# us navy and catapults on carriers



## Capt Spanky (Oct 9, 2012)

i was reading a lot of old postings on carriers and their usage. one thing that keeps coming up is a prevailing notion that the american carriers were not fitted with catapults untill late in the war.

while the Langley and ranger were built without catapults. the Lexington class had a seaplane pneumatic one which was removed in 1934. all other carriers were built with 2 deck catapults until the super carriers. the Independence class had one catapult and refitted with a second in 44. the escorts were fitted with one or two catapults.

what i did find funny in all my reading was us carrier captains shunned the use of catapults. this is evidenced by the forming up of the launches at midway. amazing they were started to be used once the escorts and light carriers started to be used. another factor was the increased availability of aircraft. the shortened flight desk on the smaller carriers meant that there often was not enough deck space to fly off planes. on a carrier that was designed to carry 100 planes has excess capacity or deck space when it has say 72 planes. now increase that air compliment to 100 and you can see that's 10 more rows of planes taking up deck space. once the ships captains, air boss, and admirals realized you can save gas, extend range and more time over the target, catapult launches became the norm. i believe this was late 1943 or so.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2012)

Until angled flight decks were introduced it was faster to launch without catapults. I suspect that's the reason catapults were shunned on most WWII era CVs.

An angled flight deck changes the rules as you essentially have two runways (bow and side) and both are equipped with catapults. While one runway is launching the other is preparing for launch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2012)

Catapults were deleted during the pre war years because you were also having aircraft entering service with good short field take off ability. Look at the increase in engine development from the time Lexington was built. Additionally I think the main reason why you saw catapults on carriers during this period was to launch seaplanes.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 10, 2012)

On most angled deck carriers i've seen the catapults are on the straight deck portion only, both of them. The angle deck is for landings only.

That way is safer, it keeps landing operations and takeoffs separate, and they can both be operating at the same time.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2012)

USN CVs from the 1950s Forrestal class onward have 4 catapults. Two on the bow and two on the angled runway.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 10, 2012)

I was thinking more of the early generation angle decks, when they had 2 catapults, both were on the straight deck.

Even on the modern 4 cat. carriers the catapults on the angle deck are pointed straight ahead, not down the angle deck itself.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 11, 2012)

I've seen a picture of a US carrier launching a Wildcat (IIRC) from a side HANGER DECK mounted catapult, parallel to the beam of the ship. What about those? Anybody have info on them? Pre-war only?


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2012)

Impossible. The F4F didn't enter service until 1940. 

Perhaps it was an earlier model aircraft in the picture.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 11, 2012)

Well technically that would be pre-war for the US. I'll look for it an post.


----------



## Capt Spanky (Oct 11, 2012)

Capt. Vick said:


> I've seen a picture of a US carrier launching a Wildcat (IIRC) from a side HANGER DECK mounted catapult,



you mean this?
http://www.steelnavy.com/images/essex/essex_drawing.jpg


----------



## Capt Spanky (Oct 11, 2012)

great resource on essex carriers and air wings in ww2.
Home Page USS Ticonderoga


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 12, 2012)

Capt Spanky said:


> you mean this?
> http://www.steelnavy.com/images/essex/essex_drawing.jpg



Must be...

Didn't find a Wildcat launching, but did find a couple of Hellcat pictures... Definately during the war.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm reading a book about O'Hare and apparently the Enterprise used their catapults quite a lot.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2012)

USS Enterprise was modified for night operations. Not sure what that entailed but catapults could have been part of the new operational procedures.


----------



## Capt Spanky (Oct 12, 2012)

most of that was radar and cic


----------



## Capt Spanky (Oct 12, 2012)

USS Enterprise CV-6 a nice enterprise resource site.


----------



## model299 (Oct 12, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I was thinking more of the early generation angle decks, when they had 2 catapults, both were on the straight deck.
> 
> Even on the modern 4 cat. carriers the catapults on the angle deck are pointed straight ahead, not down the angle deck itself.



Yes and no.

A look at the deck layout for CVN 76, Ronald Reagan, shows that while the waist catapults don't exactly follow the centerline of the angled portion of the deck, they're not parallel to the #1 and 2 catapults either. One is almost parallel to the angled portion, the other points more forward.






In 2004, I had the distinct pleasure of spending a week on this ship while testing a deck scrubbing machine prototype. It had just home ported in San Diego. Been there. Got the mug!!


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 12, 2012)

I've wondered about those different angles on the catapults, some carriers have all the catapults at slightly different angles.

It might be to keep the second aircraft launched out of the first aircraft's wake turbuience.


----------



## Capt Spanky (Oct 13, 2012)

the sbc programs for the essex added the angled deck, but not more catapults.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 13, 2012)

model299 said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> A look at the deck layout for CVN 76, Ronald Reagan, shows that while the waist catapults don't exactly follow the centerline of the angled portion of the deck, they're not parallel to the #1 and 2 catapults either. One is almost parallel to the angled portion, the other points more forward.
> 
> View attachment 213204


It appears that none are parallel to the centerline of the ship. I would suspect the design was mainly for deck handling.


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2012)

Or where it was easy to mount the catapult machinery. Looks small on the flight deck but most of the catapult machinery is underneath.

I served on the U.S.S. America during 1983 to 1985. By alternating between bow and side they can launch an airstrike pretty quick.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 24, 2012)

It´s not unsurprising that catapults are unfrequently encountered in ww2 period carriers.
Parts of the explenation has already been mentioned above. The advent of airplane optimised for low take off speed and bening low speed characteristics, making most use of high lift devices and comparably low wingloads rendered the immediate need to accelerate an A/C secondary.

(This later changed with the advent of jet powered A/C with high wingload and high take off weight, which required assistence for safe take off in limited areas)

But also keep in mind the working principles of these catapults. They were compressed air or pneumatic driven, creating a potential severe fire and schock hazard in case of battle damage. None of the catapults were steam driven and feed by the main machine boilers. This technology was pioneered by the seaplane catapult ship SCHWABENLAND prior to ww2 during it´s antacrtic cruises (triggered by the need to have a cold weather proof solution to catapult these 10to seaplanes) but didn´t became standart until after the war in US carriers.


----------

