A "Stoof" - Kinetic's 1/48 Grumman S-2E Tracker

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

It seems like I just was just here, writing a post about a completed model. Well, yes, I was with my Grumman Albatross. I made a conscious decision to move right through this new kit, Kinetic’s Grumman S-2E Tracker, and as it turns out, this kit is not nearly the challenge that the Grumman E-2C Hawkeye was.

This kit has some head-scratching curiousities. The wheel wells are well-detailed out of the box, but the cockpit is about as basic as one can get. The ordinance bay is essentially a hollow shell, and the spotlight, with its big, clear covering, provides no internal detail, not even a rudimentary light fixture. While the R-1820 radials are decent, there are no exhaust stacks provided.

I updated the cockpit by adding a center control console that my references said should be there. I gave that console some depth with additional pieces of styrene cut to small rectangles to replicate “controls”. The seats were rudimentary with no belts, not unexpected as with most kits, but also no arm rests. So I added arm rests and cut out belts from paper grocery bag scraps. Of course, very little of this detail is actually visible.

In the ordinance bay, I added some rib details, and for the search light, I cut out a small disk of styrene, painted it chrome silver, and gave that part at least a semblance to what it likely should look like. For the exhaust stacks, while the kit does not provide them, I took small sections of sprue from the kit, drilled out the ends, and installed. I never found any references to determine how many stacks should be visible, and in any event, I didn’t have anything small enough to add any more than the 1 stack per opening.

Unlike the Hawkeye, the Tracker goes together relatively fuss-free. The only real issue I had was with my particular kitting, as the nose gear strut was badly warped. I attempted to rectify by holding it under hot water to reposition, but despite several attempts, it never did set into the proper position. I was able to re-align it to a degree, as right out of the box that part was never going to fit correctly.

Decals performed well.

Oh, photos probably won’t reveal this, but the Tracker is a tail-sitter. I added a bunch of weight just behind the cockpit, and all of my test fitting showed that it was sufficient although just barely. When I finally installed the landing gear earlier today, plop right onto that big tail. I had anticipated that possibility, so had not installed the engines. I added additional weight behind the engines, but even that did not put the Tracker down on its nose gear. By that time I was starting to get a bit nervous about the strength of the plastic struts, so decided enough was enough. (The Tracker is going to be mounted on one of my display walls, so not really an issue).

Top-side paint is Polly Scale US Light Gull Gray with Vallejo Insignia White control surfaces, which is also the entire underside. Highly diluted flat black for the exhaust staining, and a coat of Flory Dark Dirt Wash for weathering.

The upgraded cockpit:

Completed build:

This one shows how warped the nose gear is.

Next up - MPM’s 1/48 Heinkel He177A-5 Grief. I don’t expect to punch that one out in 3 days, however.

2

Man that was quick! How long did it take you to build this?

Overall everything looks really good. Excellent work on the paint and markings! But I would add for you to check the alignment of the rocket pods under the left wing.

3

Very nice. Always been a big fan of the Stoof and its 2 brothers

4

Nice! Quick build. Big fan of this and your Hawkeye. Living near Miramar, I used to see these flying occasionally. An S3 next? A nice collection of twin engine navy big birds.

5

Thanks Stik!

Opened up the box and did all the parts clean-up on Sep 25, then spent the last 3 days actually building it.

So I checked the pod alignment but I’m not seeing what you are. Can you clarify?

6

Thanks Johnny! One of the things that always amuses me about some aircraft is the nicknames that get assigned to them. Stoof sounds strangely funny. Then there are nicknames like Buff or Jug …

7

Thanks John!

I don’t currently have an S-3 in my stash. This is probably a good example of how tastes can eff and flow over the years, as I remember after I returned to this hobby in 1995, there was an AMT/Ertl release of the S-3 that I simply was never interested in, and by extension, I likely would not have had much interest in the Stoof or the Hawkeye at that time either. Now, I could see myself acquiring an S-3 to add to my collection.

8

Stephen, that’s an amazingly fast build for that nice of a finish. The dihedral looks a bit extreme to me for a Stoof. The little tailwheel should be able to extend a lot more on the ground, and usually is almost on the ground, as it looks in this photo. There certainly isn’t much visible of the exhaust stubs but I’ve seen a power egg up close and there are several on each side, if you build another some time. Here’s a nice photo taken long ago by Stephen Miller.

And here’s a vote for an S-3. I know where there are several kits! I used to see them on the ramp at Burbank when I was on standby down there. Here’s for the Hoover!

9

I think that you did a great job on that model. Great finish. On the other hand, that is a really strange airplane. Did that thing actually fly? What’s with the huge tail wing?

10

John, thank you for your kind words!

After looking at your photos, I am in agreement with regard to the dihedral. And I wish I’d found that great shot that shows the rigging, as I had to guess based on the photos I did find. Turns out I guessed wrong.

11

Thank you Johnny!

In answer to your first question, check Jeaton’s photo above - she did fly. As for the huge tail wing, I know very little about the development of the Stoof or in specific terms about aeronautical engineering. I’m wondering if the small overall size of the Stoof has something to do with that huge tail wing?

12

If you look at the underside photo, on the rocket pods under the wing with no National Insignia, look at the alignment of the pods to one another.

13

The Stoof not only flew but it is still flying, most notably as a fire fighting aircraft, with turbine engine conversions. The large vertical fin and rudder are necessary for safe single engine operations on an aircraft carrier. There are in addition two parts to the rudder to allow even more corrective yaw force in case of an engine failure at low speed. Other twin engine carrier aircraft such as the F7F are very unsafe in carrier operations because in the case of an engine failure on takeoff or a bolter the only thing you can do is shut the good one down and ditch under control. Something like the F7F has to be going more than 140 knots or so, I don’t know the exact number, before they can continue to fly under control on one engine. It is worse if the critical engine has failed, which on the usual US airplane is the left engine.

14

Oh Boy;

Someone finally built one of my fave Boidies. The " Stuuf" and The “Viking” I think are the cat’s “Meow” for what they do and did. Now I have a Hasegawa Stuuf and Viking. These look like fun. The Nose gear. Take it off the sprue NEXT Time. Drill a hole up through the center and you’ll NEVER have that problem again! Note: the Main Gear Wheels look a little to flat to me. But, the photos back you up. Thank you ! I think you did alright on this bird overall and Let’s have the Viking soon okay ?

15

Thanks Tanker! Gotta land a new job before I can really think about buying any new kits, but I’d like to do the Viking some day.

16

Well the E-1 Tracer was nicknamed Willy Fudd after its original pre 1962 WF-1. Or also called the Stoof with a Roof

17

Well; Keep in touch:

Ya never know Do ya?

18

So per stik’s recommendation regarding the rocket pods, and Jeaton’s photo showing the rigging, I made a couple of fixes to my Stoof.

This picture doesn’t show the new rigging I just added, but perhaps this next one will. I mounted her on the wall of my workroom beside a D-Day C-47 and the E-2C Hawkeye.

In looking closer at the picture, you can make out the rigging, very faint …

19

I like those aircraft. Homely little things.

Why does the left engine fail more often?

Theres a good project- a Calfire S2.

Fine model there. Thanks for sharing!

ps all the Doolittle raiders took off at midship regardless of position on deck. Careening into the island with a full load of bombs and fuel would have ruined the day.

20

The left engine doesn’t fail more often, Bill, it’s just harder to control the airplane when it does than if it were the right engine. At low speeds the right side of the propeller disk makes more thrust than the left, so when the left side has the failure the thrust is further from the centerline of the aircraft than when the right is out, and you have a higher Vmc. Velocity of minimum control, single engine. Of course all that is reversed if you have the British direction of rotation, and if you have counter-rotating engines and the right one turns British there is no critical engine and Vmc is the same either way. Or in the case of the P-38, for vibration reasons the left engine turns British style and you have the worst of all possible worlds.