Talk:Grumman S-2 Tracker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

My 2c on the name question (as already discussed by Stan and Maury on their talk pages)

• Maury favours Grumman S-2 Tracker
• Stan favours S-2 Tracker
• I prefer Grumman Tracker

However, in this case, we have an instance of US vs non-US usage. Here in Australia we say "Grumman Tracker" or "Tracker", so that sounds more natural to me. In the US, I should imagine that "S-2 Tracker" is much more common.

I don't think it is usually appropriate to apply the "first-in, best-dressed" naming rule (that generally decides between US & International English issues) when it comes to aircraft entries. Instead, it is almost always best to use the name that the major users of the aircraft used. This is why Brewster Buffalo is better than "Brewster F-2A" - the best-known users called it the Buffalo. And (in my view) it is why S-2 Tracker is the correct name for this entry. (Even though I personally prefer Grumman Tracker).

(But when it comes to certain little-used and really dumb-sounding aircraft names - which I'll not mention here for fear someone might read this and be prompted to resurect the damn things - we should make exceptions, of course. :) Tannin 04:30 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

It's not so much that I prefer "S-2 Tracker" - among its downfalls are that a search engine won't find it if handed "s2f tracker" or "s-2e tracker" - but it's what the^H^H^Hyour :-) naming conventions page says to do. You can see in the effort to have assigned names and numbers that the US services are trying to avoid dependence on corporate names, which can change at the drop of a merger; it would be pretty confusing to have to start talking about the "Boeing F-4" fighter, heh-heh, or more realistically the "Boeing F/A-18". (Boeing building fighters?? That's weirder than having McDonald's in Russia!!) Stan 07:10 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have the material to dig into this, but there is probably an interesting story behind the seemingly-counterintuitive avoidance of corporate names for US military aircraft. For instance the unified numbering of 1962 is said to have come about because McNamara was being made crazy by the Navy and Air Force using completely different numbers to refer to the same kind of plane. (it's certainly having that effect on me... :-) ) Stan 07:20 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Length of CS2F variant

I'm curious about the recently added- and subsequently tagged- claim that CS2F Trackers were reduced in length to fit aboard HMCS Bonaventure. I've never seen this claim before. The Canada Aviation Museum article by Col. Tate states that the only substantial difference between the S2F and CS2F was the addition of JULIE/JEZEBEL acoustic ASW equipment to the latter, and both the Canada Aviation Museum and Shearwater Museum histories list the length of the CS2F as the standard 43'-6". Furthermore, the only time I'm aware that a shortened aircraft was proposed for the RCN was a short-lived idea to fit LTV A-7 Corsair IIs with swinging radomes to fit the craft down Bonnie's elevator. This proposal never got off the drawing board after it became clear that the RCN could not afford new carrier-borne strike aircraft. I'd also like to see a source for the shortened CS2F claim.Carguychris (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who tagged it - the ref provided (sort of provided) didn't support it. I would say if a ref doesn't show up in a few days that it should be deleted as "apocryphal". - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly spoke too soon! I just went through my library and found this:

“ Our Trackers, a de Havilland-built version of the Grumman S2, were made to be ridden hard and left wet. That’s just what they’ve been doing for over 30 years in the Canadian Air Force. Selected originally for ASW work off the Bonnie, they were built a foot and a half shorter than the regular S2 so they’d fit in our carrier’s hangar bays. The result of this shortening is a bigger moment which makes for a lively cockpit during single engine situations. At a critical airspeed of 85 kts the airplane requires 160 pounds of rudder pressure to keep her straight. But we have what we call a “single engine rudder assist" modification, which cuts this back to a relatively modest 50 pounds. ”

- McQuarrie, John, Canadian Wings, Page 121 McGraw Hill Ryerson, 1990. ISBN 0-07-551010-3

I will add the ref to the article - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept it! I've reworded the entry. The units are now in standard Wiki format, and I removed the reference to Bonnie being an escort carrier; she was considered a light carrier by the Royal Navy.Carguychris (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. At least we have a ref for it! - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian-built Trackers were built in only one length - 42'0". They are clones of the S2F-1. The aircraft were built in one lot, from 1959-60. The designation was CS2F-1 and -2, which differed only in the -2 having upgraded avionics. The -3 was an update of the aircraft with new ASW equipment - "Julie & Jezebel" acoustic detection gear.

The Canadian designations do not correspond to the USN designations. This error of transposing designations (which appears only when dealing with Canadian Trackers) has crept in to some references; I believe it may have to do with the re-numbering of the US military aircraft in 1962. The CS2F series are based on the S2F-1; the CS2F-3 is not the same aircraft as the S2F-3 (S-2D), which is the enlarged version. Further, Canada is the only country other than the US to have built their own Trackers; the suffix numbers do not co-incide.

I have looked at McQuarrie's book, and he does not cite a proper reference for his dimensions - merely "a Tracker Pilot" -, his dimensions are listed only at the back of the book, and even then they are in error. I have a copy of the CFTO (Canadian Forces Technical Order) C-12-121-000 (dated 12/87)for the Tracker in front of me, and I can guarantee that his dimensions are in error. The CS2F is 42'0" in length, and has a wingspan of 69'8".

This refutes the statement in the "Canada" section of the Wikipedia S-2 Tracker page about the Canadian Tracker being built 18" shorter "in order to fit aboard Bonaventure". The S2F Tracker was selected for the RCN because it did fit aboard Bonaventure.

Using Hotson's book as a reference, he makes no mention of the aircraft being built shorter than Grumman's design.

By the way, the Canada Aviation Museum shows the dimensions as standard - 42' x 69'8"; the Shearwater Museum no longer lists them.Murykken (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Canada Aviation Museum lists their as 42 ft 3 in, but that could be just too much air in the nose oleo. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer S2F, Stoof.Pity it was changed into S2A, less catchy.

All Trackers, including Canadian-made, had the same length. A design specification was to fit the ships elevators of current carriers, current as in 1950/52. US made Trackers were used on board Dutch Karel Doorman, same size as Bonnie, our competitors and mates.86.95.231.213 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there were two sizes of Trackers built - the early version, and an enlarged version (length & width) in 1959. Check the Variants list in the Article. The different body lengths are evident in photos of the two versions - S2F-1 (CS2F) vs S2F-3 (S-2D). On the S2F-1, the prop danger line is immediately aft of the cockpit side window, on the S2F-3 there is a distinct extended space - 18" more - between the line and the aft edge of the window. Further, the S2F-3 (S-2D) has an extended wing span of 72'7", the CS2F series is standard at 69'8".

See http://www.airliners.net/photo/Grumman-S-2F-Tracker/1527589

and http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Grumman-S-2E-Tracker/1228770 Murykken (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that there were two lengths of Trackers:

• Canada Aviation Museum says their CP-121 on display is 12.9 m (42 ft 3 in)
• Green, William, Observers Book of Aircraft 1956 edition, says the S2F-1 (same as S-2A) is 42 ft 3 in
• Taylor, John WR, Janes Pocket Book of Major Combat Aircraft 1973, says the S-2E has a length of 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
• Kriviny, Nikolaus, World Military Aviation, 1977, says S-2E has a length of 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
• Chant, Chris, The World's Air Forces, 1979 gives length 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m) but doesn't specify the version
• Taylor, Michael, Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft, 1987, which says: "Specifications: (S-2E Tracker data)...length 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m) ... Versions in service: S-2A: Initial and major production version, with similar engines to the S-2E. Wingspan 69 ft 8 in (21.23 m) and length 42 ft (12.80 m). Canadian examples are designated CP-121s. Some became S-2Bs when retrofitted with Jezebel and Julie." - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How difficult it is to refute an untruth or myth that has grown.

As no empirical evidence has been brought to light regarding the CS2F "being built 18" short to fit in the hangar bays", and never will, I will suggest that Ahunt's earlier "tagging" (how is that done?) be re-instated and the offending statement deleted; also the #3 Note and Bibliography entry be removed as being invalid, merely anecdotal.

HMCS Bonaventure operated F2H-3 Banshees, at 48'2" with no problems on the lifts or in the hangar. Trackers were bought for the RCN because they did fit in the Bonaventure, so McQuarrie is in error.Murykken (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the best evidence we have is that McQuarrie is sort of right. I think that we have shown that all the Canadian Trackers were the shorter "A" version and not the longer "E" version, but that they weren't built shorter, they were built as standard "A" models. Would "E" models have fit on the Bonnie? Hard to say as there is no evidence that anyone tried to find out. I will fix the text up and you can have a look and see if that suffices. - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is yes. The RAN HMAS Melbourne operated the larger S-2E&G and Fairey Gannets at 43' with no trouble; the Indian Navy's INS Vikrant carried Breguet Alize at 45'6", both ships are sisters of Bonaventure.

McQuarrie is not "sort of right" - the RCN Trackers were ordered and construction begun before the S2F-3 was designed (in 1959). The first Canadian trackers were turned out in 1956. See http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/RCN_Tracker_part1.htm edit - my badMurykken (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I just meant he was right that the RCN Trackers were shorter than the "E" models. He wasn't right that they were built shorter, they were apparently built the same as the other ones of their day. I removed McQuarrie as a ref - does show you how far this myths go, doesn't it?- Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we need to correct the Specifications as discussed below. I will try with the Canada Aviation Museum.Murykken (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Single engine rudder assist

In the previous discussion about the Canadian Trackers, the comment is made in the reference quoted that single engine rudder assist was a modification of the tracker. I am reasonably certain that this is not the case, that in fact all Trackers had this equipment. Certainly all Australian S2s had it. The single engine rudder assist consists of a large panel of the tail, in fact about two thirds of the total. This panel is operated by a hydraulic ram to compensate for the extreme asymetric thrust of flying on one engine in an aircraft of the S2's dimensions. As I understood it, this equipment was one of the reasons that the tail of the S2 is so large compared to the aircraft size. The rudder is quite a small section running down the trailing edge. Of course, the assymetric thrust problem would indeed be much greater for shorter versions of the stoof as in the Canadian machines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk)

The assertion that all Trackers had the "single engine rudder assist" contradicts the ref listed above. Now it is possible that the ref is wrong, but you need a ref that at least contradicts it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign the previous post. Me bad. I would not be too happy to call the listed ref as authoritative on this issue as it is clearly a personal opinion of the writer. However I will see what I can find about it. Nick Thorne ^talk 07:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Every Tracker built has the Single Engine Rudder Assist (SERA), regular and extended length bodies, and every Tracker built has the split or two-part rudder; necessary for single-engine work. The statement in the Discussion section regarding the "assymetric thrust problem for a shorter version" is not valid. The nose compartment was lengthened in the S2F-3 (S-2D), the body aft of the propellor thrust line was not shortened, it is the same on every Tracker, thus invalidating the "shorter version" theory.

The reasoning behind the system as described in Reference #3 is correct, but it is not applicable only to the Canadian-built Trackers and the statement should be removed.Murykken (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of the imposed limit on fuselage length, the wonderful Rudder Assist was added to this 1950 radical and innovative design Major features have not been changed since, a remarkable fact! The Rudder Assist was switched On only during Take off and Landing,leaving regular rudder function during cruise flight. Each twin-engined aircraft has a "Minimum Single Engine Control Speed", Vmc air. This is the minimum speed sustained during straight flight with the dead engine feathered, the live engine at full power, full opposite rudder deflection and a few degrees of bank towards the live engine. For the Tracker, with Rudder Assist switched On, this speed was 85 Kt. The approach speed was arbitrarily set at 87 Kt. 90 might have been easier to read on the airspeed indicator. When a single engine approach was planned because of an engine failure during cruis flight with no alternate airfield within range, the speed flown was a stable 95 Kt. All this lies 16.000 flight hours behind me now. 86.95.231.213 (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.231.213 (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifications - Tracker

The Specifications listing for the Grumman Tracker are shown as being for an S-2F. The S-2F is a re-designation of an S2F-1S1, this has a regular length body - 42' and span of 69'8".

An S-2D has the extended body and wingspan - 43'6" & 72'7" - these are the dimensions listed. The S-2D is a re-designation of the S2F-3.

Further, the citation (Canada Aviation Museum [5]) lists the data for an S2F-3/S-2D in Tate's article, which is interesting as Canada never operated this enlarged version of the Tracker.

Perhaps the title should be re-named, and an addition made for the enlarged version. The whole problem of the nomenclature has to do with where the "hyphen" is located; believe me, I make the same error. - Murykken (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft on display

I have removed the description of the private boneyard of Trackers that was listed in the article. This doesn't meet the inclusion standard which says: "Aircraft on display should be information on non-airworthy aircraft that are on permanent public display. It should not include partial aircraft or aircraft not viewable by the public. When a large number of aircraft are still preserved the list should be limited to the most prominent ones." - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just added a few survivors to the list and then realized that there are roughly 160 or so survivors - way too many to list them all. How does one determine the most "prominent" ones? Many are in various museums, but without any on the airshow circuit or any that would be seen by many outside their location I am inclined to clear the entire section and just leave a statement regarding the very large number of survivors in many aviation museums worldwide, in many locations where they were operated.NiD.29 (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_on_display there is a difference between "Aircraft on display", which are museum aircraft and "Survivors", which means aircraft still flying. Since the S-2 is still in service with several air forces it is too soon for a "survivors" section and so I think that "Aircraft on display" should stay, but that we don't need a "Survivors" section added. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was referring to the existing section, when there are already a ridiculous number of these in museums and on display.NiD.29 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be bold I have created List of displayed Grumman S-2 Trackers, when the S-2 is finally retired it can be changed to a list of survivors. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now to find references for 160+ airframes...NiD.29 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that more than 160 are actually on public display but this might help [1] MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect photo caption

I don't know anything about the subject myself, but I noticed that there is a photo claiming to be of "an S-2 Tracker taking off to fight the North Fire in 2007", while the page on the North Fire says it was in 2015. So something wrong there, I'd say. 64.223.108.117 (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a different fire. I removed the link. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Configurations VC5 Det. CUBI PT.

VC5 DET CUBI STARTED A NEW USE FOR US2Cs in 1966. Although had did tow targets for surface to air, they also removed the heavy tow reels and created not only large cargo area but also took the sonobouy bays and turned those into cargo areas. Thus turning are US2Cs into a semi COD. FROM 1965 until I transferred in Dec. of 1970 I was a enlisted Plane Captain and a AirCrew Instructor. 47.138.158.232 (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to cite? See WP:PROVEIT for information. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkey’s S-2 Tracker Aerial Firefighter

It seems that I am not able to add the edit, if someone would be so kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk • contribs) 19:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have taken your last text, edited it and re-inserted it. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)