Warbird Information Exchange

A somewhat random question that's now bugging me disproportionately.

I have a couple of references that say the DHC built Trackers for the RCN were 18 inches shorter to fit the Canadian carriers. Others show nothing. True or myth? And were there other structural (not equipment diffs, which are covered) differences?

TIA!



For general reference, not the Q:
https://www.warplane.com/aircraft/colle ... craftId=23

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

No mention of that in the book "Grumman S2F/S-2 Tracker" by Kowalski and Thompson. 2016 Ginter publishing.
I recently bought it and the companion volume on the Tracker and Tracer. They are very complete with detail on design, systems and ASW operations.

And perhaps more tellingly, no mention of it in my "go to" Grumman book,."Grumman Aircraft since 1929" by Rene Francillon. Putnam/U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1989.

It sounds like someone got confused.
The later S2F-3 (100 built) was 18 inches longer than the -1 and 2s.
Canadian aircraft were -2s but they were the same length as the U.S. produced 1s and 2s.
Aside from an US. surplus instructional airframe, I believe all Australian S-2s had the longer fuselage, so the Canadian aircraft were shorter than the ones you'd see in your country. But it had nothing to do with fitting them on a carrier.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

According to Wiki, the S-2F is 43 ft 6 in in length. According to RCN Operating Instructions for the CS-2F, it's exactly 42 ft long.

So yes it does seem that the CS-2F is 18 inches shorter than whichever 'S-2F' Wiki is referring to.

The S2F1 and 2 are 42' according to both Grumman books.
The longer fuselage -3 is 43'6".
So wiki just giving the number for the longer variant.

And another example of why specialist publications are still relevant in the internet age.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

The U.S. Navy S2F-1 and the Canadian CS2F-1 are identical in length at 42 ft 0 in. The S-2D the S-2E and S-2G were lengthened to 43 ft 6 in. The S2F-1 designation was changed to the S-2A and the S2F-1S to the S-2B the S2F-2 to the S-2C and the S2F-3 to the S-2D in 1962 when Robert McNamara couldn’t figure out the U.S. Navy aircraft designation system. Somehow later on the S2F-1S1 became the S-2F. Go figure.

IMG_6041 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6042 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6043 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6044 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6045 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6046 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6064 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6065 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6066 by tanker622001, on Flickr

It is very easy to tell the two lengths apart when aircraft are finished in service markings...
On the short fuselage -1 and -2s, the prop warning stripe is directly aft of the cockpit window.
On the longer variant it is much further aft.
One can clearly see it the photo on the S-2D/E (post-1962 designation for the S2F-3) flight manual above.

The fuselage is 14" longer in the cockpit/cabin (6 and 8 inches respectively), the other 4" was added aft of the wing for cg.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Thank you very much, JohnB and Larry! And yes, a good lesson for us all in variable source trust.

Incidentally, John, you noticed one reason for my query; if the RCN ones had to be 'shorter' for their carriers, how could the RAN manage with Grumman made ones in essentially similar carriers? (I didn't bother checking lift dimensions, glad I didn't now) Now we know.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

James

Apparently, the RAN received the final S-3 built as part of their fleet before the infamous 1976 hangar fire.

I do recommend the two Ginter books.
They feature more than the typical short development history followed by photos and squadron histories. The first section has details and drawings of all the competitors for the contract: Curtiss, Vought, Douglas...and Cessna!?
Lots of flight manual pages showing panels and general arrange drawings, as well as pilot/ASW crew reminiscences.
The authors (former S-2 pilots) also explain how a Tracker would fly a sub search pattern.
Pretty impressive stuff given the systems of the time.
Also, the book has a section on the many non-U.S. users, and a review of model kits.

Glad I was able to help you, nice to correspond again.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

JDK, I strongly agree with JohnB on the Ginter S-2 books. I have both and often refer to them. I just checked the Ginter Books website http://www.ginterbooks.com and both books are available for a reasonable price.

IMG_6089 by tanker622001, on Flickr

IMG_6090 by tanker622001, on Flickr