Lockheed P2V-3 Neptune --A Forgotten Warrior

[Lokidog]

Hi Ed

A bit late now for your excellent build but for those wanting to do similar conversions or P2V-5 conversions some details from my research.

Firstly I’ve attached copies of scale plans from the Warpaint Series No.51 Lockheed Neptune by Kev Darling. The plans are quite large being double A3 so to scan them in I lost a strip from the fold line which is the line up the middle. These plans are quite old and do have some discrepancies.

 

 

1. The drawings incorrectly show the bottom of the bomb bay level with the bottom of the front fuselage. This is on all the profiles and in fact is carried through on all the colour side drawings in the book making all the Neptunes look a bit thin. See marked up section with the correct location. 

2. The top profile is labelled as a DP-2E which is of course a variant of the P2V-5, P2V-5FD under the old designation. This profile can represent any of the later P2V-5 versions with the glazed nose, MAD boom and J34 engines added and the dorsal turret removed. This profile does show the correct cockpit canopy with the top slightly bulged, as used on the P2V-5 and P2V-6 models.

3. The glazed nose profiles seem a bit too long and pointed to me. See my marked up section with how I think it should be.

4. Similarly the six gun nose profile also seems a bit too long and pointed to me. See my marked up section with how I think it should be. The Czechmaster resin nose seems to be the correct profile.

5. The rear observation window on the P2V-7 should be almost rectangular.

6. The lower profile is labelled as a P2V-5 and represents the first production type with full armament and no J34 engine. The cockpit canopy is more representative of the early ‘flat’ top type used on the P2V-1 through to the P2V-4 though the framing is incorrect.

7. On that profile the front turret nose is too long resulting in the profile of the nose being incorrect. See my marked up section with how I think it should be.

8. Also profile and framing of the dorsal turret is incorrect but then so is the Hasegawa one.

9. With all the profiles they are shown with the top of the forward fuselage changing slope just before the cockpit canopy which doesn’t happen.

All that said the plans aren’t too bad and are all that is available from my research.

Will post some more later.

Loki

Edited June 3, 2017 by Lokidog

[Tailspin Turtle]

P2Vs through the -4 had the bottom of the bomb bay level with the bottom of the forward fuselage. There was no bulge where the bottom of the fuselage began to angle up. See http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2016/02/early-p2vs.html for this and other illustrations that may be of interest.

[Lokidog]

Hi again

I’ve attached a photo with both the Falcon and the Hasegawa front fuselage sections laid over the plans. To me it seems the wheel bays are close enough the correct location and length and the fuselages are close enough to the correct depth.

I’ve also attached a photo showing the Czechmaster resin nose roughly attached for a P2V-2 I’m starting to work on. It seems to work ok though. The rear bottom lines up with the front of the front wheel well. Not sure why the step. Perhaps to give a better connection.

I’ve attached another photo showing how I think the framing works on both the early styles of canopies. I’ve drawn them on Falcon canopies though the Falcon canopy does not have the required bulge for the P2V-5/-6 type. I’ve also attached a not so good photo showing the Falcon and Airmodel canopies for the P2V-5. The Airmodel canopy does have the bulge though the quality isn’t as good.

It seems that Falcon when doing their P2V-5 conversion used the lower profile which is why their canopy and front turret nose are incorrect. See the photo of the Falcon section placed over the incorrect profile.

The other item that both Falcon and Hasegawa and also the profiles have incorrect are the fuselage side windows. The P2V-5 and P2V-6 have 3 windows on each side at the same locations on both sides. All the windows seem to be the same height with the rear one being square, the middle one being slightly wider and the front one being wider again. With the P2V-7 the windows are the same as the P2V-5 except the front one is deleted on the right side and the middle one is deleted on the left side. With the P2V-1 to the P2V-3 the windows are in the same locations as the P2V-5 and the rear ones appears to be the same size. The middle one appears to be the same height but is narrower while the front one is bigger but appears to be higher than it is wide. The P2V-4 is the same as the later P2V-5. It is difficult to find good photos to confirm the window sizes and shapes.

 Loki

 

 

[Lokidog]

Hi Tailspin

 

Thanks but I do know that the bulged weapons bay was only introduced with the P2V-5. The Warpaint profiles, both on the scale plan I attached and the colour profiles in the book all show a sort of bulge at the rear but unfortunately have the underside level with the front fuselage as I marked up. The scale plans only show those for the P2V-5 and P2V-7 and therefore should have bulged weapons bays, which they don't.

 

I don't agree that the nose wheel was moved forward neither was the cockpit extended nor the nose extended as drawn on the blogspot.  On all models prior to the P2V-7 the nose wheel bay was longer, extending to the front of the APS-20 radome on the P2V-4 and P2V-5. What was done with the P2V-7 was that the length of the nose wheel bay was shortened from the rear as shown on the Warpaint scale plans. The nose wheel on the P2V-7 was modified so it would retract into the shortened nose bay. You can see the differences, both in the nose wheel door lengths and the nose wheel legs, if you look at good close up photos. Also by looking at good profiles it can be seen that the relationship of the rear of the nose section (whether solid, glazed or with a turret ) and which also is the front of both the nose wheel well and the cockpit, is constant in relation to the rear of the cockpit and the front of the wing for all variants except for the P2V-7 Kai.

 

My sources are the following books which I have:

Lockheed P2V Neptune by Wayne Mutza, probably the definitive book on the Neptune.

Squadron Signal P2V Neptune In Action

Profile Publications The Lockheed P2V Neptune

Warpaint No51 Lockheed Neptune

and for lots of photos the following website:

http ://www.verslo.is/baldur/p2/main.htm

 

I've been fighting with Photobucket for nearly 3 hours to embed the photos in my earlier posts. Later I will scan in and post some photos which show the relationship and sizes of the various wheel wells and also the changed nose wheel of the P2V-7.

 

Loki

 

[TheRealMrEd]

Hi Lokidog and everyone else,

 

Was interested to hear that you are trying a -3. I tried to oast the 19 photos (rather poor ones!) of the (then) last surviving P2V-3 in the walkaround section here, but the moderator never posted them. I queried him, and he said he'd check his email, but I never heard back. Therefore, within the next few days, I will post all my personally-taken P2V-3 photos here, as they show some details not readily available elsewhere, despite their amateurish appearance.

 

I would really love to see a nice -3, and really hope someone will show mine up. I won't be the least bit hurt, as long as I helped them make theirs better.

 

Ed

[Tailspin Turtle]

Loki - You are correct about the Warpaint profile error with respect to the bulged bomb bay; I couldn't tell from what you had posted that there was nothing earlier than the -5. However, you need to take a closer look at the wheel-base dimensions of the -3 versus the -7. The forward end of the -3 wheel well is at FS 114; the forward end of the -7 wheel well is at FS 89, roughly the two feet difference in wheel-base (there's a couple of inches difference because the nose landing gears are shaped differently). It may not look like the front of the -7 wheel well was moved forward because the wind screen of the -7 is farther forward than the -3's is.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Tailspin Turtle
-6 had same forward fuselage and nose wheel well as -5

[Lokidog]

Hi Tailspin

 

I checked and did find a reference that the P2V-7 was longer but it didn't say by how much or where.  According to the Squadron Signal publication the length of the P2V-5 with glazed nose and MAD boom is 91 feet 2 inches and the P2V-7 with glazed nose and MAD boom is 91 feet 8 inches, only a difference of 6" but that doesn't seem right.

The P2V-6 was produced in conjunction with and at the same time as the P2V-5 and on the same production line. A check of the BU/NOs which are allocated consecutively will confirm this. The P2V-6 had an APS-70 radar instead of the APS-20 in a smaller radome, the front of which was in the same position as the front of the APS-20 radome on the P2V-5. The P2V-6 also introduced the Emerson Aero 9C nose turret in a longer nose than the Emerson Aero 9C nose turret of the P2V-5 though the P2V-5 was also to be fitted with the 9C as were early P2V-7s and in fact some P2V-7s even had the 9B turret. Since the -5 and the -6 were on the same production line at the same time it would not make sense to change the structure.

 

I then found some photos (see below) taken from approximately the same angle, made them level and adjusted them for size. I then overlaid them (I did it in Excel and can't replicate it). I found the P2V-5 and P2V-6 were the same as I expected as was the P2V-4. The P2V-7 was longer. The extra length is in the section where the top of the fuselage turns up from the front of the prop warning line to the back of the canopy. The lengths from the nose to the front of the canopies, to the rear of the canopies and the fronts of the wheel wells are close enough the same. The difference in length measures about 35 - 40 cm (1' 2" - 1' 4") though obviously that is not exact. Perhaps you could tell me where you got your information so I can check the 2 feet you mention.

 

I then adjusted the Warpaint profiles to size and overlaid the photos. The P2V-7 profile and photo match almost exactly. Since the Warpaint profiles for the P2V-5 and P2V-7 are the same length then as expected the profile was longer than the photos of the P2V-5 and the P2V-6. The lengths from the nose to the front of the canopy are basically the same. The extra length in the profile is in the extra length of the canopy on the profile.

 

So if earlier versions are to be modelled the kit fuselage needs to be shortened by cutting out the section where the top of the fuselage turns up from the front of the prop warning line to the back of the canopy. If the Falcon conversion forward fuselage is to be used it will need to be shortened by the same length as currently it matches the Warpaint profile in being too long. I haven't yet worked out whether cut should be to the section behind the canopy or to the rear of the canopy and the fuselage section below. It just can't be shortened by cutting a piece off the rear end as that will throw out the location of the radome.

 

I'm glad I found that out now as I have a lot of fuselages currently being modified and it would be a pain if I had to modify them when I was further down the track. This just goes to show that one should not just take scale profiles as being correct and the final say in determining if a kit is correct or not.

 

Loki

P2V-7

P2V-6

P2V-5 (OP-2E)

P2V-5

P2V-4

 

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

My apologies. I was wrong about the nose wheel well change being introduced with the -6. Your -6 configuration summary is correct. However, the -7 nose-wheel well is not as long as the -5's and is located farther forward. I have added an illustration here: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2016/02/early-p2vs.html

 

You'll note that the distance between the main landing gear wheels and the nose wheel is 24' 9" for the -7 and 22' and something inches for the -5. According to Lockheed drawings with fuselage station data, the forward end of the nose wheel well on the -7 is at fuselage station 83; on the -5 it's at 114 or 2' 3" farther aft, consistent with the difference in dimensions given for the wheel base.

 

It does appear that the -5 was about six inches shorter than the -7 with both having the same observer nose and tail extension for MAD. For sure the flight deck was changed based on Lockheed inboard-profile drawings. It appears to have the same waterline location for the floor but the aft cockpit bulkhead of the -5 was located three inches farther aft relative to the -7's. The -5's seats and controls were about one foot farther aft and the windscreen, about 20 inches farther aft, which is why the relative position of the nose gear well and windscreen don't appear to be different between the -5 and -7. In any event, the use of photos to determine dimensions is definitely inferior to having good data.

 

I recommend that you not rely on the Warpaint drawings for any conclusions.

[Lokidog]

If the front of the P2V-7 nose wheel well is 2' 3" further forward than that of the P2V-5 and other versions then the front of a glazed nose on the P2V-7 must be 2' 3" further forward than that of a glazed nose on the P2V-5 and P2V-6 which would also make the entire aircraft 2' 3" longer as the nose types are interchangeable and connect at the same location immediately on the front of the nose wheel well.

 

If the distances from nose wheel to main wheel centreline are 24' 9" for the P2V-7 and 22' 9" for the P2V-5, a distance of 2' 0", which is 3" less than the difference between the locations of the nose wheel well front it would indicate that the P2V-7 is longer by 2' 3"/2' 0"  from the centre line of the main wheel to the tip of a nose of similar type (glazed, 9B or 9C turrets). The missing 3" could be accounted for by the different configuration of the nose wheel. From what I can see difference is in the section of the fuselage immediately behind the cockpit as I noted earlier.

 

In regards to the overall length. If the difference is the 2' 3"/2' 0" why then only a difference of 6" in the total length between MAD equipped versions? The P2V-5/-6 would then need to be 1' 9"/1' 6" longer aft of the centreline of the main wheels. Do you know where that difference happens?

 

Also do you know where I can find 'clean' copies of the original drawings used in the BlogSpot? It would be good if I can get the copies myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lokidog]

 

Hi Tailspin

 

The Profile Publications 'The Lockheed P2V Neptune' gives the length of the P2V-7 with glazed nose and MAD boom as 91' 8" and the P2V-6 in a the same configuration as 89' 10", a difference of 1' 10" which is close on the 2' 3"/2' 0" discussed earlier. As the P2V-6 and P2V-5 are basically the same then the length of the P2V-5 would also be 89' 10". I suggest the Squadron signal length of 91' 2" is incorrect. Using the wheel base dimension, given the difference if configuration of the nose wheels doesn't necessarily mean the differences in the front of the wheel location is exactly the same.

 

Loki

 

 

 

 

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

6 hours ago, Lokidog said:

 

Hi Tailspin

 

The Profile Publications 'The Lockheed P2V Neptune' gives the length of the P2V-7 with glazed nose and MAD boom as 91' 8" and the P2V-6 in a the same configuration as 89' 10", a difference of 1' 10" which is close on the 2' 3"/2' 0" discussed earlier. As the P2V-6 and P2V-5 are basically the same then the length of the P2V-5 would also be 89' 10". I suggest the Squadron signal length of 91' 2" is incorrect. Using the wheel base dimension, given the difference if configuration of the nose wheels doesn't necessarily mean the differences in the front of the wheel location is exactly the same.

 

Loki

 

 

 

 

 

The Profile Publications is incorrect. The P2V-5 length of 89' 10" is for the turret nose (with no cannons in place) and MAD extension. The P2V-6 was longer by 2'3" forward of the cockpit because of the different turret installation, an AERO 9C instead of an AERO 9B. As far as I know, it never had an observer nose but I suppose the turret nose could have been replaced with the P2V-5's observer nose.  The overall length for the P2V-5 with the observer nose and MAD extension is 91' 2".

Edited June 4, 2017 by Tailspin Turtle
I keep forgetting that some of the P2V SACs were sloppily created.

[Tailspin Turtle]

6 hours ago, Lokidog said:

If the front of the P2V-7 nose wheel well is 2' 3" further forward than that of the P2V-5 and other versions then the front of a glazed nose on the P2V-7 must be 2' 3" further forward than that of a glazed nose on the P2V-5 and P2V-6 which would also make the entire aircraft 2' 3" longer as the nose types are interchangeable and connect at the same location immediately on the front of the nose wheel well.

 

If the distances from nose wheel to main wheel centreline are 24' 9" for the P2V-7 and 22' 9" for the P2V-5, a distance of 2' 0", which is 3" less than the difference between the locations of the nose wheel well front it would indicate that the P2V-7 is longer by 2' 3"/2' 0"  from the centre line of the main wheel to the tip of a nose of similar type (glazed, 9B or 9C turrets). The missing 3" could be accounted for by the different configuration of the nose wheel. From what I can see difference is in the section of the fuselage immediately behind the cockpit as I noted earlier.

 

In regards to the overall length. If the difference is the 2' 3"/2' 0" why then only a difference of 6" in the total length between MAD equipped versions? The P2V-5/-6 would then need to be 1' 9"/1' 6" longer aft of the centreline of the main wheels. Do you know where that difference happens?

 

The relocation of the nose wheel well within the fuselage had no impact on the overall length of the fuselage, at least not to the same degree. I doubt that the -7 gun and observer noses were interchangeable with the those of the -5. The six-inch difference in fuselage length between the -5 and -7 is probably the result of the redesign of the cockpit and canopy.

[TheRealMrEd]

Hello all,

 

As promised, here are the rather poor remaining photos of the last P2V-3 Neptune. Some are ones that I previously posted in the build article. Anyone is free to use these photos in any manner whatsoever, and to re-post them elsewhere for reference, etc. Moderator, feel free to move them if desired!  Sorry that they are so bad, but as I said in the beginning, I had always intended to return and do a better job.

 

That day never came.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't great photos, but there won't ever be any more, unless someone uncovers a stash...

 

If you can't grab these photos, may I suggest SnapaShot Pro.

 

Enjoy,

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

 

[71chally]

Not as good as Eds, but some useful shots (inc its sad demise) here,

https://www.tampapix.com/plane.htm

[TheRealMrEd]

God bless you, James!

 

I wish I'd had these pics when I was building the beast! I have already poached them for my research/modeling archive!

 

Also, thank you for the fact that your link led to an explanation of how/why the Neptune was sunk. Now, I can stop hating the Florida Air Museum, et al.

 

Pity it couldn't have lasted a few more years; I bet a modern day Go Fund Me drive could have saved. Oh well.

 

Again, my heartfelt thanks,

 

Ed

[71chally]

A real shame that such a rare beast had to be chosen. must have been plenty of old airliners about that could have served the purpose as a giant aquarium feature.

[Radleigh]

It amazes me how blind some people can be sometimes, such a lovely aircraft but rare... would look great today fully restored in a hangar in America. Talk about gutting

[TheRealMrEd]

Sorry Dave, video won't play and what relevance here?

 

Ed

[UberDaveToo]

On 6/27/2023 at 3:35 PM, TheRealMrEd said:

Sorry Dave, video won't play and what relevance here?

 

Ed

I goofed and put it on the wrong thread. Then I couldn't figure how to undo it...

 

I would have mentioned the outstanding work you did on the P2V, but I didn't expect a reply on a six year old post. My dad installed a pulse doppler navigation radar on one at NOTS China Lake in 1957, the year I was born. I'd like to from borrow your experience bould one for my own collection.  

 

 

[TheRealMrEd]

20 hours ago, UberDaveToo said:

I goofed and put it on the wrong thread. Then I couldn't figure how to undo it...

 

I would have mentioned the outstanding work you did on the P2V, but I didn't expect a reply on a six year old post. My dad installed a pulse doppler navigation radar on one at NOTS China Lake in 1957, the year I was born. I'd like to from borrow your experience bould one for my own collection.  

 

I understand, and please feel free to use anything that you can from my posts.  My whole purpose of posting is to show other people how at least one person does it, so they can too!

 

Ed