Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hari ari

E-1 Tracker

33 posts in this topic

Hello.

My name is Jackman and I have sinned.

I went out and bought...**lips quivering**... a Mach 2 Tracer *sobs* :crying2:

I couldn't help it. I saw Asao Shirai's magnificent 1/72 build on Hyperscale & just...crumbled. A strange force took control over my body & I went and bought one.....knowing very well the pitfalls of Mach 2 kits. To make things worse, this "strange force" also compelled me to get the Falcon vacuform Tracer. And I've never even built a vacuform kit before :bandhead2:

So now I have TWO inaccurate kits in my stash. I think they taunt me at night because I can hear voices coming from them. They're daring me to build them. But reading all the faults from modeling forums....I don't know, man. I just...*sighs in defeat*...I'm afraid of these kits. They intimidate me. Yet I want one on my shelf. After reading this ( and other threads) and Tommy's extremely helpful blog:

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.sg/2010/11/trader-and-tracer.html

even if I build one, I can never look at it without my eyes automatically shifting to the various faults ( the inaccurately shaped radome, the fuselage length, etc). It's like how Laurent from the Jet Modeling forum can't look at a Fujimi Mig-21 without noticing the inaccurate nose or Ken Duffey can't see a Hasegawa Su-27 without noticing the bulbous nose.

Right now, I'm leaning towards correcting the *gulp* Mach 2 kit because vacuform kits (Falcon) scare me more than Mach 2 kits.

So I'm going to compile a list of things that need to be done to make the Mach 2 kit (reasonably) accurate.

To be cont'd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things wrong with the Mach 2 Tracer ( ie things that need to be corrected) according to the threads I’ve read on ARC:

1.Belly not deep enough ( I compared the belly to a Hasegawa S-2A and it does seem deeper; albeit not so much). At least it’s not flat like the S-2. I don’t think any bulge I add would make that much difference to the bulge that’s already on the Mach 2 kit.

2.Wing folds are wrong –

Solution: sand over old and rescribe new fold line

3.Forward fuselage extension is missing ( 18†= 0.635cm or 6.35mm plug needed)

Solution: I thought I saw on Ebay an Australian outfit that sold an extension plug for the Hase S-2A to convert it to an Aussie Navy S-2G. Will have to hunt that down and add another 1.41mm to it (1/72 equivalent to the extra 1:1 scale 4†that needs to be added to the 14†extension that was added to S-2D ( or is it E?) onwards.

Actually, on a whim, I decided to compare the Mach2 fuselage with the Hase S-2A and there does seem to be an extension similar to Tommy’s diagram here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/TM7xXpI1fCI/AAAAAAAAA50/6sQWbwgyqJQ/s1600/S2F+Fuselage+Stretch.jpg

Comparing the fuselage of the Mach2 by lining it up against the Hase S-2A, the Mach 2’s extension seems around 5.5mm forward of the S-2A’s Bombay leading edge door line.

Not quite sure how to deal with this. So do I extend the mach2 fuselage or not? It already seems to be extended. The difference between the intended 6.35mm extension and the kit’s existing 5.5mm is not much. I can live with that.

4.Radome shape. This one scares me the most.

Looked at many pics & was not able to find one that truly shows the Tracer’s radome from a direct top view. Most seemed to be taken at an angle and from eye level. I was beginning to believe that Tommy was wrong in his top view :

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/TNCZM4ivLVI/AAAAAAAAA6g/dpcwy0i4Oyc/s1600/Tracker+Illustration.jpg

because almost all the pics I’ve seen seem to depict it as almost the shape as the Mach 2 & Falcon kits. THEN I came across this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/E-1B_Tracer_VAW-111_on_USS_Kearsarge_%28CVS-33%29_1969.jpg

Notice the aft part of the radome where it tappers down. Tommy was right along.

I honestly don’t know how to add putty & sand down the Mach 2’s radome. The front half looks good as does the side profile. It’s the shape of the aft half when view from the top that seems wrongly shaped. Groan.

5.Longer horizontal elevators?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/THZ2BFmIn-I/AAAAAAAAA0w/PdqomkVEmuM/s1600/S2F+Wing+and+Horizontal+Tail+Differences.jpg

Do these need to be corrected? I’ve heard the Mach 2 ones are the same as the Hase ones. And if Falcon conversion is meant for the Hase kit, do the elevators need to be extended too?

6.Longer wingspan. Tommy, I don’t understand what you mean by 4†x 7†for 1/72 in this diagram:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BoJ5z4ZK3Mk/T7QExV9PtXI/AAAAAAAACH4/lJRJPtqUPrI/s1600/WF+Wing+vs+S2F+Wing.jpg

Would appreciate an elaboration. Also, if I decide to fold the wings, rather than extending them, perhaps I won’t have to bother with the extension?

7.There seems to be some sort of circular radar thingy on the bottom part of the fuselage just behind the starboard nose gear door. Easily added.

8.Rescribe door on port inner nacelle for the life raft access

9.Missing Navigation lights on top of vertical tails:

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin3/e-1b_tracer/images/e-1b_tracer_03_of_47.jpg

10.E-1B has the larger cooling air scoops on the top of the nacelle and CSD cooling air inlet/exhaust (on the lower right hand side of the engine nacelle ahead of the gear door on both the right and left nacelle) as the S-2D/E/G and a similar fuel dump pipe ( direct quote from Tommy’s blog)

Any others to add?

Might come in useful for those who also had the misfortune of being temporarily possessed by demons and bought the Mach 2 kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding my point 3 above about extending the fuselage,

.. The Tracer is 18 ins or longer than the S-1, what were the plug lengths and where were the plugs inserted.

The 18" plug was inserted about where the prop warning stripe is on the C-1 and the early, short fuselage S-2. As close as I can tell, the tailhook installation remained in the same place relative to the wing so there was no plug, so to speak, aft of the wing.

Again, I used Tommy's fantastic article for measurement:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/TNCZM4ivLVI/AAAAAAAAA6g/dpcwy0i4Oyc/s1600/Tracker+Illustration.jpg

Then I used the Scale Convertor on ARC's Tools & Tips page:

http://www.arcair.com/TnT-archives/tnt-main.shtm

The length in Tommy's diagram is given as 44ft 6inches from nose to tail. That converts to 18.88cm or 188.8mm. I laid the Mach2 fuselage against a ruler:

Mach2Tracker1_zpsb55cede3.jpg

It's almost a match!

Moving the camera towards the nose & tail to compensate for parallax error seen above:

Mach2Tracker3_zps54d6c95d.jpg

Mach2Tracker2_zps8978fb14.jpg

It looks like when it comes to the fuselage length, Mach 2 got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"6.Longer wingspan. Tommy, I don’t understand what you mean by 4†x 7†for 1/72 in this diagram:

http://3.bp.blogspot...vs+S2F+Wing.jpg

Would appreciate an elaboration. Also, if I decide to fold the wings, rather than extending them, perhaps I won’t have to bother with the extension?"

If you print the illustration and then size it so that the rectangle is 4" by 7", then the drawing is 1/72 scale. (Most commercial printers can enlarge or reduce an original within 1%.) Alternatively, you can save the illustration to your computer and figure out some way to print it so that the rectangle is 4"x7".

I decided to fold the wings to avoid 1) the required modification to the inboard wing chord (it has to be increased) because much of the existing S2F outer wing panel structure was retained, and 2) the change in dihedral of the outboard panel. However, the folded panels still have to be increased in span to provide the right relationship with the vertical fins when folded (it will be pretty obvious otherwise). So it's probably best to simply sand off the external hinges, fill the existing engraved line between the outboard wing and the center section, and scribe a new line for the E-1. The span increase and dihedral change aren't all that obvious.

With respect to the radome, I used the Falcon kit (I've not fondled the Mach II parts myself having bought a few of their kits and only built one, the F2Y Seadart, which isn't too bad really). It's relatively simple to cut a piece of sheet plastic to the proper outline of the aft half of the radome and glue it between the upper and lower vacuform halves. Putty was used to fill out the shape.

This may help: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/08/half-baked-172nd-grumman-wf-2e-1b.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you print the illustration and then size it so that the rectangle is 4" by 7", then the drawing is 1/72 scale.

Ah, now I understand your system. Thanks much!

With respect to the radome....... It's relatively simple to cut a piece of sheet plastic to the proper outline of the aft half of the radome and glue it between the upper and lower vacuform halves. Putty was used to fill out the shape.

This may help: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/08/half-baked-172nd-grumman-wf-2e-1b.html

It certainly helped! A LOT! Thanks for the tips about the radome. And good idea to try both ways to extend the wing span.

P.S. Now that I think about it, Point no. 5 on my list above is redundant because the Tracer used a different elevator set-up than the Trackers & Traders. I must have posted that without even thinking about the obvious :doh:/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> Looked at many pics & was not able to find one that truly shows the Tracer’s radome from a direct top view

While this hardly can be called a top quality photo, at least it is better than nothing.

A Google's satellite view for you, a direct top one if I'm not mistaken:

e2221413b3d4.jpg

Found on maps.google.com, coordinates 40.764517,-74.000457

Regards,

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, thanks so much for taking the time to find that picture. It helps a lot to view the differences between the kit & the actual thing. I have upsized the GoogleEarth pic to compare with the Mach 2 one (both the top & bottom halves side-by-side). Please note the pics are not to scale.

Tracer_GoogleEarth_Upsized_zps38850727.jpgMach2Tracker4-sized_zps6b64d0d1.jpg

As you can see, the aft part of the Mach 2 kit is more tear-drop shaped when compared to the real thing. Although not pictured, the Falcon vacuform radar is also tear-drop shaped when I did a comparison.

Edited by JackMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear JackMan -

no trouble at all.

I'm doing some research for the same purpose as you do: to build an accurate Tracer.

An, sadly, I find that neither the Mach2's kit radome nor the RVHP's conversion set have nothing in common with the real thing. Neither in planform nor in profile nor in front view.

I will probably have to scratch-built it entirely. If I do, I will be sure to make copies.

Regards,

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0