So, earlier I suggested the Grumman Widgeon/Gosling (admittedly tongue in cheek) but, out of curiosity I started digging around to see what the Widgeon contributed to the war and as hard as I have tried I can find nothing other than that it served in the Royal Navy. In fact, its importance to the war effort was so inconsequential that Grumman was able to start building new civilian versions again before the end of the war. Apparently, it was fairly underpowered. It could be modified to carry a 200lb depth charge which is useful for patrol. However, other than a mis-identified kill in the Gulf of Mexico it appears to have no record of distinction. And isn't that the definition of worst? To have been in the party and done nothing. Here's a nice image of a restored Widgeon/Gosling in Royal Naval colors.
Worst US made twin engined aircraft used by Britain in WW2
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
One would not expect a light amphibian to have a significant military role beyond training, communications, VIP transport, and SAR.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Never seen anything in the Royal Navy with those paint colours.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Perhaps in the case of the Widgeon/Gosling, they can be excused. They weren't part of any procurement plans. They flew, they were around, they got drafted.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I don't know if those 2 were or weren't in any procurement plan.
I think one of the Widgeon's problems is that is really overshadowed by the Goose which was a little larger, but better engined and did have a significant role in the war. I think the Widgeon's problem is that it was underpowered. If you look at it postwar, there are quite a few engine upgrades.
I came across a couple references to that paint job. I am definitely not an expert in Royal Navy paint jobs of the time, but looking at what I can quickly find it appears to be a "West Indies" camouflage scheme. Here is a link to that particular aircraft with more information (also a screen shot) as well as some other schemes.
Aircraft Photo of N44CH / FP469 | Grumman G-44A Widgeon | UK - Navy | AirHistory.net #173146
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Reap:
I would not be impressed with the P-38 built to the modifications that the British insisted Lockheed incorporate. Handling qualities without counter rotating engines doom Lockheed's design fronm the start. At least the RAF would have had a long range high altitude fighter.
I realize that the UC-1, TwinBee isn't a military aircraft but being a Amphibious plane it has much the same problems as the others. I flight instruct in one and they are under powered and the systems are difficult to maintain. Also they take quite a beating on water operation so things are prone to failure. The hulls also tend to leak from the water beating landing at 70Kts.
They are fun but to work in one in a military environment would be difficult. Thank god for Helicopters in today's world.
They are fun but to work in one in a military environment would be difficult. Thank god for Helicopters in today's world.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I thought it was the French who ordered them were the ones to insist on the changes
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I have never seen a cream and lime green colour scheme outside of a bowl of pistachio and vanilla ice cream
I think this Widgeon is not authentic in more ways than one: Look at the engines, flat opposed. The original Widgeon had inverted in-line engines. As far I know those conversions were post war.
I wonder if the Lightning got deprecated by the RAF as soon as the Mosquito appeared on the scene or promised to. Same may have applied to american built amphibians: The UK had Supermarine and Short, both producing highly sucessful flying boats / amphibians. I like the Widgeon, thinking it is one of the prettiest smallish amphibians around.
And a short off-topic, please let´s not dwell on this: If you want to get a touching direct picture of the complete disorganization of France at the time of the German invasion, get Antoine de Saint-Exupery´s masterpiece "Flight to Arras."
I wonder if the Lightning got deprecated by the RAF as soon as the Mosquito appeared on the scene or promised to. Same may have applied to american built amphibians: The UK had Supermarine and Short, both producing highly sucessful flying boats / amphibians. I like the Widgeon, thinking it is one of the prettiest smallish amphibians around.
And a short off-topic, please let´s not dwell on this: If you want to get a touching direct picture of the complete disorganization of France at the time of the German invasion, get Antoine de Saint-Exupery´s masterpiece "Flight to Arras."
Last edited:
The Lightning got deprecated by the British as soon as they saw the dive speed limitations.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
That one has been converted from Ranger to Continental or Lycoming engines
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Yes, that is true, but that was sometime after the French and British ordered the Lightning. Not sure if the British just went along with the French insisting non-counter rotating Allisons. The French and British were listed in the same sentence describing the engine change. Not sure if they both insisted, or that the British just went along with the idea. The reasoning was that they already had or were getting Allison engined P-40s (Tomahawks?).
Yeah, this lines up with wot's said in the books. According to Air Arsenal North America Aircraft For The Allies 1938 - 1945 Purchases and Lend Lease by Butler and Hagedorn (Midland, 2004):
"The Lockheed 322 (P-38) was ordered in two versions, the first 143 aircraft with the mechanically supercharged V-1710-C15 engines to provide commonality with the powerplant of the Bell Airacobra and Curtiss Hawk 81A, and the balance with V-1710-F5 engines having single-stage turbosuperchargers...
"The main reason for the use of mechanically supercharged engines was the limited production capacity for turbosuperchargers, which had been reserved for USAAC orders."
Initial allocations as written on paper were 250 British and 417 French Lightnings. The British order was initially placed with the British Purchasing Commission directly for the RAF, but the French set up their own version of this and both combined their requests under the joint organisation. Only three of the aircraft ordered got to the UK from this initial order and only one was evaluated by the A&AEE - Lightning Mk.I AF106. Their view was that the aircraft was pleasant enough to fly, but its performance was restricted to 300mph and it had no armament and trials involved only a brief assessment of its performance:
"Handling was pleasant, although the elevator was heavy, the stall at 78mph (flaps and undercarriage down) straightforward, and flying on one engine comfortable and without foot loads down to 115mph. The red and green colouring of the engine controls was praised as was the tricycle undercarriage."
The examination of the aircraft was purely out of interest as the RAF had already rejected the Lightning Mk.I on the basis of its poor high altitude and speed characteristics, discovered by RAF pilots over in the USA. This is contrary to what is often claimed, in that the aircraft was rejected based on its A&AEE reports, but by the time AF106 got to Boscombe Down in April 1942, the RAF had already made a decision on the type.
wuzak
Captain
No, they would not.
Apart from only getting a handful of the "castrated" Lightning Is, the order for 300 or 400 Lighning IIs (with turbos and handed engines) was taken over by the USAAF when the USA entered the war.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
The holding back of the turbo supercharges very likely also soured the deal.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
