Jump to content

EA-3B cabin windows question


Rob de Bie

Recommended Posts

For what it’s worth, I found an early Douglas A3D-2P structural/access panel drawing showing three windows on the side of the fuselage, the first two and the most aft consistent with those on similar drawings of the A3D-2T and A3D-2Q.  The missing window just forward of the most aft one can be explained by the design changes to incorporate the “bomb” bay as previously mentioned. I’ve also found a high-resolution photograph of the fuselage of an ERA-3B that shows a faint but very definite outline of the frame of the window immediately aft of the first one that incorporates a porthole. However, I suggest that for modeling purposes in any scale but full size, the presence of these windowless frames can be ignored on the left side of an EA-3B or either side of an RA/ERA-3B.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tailspin Turtle, this is the converted TA that I was referring to Tommy, seems odd to become an EA so late in life, but maybe desperate for airframes in the early 1990s?

http://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=72317

https://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/history-up-close/aircraft-in-spotlight/skywarriors-display/

Edited by 71chally
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the consensus is that all the "Version" types (A3D-2Q/EA-3B, A3D-2P/RA-3B, and A3D-2T/TA-3B) were built with tooling that had the TA-3B style window openings on both sides of the fuselage, I'm still puzzled as to why? Only the TA-3B used the "airliner" style windows on the port side, the RA-3B has just the "porthhole" style forward and the EA-3B has none. 

 

I understand if you're converting from an existing airframe (e.g. the E-8C JSTARS built from retired 707s which has noticeably blanked windows) but it seems peculiar to create and fill in the openings on the assembly line (e.g. the E-3 AWACS, same 707 airframe but no window openings where they weren't used).

 

For the record, I did dig up more evidence for the EA-3Bs having plugged windows as standard. In Carriers by Holmes & Montbazet (Military Press, 1990), page 157 has a nice forward 3/4 view of an EA-3B with a low sun angle highlighting the fuselage and the very clear window outlines.  The BuNo isn't readable in the photo but the caption identifies it as 146459 built in 1958 and assigned to VQ-1/CVW-15. (Photo was originally published in Osprey's 7th Fleet Supercarriers by Holmes, c. 1989).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 71chally said:

@Tailspin Turtle, this is the converted TA that I was referring to Tommy, seems odd to become an EA so late in life, but maybe desperate for airframes in the early 1990s?

http://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=72317

https://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/history-up-close/aircraft-in-spotlight/skywarriors-display/

Ah, thanks for that. Unfortunately the Aerial Visuals time line is incorrect. It went from being a TA-3B to being a EA-3B as noted in the Naval Aviation Museum link. It was never an ERA-3B.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Peter Rozendal said:

Hi Rob,

 

Do you know this book: link?

 

I cannot make out any "windows" on the port side of the EA-3B's in this book.

 

When we are allowed to have meetings again you are welcome to peruse my copy of this book.

 

Regards,

 

Peter.

 

 

See the color pictures of the left side of BuNo 146455 in bare metal on page 159. The window-less frames are pretty obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CT7567 said:

If the consensus is that all the "Version" types (A3D-2Q/EA-3B, A3D-2P/RA-3B, and A3D-2T/TA-3B) were built with tooling that had the TA-3B style window openings on both sides of the fuselage, I'm still puzzled as to why? Only the TA-3B used the "airliner" style windows on the port side, the RA-3B has just the "porthhole" style forward and the EA-3B has none. 

 

I understand if you're converting from an existing airframe (e.g. the E-8C JSTARS built from retired 707s which has noticeably blanked windows) but it seems peculiar to create and fill in the openings on the assembly line (e.g. the E-3 AWACS, same 707 airframe but no window openings where they weren't used).

 

For the record, I did dig up more evidence for the EA-3Bs having plugged windows as standard. In Carriers by Holmes & Montbazet (Military Press, 1990), page 157 has a nice forward 3/4 view of an EA-3B with a low sun angle highlighting the fuselage and the very clear window outlines.  The BuNo isn't readable in the photo but the caption identifies it as 146459 built in 1958 and assigned to VQ-1/CVW-15. (Photo was originally published in Osprey's 7th Fleet Supercarriers by Holmes, c. 1989).

From a tooling and production control standpoint, it wouldn’t be unusual for the same detail parts to be utilized on a family of airplanes. The Douglas AD-5 Skyraider is a poster child for that. When Kaman got new orders for twin-engine H-2 Seasprites long after the single-engine production line had closed, some of the new parts were built on the original single-engine tooling and then modified as they had been when the single-engine H-2s were rebuilt with two engines since engineering and tooling already existed for that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

Just to play devil's advocate:

You know you want to build an EA-3B, even a particular one and you know that due to the electronics suite and consoles there aren't any windows on port side of the cabin. Why would you try to make a whole resin fuselage plug for port side? If the cabin had plugged windows there the detail would be more or less disappearing in 1:72. Even in high res photos it's hard to see on the original...

I'm usually the first to support a strive for total accuracy but this might just be a little too much trouble for hardly any benefit...?

Perhaps a simpler option would be plotter-cut thin vinyl stick-on detail for the windows. They line up along the refuelling probe so placement should be relatively easy.

You're probably right, I'm doing all this to have four engraved lines on the left fuselage side. But I have quite a dislike for engraving, that never seems to go the way I want it.  So, maybe I'm doing it because I can? 🙂 Here's the part so far.

ea3b-09.jpg

Rob

Edited by Rob de Bie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Red Dot said:

Why not do both versions with your 3D models? That way, when you sell them(😉), you cover all bases.

 

Or alternatively, do the visible window version and then the panel lines can be filled if not required.

Your wish is my command: I will do both sides, however nerdy it is 😜

 

Rob

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

Ah, thanks for that. Unfortunately the Aerial Visuals time line is incorrect. It went from being a TA-3B to being a EA-3B as noted in the Naval Aviation Museum link. It was never an ERA-3B.

Yes, I agree no evidence that it became an ERA, A UA is far more likely and backed up by Joe Baughers' information.

Interesting that a TA-3B became an EA-3B none the less and that it maintained one of the port windows.  There is a picture of it somewhere as '110' with VQ-2 during Desert Storm.

 

Interesting stuff though, and I guess it was easier to have the framing and skinning common across the 'Versions' and to blank the windows, than to have to create windows for one variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 71chally said:

I didn't want to say anything as I didn't want to influence what you might be able to see, but I can just about make out impressions/depressions of all four 'windows' in those last two pictures, which can be enlarged.

The first smaller picture is quite useful as it seems to show an impression of the whole window frame quite clearly, at the right hand edge of the image.

You're right, I checked them again and indeed they are there.

 

ours ago, 71chally said:

This is just my personal theory, all the 'Versions' were built with all port and stb'd window frames and skinning, but only the TA had the windows actually fitted in the port side.

The condition of the airframe (and lighting conditions in various photos) seems vital to whether we can see these 'window' impressions, or not.  In post #12 I was thinking only some airframes ad this, but pictures of the same jet (146457) in #14 now makes me think differently.

146454 is the one EA that I can't definitely make anything out on, but a good set of images showing it when tired or scrapped might reveal otherwise.

A good set of factory pictures would be useful, but in the years I've been studying the Skywarrior I've never seen anything that would corroborate this.  I guess contacting the Skywarrior Association, or the various restoration teams might get some useful information?

I think Tommy Thomasen and other have confirmed this theory as being correct, however illogical it is to put windows in the left side of an EA-3B.

 

ours ago, 71chally said:

I'm with @JeffreyK and Andy on rendering this feature on a kit, we've had to look really hard to find the window impressions and I think on a kit of an in service Whale I would at most lightly scribe in the window frames just to give the meerest impression.

Check, But I dislike scribing enough to try another route 🙂

Rob

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
14 hours ago, Finn said:

Rob here is another pic:

Jari

Hmmm..... I think we're seeing something different here. That panel behind '898' that looks like a plugged window is too small in height. It should at least touch the refuelling tube. I guess it's a KA-3B?


Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...