S-3 Viking, US-3 Viking COD, and ES-3 Shadow

[elmayerle]

From a civilian perspective, I always felt the S-3 would have great potential as a fire killer.

I've been given to understand that Aero Union in northern California has evaluated the S-3 for this role using a verstion of the panier they developed for the Convair CV-440 and derivatives.  They seemed to think the idea had promise, rather more so that trying to do a fire fighting version of the A-10.

[dy031101]

Further Googling led me to this theory:

It appears to me that fixed-wing ASW units were never included in the carrier airwings of the Midway class carriers during and since the Vietnam War......

So it's not that the Midway couldn't launch the S-3, it's that after taking in all the other aircraft (fighters, attackers, tankers, AEW planes, ECM detachments, and choppers) in quantities considered adequate, there just wasn't any space to properly accommodate even a reduced fixed-wing ASW detachment.



Is this theory of mine correct?




Still, what was the smallest carrier S-3 could safely fly from?




And going slightly off topic here, Wikipedia states that the Oriskany tested E-2 AEW plane.  Was that just touch-and-go, or did it actually involve arrested landing and catapult launches?

EDIT: Spelling spelling spelling......

[Eddie M.]

So it's not that the Midway couldn't launch the S-3, it's that after taking in all the other aircraft (fighters, attackers, tankers, AEW planes, ECM detachments, and choppers) in quantities considered adequate, there just wasn't any space to properly accommodate even a reduced fixed-wing ASW detachment.



Is this theory of mine correct?

Still, what was the smallest carrier S-3 could safely fly from?

And going slightly off topic here, Wikipedia states that the Oriskany tested E-2 AEW plane.  Was that just touch-and-go, or did it actually involve arrested landing and catapult launcher?

Space was an issue on the Midway. They had to hang the AIMD support spaces for the Hornets from the overhead of the hangerdeck to get them to fit.

Things were so tight on deck that if we had an aircraft declare an inflight emergency, we would to do what is called an emergency pull forward to clear the landing area. As soon as that was done, recover said aircraft and pull everything back aft to continue the launch. it was a b*tch and a half. If one A/C were spotted out by one foot, it would throw the whole deck spot out of whack. Here's a look of the size of the Midway's deck compared to the bigger deck carriers. CV-63 and CVN-68 are pictured.
http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1980/midway-889b.jpg

The Forrestal class was the ones who had room for the whole shebang.

If the gear on the Big O could handle the Hummer and I suppose it could if they were flying the Whale, anythings possible. The Hummer is just so darn big and takes up a lot of deck space.

[dy031101]

If the gear on the Big O could handle the Hummer and I suppose it could if they were flying the Whale, anythings possible. The Hummer is just so darn big and takes up a lot of deck space.

This actually looks more and more like a matter of being misled by the text......

Perhaps I can safely go back to thinking that modernised Essex can operate S-3 if accommodation is arranged first......

[Eddie M.]

One other thing that I forgot. The Hoover required a nose tow cat to launch. No bridle could be used and I don't think any older carriers besides the Midway and Coral Sea could do that. Maybe the Lexington in her final days, but I'm not sure. Still looking......

[Weaver]

How about an S-3 modified to have a much slower approach speed, thereby making it compatible with small carriers?

1. Move the engines to the overwing position with flattened nozzles and modified flaps to exploit the Coanda effect, a lá An-72, and blow the rest of the leading and trailing edges outboard of the engines a lá Buccaneer,

or,

2. As above, but replace the 2 x TF-30s with 4 x TFE-731s to blow a greater percentage of the span.

[dy031101]

2. As above, but replace the 2 x TF-30s with 4 x TFE-731s to blow a greater percentage of the span.

Just wondering: in four engine pods or two twin engine pods?

[Weaver]

2. As above, but replace the 2 x TF-30s with 4 x TFE-731s to blow a greater percentage of the span.

Just wondering: in four engine pods or two twin engine pods?

Four, so that as much of the wing as possible is blown. It would look a bit like the QSRA setup:

[elmayerle]

How about an S-3 modified to have a much slower approach speed, thereby making it compatible with small carriers?

2. As above, but replace the 2 x TF-30s with 4 x TFE-731s to blow a greater percentage of the span.

I think I'd rather use four engines with higher thrust ratings than the TFE731, so as to keep the overall thrust available the same.

[Weaver]

How about an S-3 modified to have a much slower approach speed, thereby making it compatible with small carriers?

2. As above, but replace the 2 x TF-30s with 4 x TFE-731s to blow a greater percentage of the span.

I think I'd rather use four engines with higher thrust ratings than the TFE731, so as to keep the overall thrust available the same.

There are TFE-731 versions with enough thrust to do the job. For instance:

Two TF-34 (as in the standard standard S-3) = 2 x 9,275lb = 18,550lb thrust
Four TFE731 5BR-1C (as in the Dassault Falcon 900) = 4 x 4,750lb = 19,000lb thrust

But let's not get hung up on the TFE731: it was just the first thing I thought of. Four other small turbofans would be just as acceptable.

[elmayerle]

I ahdn't realized they'd gotten the TFE731 up to that level.  In that case, four of them would be fine, though four of the engines on the Leaer Jet 60 would likely work just as well.

[Hammer]

Well guys I've already been where you guys are threading (the Brazilian Navy HAS a small deck carrier in operation!) and this is what I found out... The GE TF-34 was the original military engine that spawned the modern commercial CF-34 models. The current CF-34s have almost the double thrust of the earlier TF-34s so there is no need to move to above wing/coanda effect complexities. One could fit a mild ski-jump (6-8° angle) located AFTER the carrier catapult in order to get the plane rotating by itself as soon as it is off the flight deck. Simple!

On the other hand the S-3B (which is much heavier than the initial S-3A) might be a good basis for a SAAB ERIEYE radar carrying airframe as a E-2 equivalent. Also new ASW equipment might be re-introduced since the US Navy scrapped the original equipment some years ago. The current S-3B is already fitted as an advanced all weather, day/night attack bird, effectively replacing the latest A-6 variants then in use.

Comments?

Hammer

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Re: Martin G's S-3K Viking

I like that, it is a very viable option and the aircraft is one of my favourite planes. I did have 2 Hasegawa kits of it until they got stolen out of my lockup, and I think they are just too expensive as a kit to buy now. A stretched fuselage S-3 would look good as a land based patrol aircraft don't you think?

Chris,

A stretched fuselage might be swell for a land based aircraft but keep in mind the space issues that determined the size and shape of the Viking.  Deck space is at a premium on a carrier even more so when you have to fold the wings and stuff them in the hangar deck so a small increase in length might prevent the aircraft from being integrated with the rest of the air wing when deployed.  Even so, I have considered the idea of a stretched Viking and it might be fun to hack up a pair of the Esci/AMT-Ertl kits to try this out.  I also tried to come up with a reasonable solution to creating a dedicated Viking COD aircraft with a ramp located in the rear.  A real challenge when you have to consider that in real life the ramp and cargo compartment must be able to accommodate cargo pallets which are pretty much 98.0" X 108.0" and that means a big ramp opening.  I think I found a solution to the problem by using a 1/72nd scale C-130 fuselage with the wings and tail from the S-3.  The airfoil shape at the wing root matches up almost perfect between the two scales and the cockpit could be modified to fit the S-3 clear parts and cockpit pieces.  This would also give you the sponson mounted main landing gear which until now I had been contemplating cutting from the C-130 fuselage and attaching to the S-3 fuselage. 

[chrisonord]

hello jeff, are the amt esci kits still available of the s-3? in 1/72nd scale that is. The only ones I have seen over here, I think were Revel ones and they are too expensive for my liking. I just wish I still had my 2 Hasegawa ones The S-3 is another one of my favourite aircraft, that to me has so much potential.
I was thinking of a stretched S-3 because it wouldn't be used in RAF/Royal Navy service from a carrier, and would be a land based close to medium patrol aircraft. It coiuld be fitted out for SAR missions, or be fitted with Harpoons, sea Skuas, Sea Eagles, HARM's, or even Exocets. Various torpedoes could be used also, but I dont know much about them lol.   

[Jeffry Fontaine]

hello jeff, are the amt esci kits still available of the s-3? in 1/72nd scale that is. The only ones I have seen over here, I think were Revel ones and they are too expensive for my liking. I just wish I still had my 2 Hasegawa ones The S-3 is another one of my favourite aircraft, that to me has so much potential.
I was thinking of a stretched S-3 because it wouldn't be used in RAF/Royal Navy service from a carrier, and would be a land based close to medium patrol aircraft. It coiuld be fitted out for SAR missions, or be fitted with Harpoons, sea Skuas, Sea Eagles, HARM's, or even Exocets. Various torpedoes could be used also, but I dont know much about them lol.

Hi Chris,

The only 1/72nd scale S-3 that I know of is the Hasegawa kit.  The AMT-Ertl/Italeri S-3 Viking is a 1/48th scale kit.  Sorry about not being more informative in the previous posting.  I took it for granted that everyone knew what kits were available.  That is what I get for "assuming" again.  That was the original reason for my search for the 1/72nd scale pylons so that I could mount them outboard of the larger pylons on the folding section of the wing.  MartG did the same with his Viking WHIF but I do not recognize the source of the additional pylons that he used on his project.  I prefer the 1/72nd scale S-3 pylons for the 1/48th scale S-3 WHIF since they are just smaller versions of the kit pylons and it looks right. 

Had never considered the Exocet for the S-3 but it would be interesting to configure an S-3 with that weapon and maybe put some French Navy markings on it for a good WHIF.