of these on EBay.  Not sure what prices you were getting with your other options but it may be worth a look.

BTW, not sure at what stage this is at:

[kitnut617]

However, both the Spitfire and Sea Fury props are the wrong hand, they turn in the opposite way

[GTX_Admin]

However, both the Spitfire and Sea Fury props are the wrong hand, they turn in the opposite way

Depends how one fits the turbine and writes the back story

[Rickshaw]

However, both the Spitfire and Sea Fury props are the wrong hand, they turn in the opposite way

Just reverse the propeller blades...

[elmayerle]

However, both the Spitfire and Sea Fury props are the wrong hand, they turn in the opposite way

TPE331 gearbox can be revised to reverse the direction of prop rotation.  Too, if the props you choose come with separate blades, they can be reversed fairly easily.

[kitnut617]

Unless the blade has next to nothing as a chord cross-section profile reversing the blades doesn't do it. I've got a couple of kits which are in the 'stalled' build state at the moment which have that very problem, one is a Henschel Hs P87, an interesting pusher canard aircraft. Only thing is, Planet must have used a wide blade tractor prop to copy and stuck it on the rear end, but the props are facing backwards --- 

Same with the Tradewind I have, the front prop of the contra-prop has the blade chord the right way around, the rear prop blades though are facing backwards ----   

Mind you I did managed to re-twist an Aeroclub white metal Sea Fury prop to an opposite hand one, the blade chord cross-section was about non-existent

[Old Wombat]

If I don't mind cutting the blades down (& I don't, really. the squared end look isn't that bad); I could buy either 2 x 5-blade Fury props & 2 x Wyvern props, or I could buy 2 x 4-blade Spit props & 1 x Wyvern prop to get 2 x counter-rotating props by using the blades from the Wyvern's.

I could then, possibly, get rid of the anti-vibration bar from the port tail plane, as I could reverse the rotation of the port propeller to clockwise, thereby eliminating the cause of the vibrations in the tail plane.

Food for thought & budgetary considerations.

[GTX_Admin]

Another, different thought:  Give the Tracker an upper turret and maybe a solid nose with guns and make it an AS-2 for use in ground attack (perhaps anti Ho Chi Minh Trail over Vietnam in similar scheme to the Invader shown below?).

[Kerick]

I can’t get the idea out of my head. What would an S-2 fuselage look like combined with V-22 wings and engines? Maybe a COIN version taken to the n’th degree? Just thinking off the top of my head here.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

FWIW, the hole for the retractable radome is large enough to hold the Sperry type ball turret from the B-24 and B-17.

[Kelmola]

Another, different thought:  Give the Tracker an upper turret and maybe a solid nose with guns and make it an AS-2 for use in ground attack (perhaps anti Ho Chi Minh Trail over Vietnam in similar scheme to the Invader shown below?).

Well there was supposed to be an AS-2D (minus the turret and gun nose) to fulfill the USAF Shed Light/SCNA requirement, used for night time interdiction on the Trail

[tankmodeler]

Another, different thought:  Give the Tracker an upper turret and maybe a solid nose with guns and make it an AS-2 for use in ground attack (perhaps anti Ho Chi Minh Trail over Vietnam in similar scheme to the Invader shown below?).

Well there was supposed to be an AS-2D (minus the turret and gun nose) to fulfill the USAF Shed Light/SCNA requirement, used for night time interdiction on the Trail

For night interdiction, a turret is less useful, especially if the nose is full of guns and you're not pulling pylon turns. On the other hand, that lovely radome spot is perfect for a bunch of trainable sensors such as a FLIR ball with paired laser designator or LLTV. The AS-2 could pick up the targets, vector in and away, make more passes without ever losing sensor lock on the target. The weapons bay has to be large enough for some of the smaller precision guided weapons and the wings have stations for rocket pods and the like. Remove the sonobuoy stowage in one nacelle and add fuel, use the other sonobuoy stowage for illumination flares. Pilot, co-pilot, sensor operator and a weapons operator. Add flame dampers to the exhausts and you have a nice, neat, little night interdiction package.

Paul

[jcf]

A tilt wing like the OV-1 based Design 134E.

[finsrin]

Jon - you found a real gem with this one. 

[GTX_Admin]

Does anyone know of a 1/48 C-1 Trader kit or conversion?




I'm liking the idea of a civilian version.  Possibly either a small passenger transport or a freight hauler or even a skydiving version.

[Daryl J.]

What Greg said. 

Another, different thought:  Give the Tracker an upper turret and maybe a solid nose with guns and make it an AS-2 for use in ground attack (perhaps anti Ho Chi Minh Trail over Vietnam in similar scheme to the Invader shown below?).