Grumman E-2 Hawkeye Concepts and Projects

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
13 June 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
2,191

Attachments

  • E-2 concept - 1.JPG
    E-2 concept - 1.JPG
    49.8 KB · Views: 537
  • E-2 concept - 6.JPG
    E-2 concept - 6.JPG
    47 KB · Views: 106
  • E-2 concept - 5.JPG
    E-2 concept - 5.JPG
    44.3 KB · Views: 429
  • E-2 concept - 4.JPG
    E-2 concept - 4.JPG
    27.6 KB · Views: 446
  • E-2 concept - 3.JPG
    E-2 concept - 3.JPG
    50.7 KB · Views: 468
  • E-2 concept - 2.JPG
    E-2 concept - 2.JPG
    43.2 KB · Views: 504
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

  • Hawkeye model 03.JPG
    Hawkeye model 03.JPG
    44.2 KB · Views: 200
  • Hawkeye model 05.JPG
    Hawkeye model 05.JPG
    41.7 KB · Views: 105
  • Hawkeye model 09.JPG
    Hawkeye model 09.JPG
    41.4 KB · Views: 107
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.
 
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!
 
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?
 

Attachments

  • Grumman E-2 ASW artwork II.jpg
    Grumman E-2 ASW artwork II.jpg
    307.5 KB · Views: 331
  • Grumman E-2 ASW artwork I.jpg
    Grumman E-2 ASW artwork I.jpg
    140.7 KB · Views: 327
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.
 
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

  • IMG_5345.jpg
    IMG_5345.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 190
Last edited:
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

  • IMG_5376.jpg
    IMG_5376.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 161
  • IMG_5374.jpg
    IMG_5374.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 158
  • IMG_5377.jpg
    IMG_5377.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 163
  • IMG_5375.jpg
    IMG_5375.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 176
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
 
Last edited:
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
 
Beautiful artwork, just musing, is there anything in the archives re pitches of the E-2 to the Royal Navy and later Hawkeye 2000 for the RAF. ?
 
Beautiful artwork, just musing, is there anything in the archives re pitches of the E-2 to the Royal Navy and later Hawkeye 2000 for the RAF. ?
None that I have seen, but perhaps they haven't scanned everything...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom