Grumman, the people that made the planes 12 SEPT 2010

Mr Widgeon · **Posted:** Wed May 30, 2007 4:13 am

Some really great Duck and Goose shots.
Quite a few I'd never seen before and I've been looking at Grummans for years.
Do you have anything on the Widgeon ?

armyjunk2 · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2007 8:15 pm **Posts:** 833

GRUMMAN XSBF-1 1936

1

2

3

GRUMMAN XF2F-1 1933

1

2

3

4

5

armyjunk2 · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2007 8:15 pm **Posts:** 833

Mr Widgeon, I' not sure but if i do i'll post.....i'll look though what i already have done, could be some here...I am far from a expert on these...

Mr Widgeon · **Posted:** Thu May 31, 2007 7:15 pm

armyjunk2 wrote:

Mr Widgeon, I' not sure but if i do i'll post.....i'll look though what i already have done, could be some here...I am far from a expert on these...

It looks like the Goose but it's smaller and the tail is more square in shape. Both are taildraggers.
A good rule of thumb is, if the wingtips and tail feathers are rounded it's a Goose.
If they are more squared off, it's a Widgeon.
Thanks for what you've already posted, there's some really good stuff there.

armyjunk2 · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2007 8:15 pm **Posts:** 833

GRUMMAN F3F

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

merlin101 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:04 pm

Crackin photo's!! Think your thread here will be very long & VERY popular!!
Dave

Mr Widgeon · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:22 pm

[quote="armyjunk2"]GRUMMAN F3F

Great Stuff !
I've only seen about half of these F3F shots before.
Don't stop now, keep 'em coming.

armyjunk2 · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2007 8:15 pm **Posts:** 833

I'm glad you all like them........

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:16 pm

armyjunk2 wrote:

I'm glad you all like them........

And a question. It seems clear that Grumman was particularly wedded to the idea of the mockup, presumably pre-production. I can see that made sense to convince the Navy in the locust years of the 30s, but in the 40s, even before Pearl Harbor?

And what use where they? I know the reasons normally advanced, but a lot of it looks more like a company demonstration model to impress customers (see the quality of work, and finish of the pieces) rather than a 'see it all fits' kind of tool.

They do look very cool though.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

JDK wrote:

And a question. It seems clear that Grumman was particularly wedded to the idea of the mockup, presumably pre-production. I can see that made sense to convince the Navy in the locust years of the 30s, but in the 40s, even before Pearl Harbor?

And what use where they? I know the reasons normally advanced, but a lot of it looks more like a company demonstration model to impress customers (see the quality of work, and finish of the pieces) rather than a 'see it all fits' kind of tool.

They were used to verify the fit of everything from hydraulic tubing and fuel lines to control cable and control rod lengths. You would also have sub-element mockups for things like cockpit furnishings. This was back in the day when aircraft shapes were lofted like boats and the drawings were created on vellums with pencil. Not as accurate as 3D modeling now, so everything had to be checked before you made up fixtures for manufacturing. A lot of tubing and such was developed right on the mockup and then copied for production.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:55 pm

Thanks, BDK, that was my understanding of the usual (quoted) need.

But if you look at the Duck and (I think) F3F mockups, they're more like 'wooden' versions to look like the aircraft (see the tail, stringers etc.) rather than wooden versions of the metal structure, which would be of the use you've pointed out.

Your case makes a good deal of sense for the TBM interior mockup, but even here with the stencils, paper copies of the instruments? There's a PR element there as much as fulfilling a technical need, IMHO.

Back on the Duck and F3F - the tail has been added for purely aesthetic reasons - it's just a sheet of board - no practical use at all, and likewise the guys sitting in them have as much to do with 'lookee here' as seeing if the ergonomics were viable.

The explanation adds up; but is it really the whole reason? There's easier ways of figuring that stuff than employing a team of top quality woodworkers to do in wood what you are going to do in metal, shortly.

Just curious...

Eric Friedebach · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:18 pm

I saw part of a documentary on the Orion crew module on tee vee recently. An engineer was working with a Shuttle pilot on different window plugs, etc. so perhaps in the age of SolidWorks there is something to be said for doing it in the real world.

Of course, the process was filmed for tee vee, so there is something to be said a little PR.

The first time I saw one of these mockup pictures here this has been on my mind. Interesting discussion.

Maharg · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:25 pm

Thank you very much armyjunk, all these pics are excellent. Well done mate.

Jiggersfromsphilly · **Joined:** Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:15 pm **Posts:** 951

Maybe the men in the plane were doing it for amusement purposes ?

armyjunk2 · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2007 8:15 pm **Posts:** 833

F14 wooden MOCKUP 1968

Warbird Information Exchange

Grumman, the people that made the planes 12 SEPT 2010

Who is online