• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Grumman E-2 Hawkeye Concepts and Projects

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
185

Attachments

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
100
Re: Grumman E-2A Hawkeye Concept Model

The missing photos...

Now something is terribly wrong with this model... The date "July 1956" is incompatible with the stand's caption "E-2A." Indeed, the designation "E-2" for the Hawkeye appeared late in 1962, when the tri-service system was introduced. Before that, the Navy and Grumman only refered to the type as the S2F(-1). I'm not suggesting this is a fake at all, but possibly that a new stand was fitted to an earlier model during the 1960s.
 

Attachments

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
50
Re: Grumman E-2A Hawkeye Concept Model

Stargazer2006 said:
The missing photos...

Now something is terribly wrong with this model... The date "July 1956" is incompatible with the stand's caption "E-2A." Indeed, the designation "E-2" for the Hawkeye appeared late in 1962, when the tri-service system was introduced. Before that, the Navy and Grumman only refered to the type as the S2F(-1). I'm not suggesting this is a fake at all, but possibly that a new stand was fitted to an earlier model during the 1960s.
The seller states it is the wrong stand, one that he recently picked from a box. Also, the E-2 Hawkeye was formerly designated W2F-1, while S2F was the piston-engined Grumman Tracker. The AEW variant of the S2F was the WF-1.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
100
Re: Grumman E-2A Hawkeye Concept Model

circle-5 said:
The seller states it is the wrong stand, one that he recently picked from a box. Also, the E-2 Hawkeye was formerly designated W2F-1, while S2F was the piston-engined Grumman Tracker. The AEW variant of the S2F was the WF-1.
My bad. Thanks for correcting my mistake!
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
XB-70 said:
Here are two artworks of an ASW Version of the Hawkeye I found some time back on eBay. Didn't want to start a new topic, hope this is the right place.

Has someone more info on this project?
That carrier in the first image looks like one of the CVV designs. Which may suggest that this Hawkeye offshoot was primarily aimed at the CVV program for use as a low cost ASW platform.
 

allysonca

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
182
Reaction score
179
Pardon the quickie photos, but here is my recently acquired Grumman Design 123 that I posted over in the Grumman Design thread..... Wood in-house and decidedly different than the 2012 EBay model posted here. The nose reminds me of a cartoon plane, but I love this stuff...... also note the little eyelet on the dome. Imagine that it was hanging for many a year someplace... Oh if it could only talk........IMG_5344.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

allysonca

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
182
Reaction score
179
Grumman E2X that I Posted this on the Grumman Design Thread, but thought to add it here too...... 1/48th Scale
No more dome and fans.... just a pure jet with GE-TF34's and with a conformal belly array. Big decision, to paint or not to paint.......
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
1,135
The E-2X was to be powered by two GE TF-34 engines, similar to those
employed on the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and the conformal radar antenna
arrays would be located in the wing leading edges, fuselage sides, and
horizontal tail trailing edges. Figure 7.15 shows the extensive changes made
to accommodate the conformal radar. In order to house the conformal
antenna arrays in a level horizontal tail, the existing E-2C horizontal
stabilizer that had dihedral was removed and replaced by the tail employed
on the C-2 Greyhound COD transport, which had no dihedral. Dihedral is the
angle between horizontal and the upward angle of the horizontal that
influences the amount of rolling moment the aircraft can achieve.
With the rotodome removed, a change occurred in longitudinal stability
(pitch axis) that necessitated a wing glove, which housed additional fuel, to
be added forward of the wing leading edge, as shown in Fig. 7.15. Ernie
Ranalli, head of the Stress department, performed the preliminary structural
analysis of the wing glove. Another big challenge of the design was to
accommodate the TF-34 engines without changing the E-2C main landing
gear. The solution was to “wrap” the TF-34 engine intake and exhaust ducts
around the landing gear utilizing a split fan exhaust system that Frank
Dellamura and Vin Crafa worked on intensely. It was rationalized that
penalties due to additional internal drag would be overcome by a more
powerful and efficient TF-34 engine variant, had the design reached a
development stage.
The conformal radar offered the potential of a lighter weight and less
“draggy” installation in a completely new airframe design compared to a
conventional rotodome design. The installation of the conformal radar in the
E-2X derivative revealed weight and volume penalties due to the distribution
of the conformal arrays and transmitters in both sides of the fuselage, wing
leading edges, and horizontal tail tailing edges. The number and weight of
transmitter units, additional wing structural weight, required power and
resultant cooling penalties, and the internal volume required to distribute
power, signal, and cooling lines throughout the aircraft were many of the
issues that had to be resolved based on available state-of-the-art technology.
Harvey Fromer and the design team presented the results to the Navy, and the
E-2X concept was also shelved. Historically, these efforts clearly
demonstrated that Grumman was constantly trying to exploit advanced
technologies by creating advanced aircraft systems concepts in the 1990 time
period.
Michael V. Ciminera
The Aircraft Designers: A Grumman Historical Perspective
http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/4.101786
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
185
Pardon the quickie photos, but here is my recently acquired Grumman Design 123 that I posted over in the Grumman Design thread..... Wood in-house and decidedly different than the 2012 EBay model posted here. The nose reminds me of a cartoon plane, but I love this stuff...... also note the little eyelet on the dome. Imagine that it was hanging for many a year someplace... Oh if it could only talk........View attachment 617070
Wonderful find! Mark
 
Top