E-2 Hawkeye avionics on E-1B Tracer airframe?

orlovsky said:
Yes, I was just wondering whether you could drop other "modules" or whether this further weight reduction would mean a redesign of the whole electronics suite.
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably confident of being able to drop one crew position and display set.

I'm not confident at all of being able to drop more than that, outside of a massive data link down to the ship and doing all the air traffic control work on the ship. And that puts a limit on the distance the plane can be away from the ship.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm reasonably confident of being able to drop one crew position and display set.

I'm not confident at all of being able to drop more than that, outside of a massive data link down to the ship and doing all the air traffic control work on the ship. And that puts a limit on the distance the plane can be away from the ship.
Click to expand...

Having worked with an E-2 NFO, my sense is that trying to run the thing with only two guys in the trunk would be painful. The three "guys in back" are each doing different but essential tasks. Described here, with a dose of the usual Naval Aviator bravado:

https://www.twz.com/25572/confessions-of-an-e-2c-hawkeye-radar-operator
 
TomS said:
Having worked with an E-2 NFO, my sense is that trying to run the thing with only two guys in the trunk would be painful. The three "guys in back" are each doing different but essential tasks. Described here, with a dose of the usual Naval Aviator bravado:

https://www.twz.com/25572/confessions-of-an-e-2c-hawkeye-radar-operator
Click to expand...
Having read that, yeah, you'd lose a lot more capability than I thought.

Still might have to do it for weight, but ugh that would be the epitome of suck.
 
Further to consider from the story: The E-2 is packed with electronics and the crew. Even with one crew member less this will not make it fit in the smaller E-1 airframe.

I think the only plausible way is an improvement of the E-1, be it with specific equipment or with bits taken from the E-2 suite if possible.

If the E-1 used vacuum tubes electronics there is literally a lot of room for improvement.
 
orlovsky said:
Continuing the weight mystery: The S-3 AEW would integrate the E-2C avionics and with extra fuel tanks be 7300 lbs heavier than the S-3A:



As this includes ~4000 lbs of external fuel and an additional crew member, the weight gain would be ~3000 lbs.

For the ES-3A, 3000 lbs of ASW equipment would be deleted:
https://www.google.at/books/edition...1&dq=us-3a+viking&pg=PA78&printsec=frontcover
So ~6000 lbs of AEW avionics. Of course just a rough guess, as all those numbers are fuzzy.
Click to expand...
The article says that's for the Elint version that was deployed later. I've seen mentions and illustrations of an AEW S-3, but no numbers.
 
Arjen said:
3-views from 'Grumman Aircraft since 1919' by René J Francillon, Putnam 1989.
The lower right-hand corner shows two scale-bars ...
- upper bar from the original E-1B drawing
- lower bar from the original E-2C drawing
... to indicate to what extent modifying the E-2C drawing to the E-1B drawing's scale was succesful.
Click to expand...

I put the E-1B over the E-2 and was surprised how small the fuselage of the Tracer is: narrower and the useful area much shorter:


1709489912714.png

Comparing the internal layout:

E-1: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/trader-and-tracer.html diagram at the end

E-2: Lou Drendel, "E-2 Hawkeye Illustrated" on Kindle - I might well buy it, but it has a free preview with cutaways of the E-2 internal layout you can ckeck.

Result: There is really very little room on the E-1B in comparison.
 
orlovsky said:
I think the only plausible way is an improvement of the E-1, be it with specific equipment or with bits taken from the E-2 suite if possible.

If the E-1 used vacuum tubes electronics there is literally a lot of room for improvement.
Click to expand...
Came in to say exactly this. I don't think you could cram all the equipment into a Tracer.
I do think you could greatly enhance the capability of the E-1 if someone decided they needed a few.
 
orlovsky said:
- lift size: too long for the forward lift, would have to shed 2ft. Should fit on the deck edge lift.
Click to expand...
On the positive side, the forward lift of the Clems is given as 17m or 17.4m long. From the drawings it is 17.4m, so the E-2B (not the longer C) would just fit with 17.17m. Just ~11cm clearance at the ends, but this could be solved by an innovative high tech solution:

1709494898974.jpeg
 
Some additional data....

The turbotrackers seem to have a max takeoff weight of 29k-30k lbs, so an improved E-1B might carry an additional ~3000 lbs. With existing electronics (not very much in the E-1B), that would be a bit more than half the ~5800 lbs in the E-2 from above.

To approximate volume of the E-1 vs E-2, the C-2 has an internal volume of 860 cubic ft (wiki). The C-1 cabin measured 15x6ft ( https://sofrep.com/navy/grumman-c-1-trader/ ); assuming a cylinder, that would be ~420 cubic ft.

So hardly surprising, an aircraft half the mtow has half the useful load and half the volume. That's assuming the original radar dish on the tracer.

What would you put into the improved E-1B?
...................... E-2.............E-1
computer....2050............?
displays.......1030............?
seats.............850..............?
cooling........800............. ?
crew/equ.....1040............?
=.....................5770.........~3000?
 
Found an interesting bit from a journal edited by the french dga in 1994: E-2s not planned for Foch due to the flightdeck width being insufficient. So not weight or angled deck length or other issues.
1779441272713.png
This is the one aspect where the E-1 would not help much, having just 4ft less half-wingspan than the E-2.
As even Colossus/Majestic class carriers operated S-2s with the same wingspan as the E-1Bs it is probably not impossible to get E-1 or E-2 on a Clemenceau class, just too much compromising. The centerline to safety line on the angled deck was 12.5m it seems, probably 14-15m needed. On the bow catapult the line to the parking starboard seems just ~9m, that would need to shift maybe 3-4m? Not much room left.
1779441693302.jpeg

I think the flightdeck width would be a similar problem on the Audacious class, so an upgraded E-1 looks even less attractive. Stay with Alizé/ Gannet or go Hawkeye.
 
Sorry.:(
It's just one bit of information, but right out of the horse's mouth as they probably studied the issue with the E-2 buy. Also explains why interest in the E-1 did not lead to procurement.
There might be options like using only the waist catapult for AEW. Reduces the problem to the landing safety line.
 
Half the volume and half the weight, so something has to give. But 90% of the wingspan.
I guess a shorter wingspan would not work for either the e-1 or e-2?
 
Archibald said:
Aaaaaaaaw shit. But I trust your judgement and research, @orlovsky
Click to expand...

Not sure what the E-1B has over the Alizé or Gannet. Height finding radar, longer range and rudimentary data processing, IIUC?

It has one clear advantage over the E-2: cost.
8 E-1s were about 10 million $ in the RAN Essex plans. E-2A cost about 10 million a piece, E-2C 15-20 million in the early 70s.

So there might have been a niche, although small, for the Tracer. I think this is the source for the Aeronavale plans?
"La Marine prévoit l’achat vers 1966 d’une série de 10 à 15 AEW. Il s’agit soit de l’achat du WF2 Tracker [sic] avec radar APS 82. Il faudrait adapter deux turbopropulseurs."
https://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/3297
 
A rough idea of the flight deck width issue on Foch:
E-2A/B (for the shorter nose) vs E-1B
E-2 on waist catapult: No problem. Left wheel should be on deck when front wheel reaches end of catapult track. Same for E-1 (not drawn).
E-2 on bow catapult: reduces deck park forward substantially. As half wingspan of E-1 only 4ft/1.2m shorter, not much better.
E-2 landing: Hook should be roughly at the end of a 70m pullout from 4th wire. Wing tip is almost at 12.5m safety line. I have drawn another line ~2m out, giving ~14.5m/47-48 ft. USN carriers use 50 ft. Some spots at the island will work for Helos only, it seems. Again, the E-1 is not much better (position just for comparison).

So an improved E-1 is a cost risk with unknown performance that will not help you much if flight deck width is your problem.
On the other hand, both E-1 and E-2 should work from the Clemenceau class if you are willing to accept the tradeoffs and limitations.


1780325753234.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom