Grumman Widgeon as catapult plane

Redbeard

Banned
Until mid WWII it was common for battleships and cruisers to have one or more catapult planes onboard. Originally mainly for gunnery spotting but as radar became better this role vanished and as carriers also were along the general reconnosaince and liason role was taken over by carrier planes and the catapults and their planes sent ashore.

But in the time frame when catapultplanes were still needed I've always thought that a single engine was risky business above the open sea - so would it be feasible with a twin engine catapult plane?

In the classical gunnery spotting role it wouldn't be important as the spotting plane usually would be within viewing range of the mother ship, but would say a Grumman Widgeon be possible as a catapulted plane for recon, SAR and liason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_G-44_Widgeon

It appear to be within the limits of wing span and weight and it can take 3-4 passengers.
 
Comparing the standard Widgeon with the widely used Vought OS2U Kingfisher shows major performance and weight similarities. I'd be concerned with the weight increase that would result from making the W catapult ready and storable (wing folding?). The Ranger 440 engines on the W are certainly not my first choice for over-ocean flight, but there are two of them. If the W could fly on one, then redundance is an advantage- if not- twice the chance of needing a Kingfisher for the rescue.

Dynasoar
 
No it was me and my little team....this...in part ...is what I do for a living.
Restoring old aircraft
And in answer to the original op
IMO
Yes...if various structural changes are made
Being thrown off the side of a ship does odd things to an aircraft!
 
Grumman had more experience with folding wings than anyone else: Wildcat, Hellcat, Avenger, Bearcat, Tigercat and all those jets.
 

Redbeard

Banned
No it was me and my little team....this...in part ...is what I do for a living.
Restoring old aircraft
And in answer to the original op
IMO
Yes...if various structural changes are made
Being thrown off the side of a ship does odd things to an aircraft!
Very interesting.

I suppose you need some strengthening of the point where the catapult grabs the plane and that the folding wing will have to add some weight too. Do you think the extra weight could be limited to under 200 lbs (90 kg) or approximately what the 5th passenger of the original Widgeon would weigh incl. seats etc.?

If placing the wing folding just outside the engine nacelles you could get a folded width inside the tail wings and inside what comparable catapult planes like the Walrus would take up in the hangar.

The Widgeon BTW appear to have had excellent vision from the cockpit, very handy if scouting, and as an amphibian it would be excellent for liasion work.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Comparing the standard Widgeon with the widely used Vought OS2U Kingfisher shows major performance and weight similarities. I'd be concerned with the weight increase that would result from making the W catapult ready and storable (wing folding?). The Ranger 440 engines on the W are certainly not my first choice for over-ocean flight, but there are two of them. If the W could fly on one, then redundance is an advantage- if not- twice the chance of needing a Kingfisher for the rescue.

Dynasoar

Were the Ranger 440 engines known for unreliability? Suggestions for an alternative?

Compared to the Kingfisher I'm not at least impressed by the Widgeon's 4-5 seat capacity, would be very handy in scouting and SAR - and then of course the extra engine. The Ranger 440 appear to be a rather old engine (mid 30s), I suppose you could find something better (more powerful) by 1940?
 

SsgtC

Banned
I suppose you need some strengthening of the point where the catapult grabs the plane and that the folding wing will have to add some weight too. Do you think the extra weight could be limited to under 200 lbs (90 kg) or approximately what the 5th passenge
Probably more. You have to stress the entire frame to handle the increased G Force of a catapult launch. How much more, I'm not sure. Using a later day example, the F-4E weighed about 450 pounds less than the F-4J.
 
Last edited:
Probably more. You have to stress the entire frame to handle the increased G Force of a catapult launch. How much more, I'm not sure. Using a later day example, the F4-E weighed about 450 pounds less than the F-4J.
Not so much the entire airframe
It's more a question of load distribution/avoiding stress concentrations.
No way you can do this without added weight
Then there is the hydraulics /electrics for the folding wing.
Looking at this from a structural point of view and ignoring aerodynamics at this point.
What would I change?
Thicker fuse skin stiffners .. (external ones , they are a known weak point.
Tail plane castings should be altered as well
 
Redbeard,

Its not that the Ranger 6440 series was known for unreliability (in fact, modified for performance with four carbs, reground cam and high compression pistons it was a competitive sprint car engine in the forties), but that it- even in the 200HP C5 variant- was insufficient to handle single engine flight in an aircraft as large as the J4F series in its usual form. The Ranger was a later engine than the similar Menasco inverted sixes, but the airplane needed more powerful engines with variable pitch, feathering propellers. Unfortunately, I can't name one other than a modified supercharged Ranger with an appropriate propeller setup.

I am not aware of a Ranger variant fitted with the drilled crankshaft required for a hydraulic constant speed propeller. Unless there was some electric two pitch prop, or some early version of the mechanical Aeromatic which could be adapted, there does not seem to be any advantage to the underpowered two engine configuration. An engine loss, other than in cruising flight, would appear to require shutting down the surviving engine to maintain controlled flight to the location of the forced landing.

Have looked for contemporary pilot reports for the Widgeon to contradict this, with no success.

Dynasoar
 
Last edited:
Top