In article ,
Thomas W Ping wrote:
Are there aviation-related reasons why the starboard side is favored
for the island, or is it a purely naval issue? If the latter, did the
practice come about because the first pioneering carriers were
arbitrarily drawn up that way and the configuration simply stuck as a
matter of tradition, or were there more significant reasons for the
convention?

The first 'carrier - Argus - was designed to have two islands,
one on either side of the flight deck. One island was certainly
fitted to her (Beardmore were a very progressive firm and used
a lot of prefabrication) and the other one got at least as far
as the quayside and may have been fitted as well (there's a
nice picture in David Brown's indispensable "THe Grand Fleet"
of Argus with an island fitted and one on the dockside), before
wind-tunnel tests of a model of the ship showed that airflow
over the deck would make two islands a menace. Argus completed
with a flush deck, which led to a very hot after end to the
hanger deck (from the smoke ducts) and a big plume of hot
fumes and smoke right where it wasn't wanted - coming out
under the aft end of the flight deck. Must have been managable,
as Argus went on to become the only ship to serve as a true,
flight deck carrier in both big mistakes, but it certainly
wasn't ideal - and the problems were going to be worse in
a higher powered ship (as Furious amply demonstrated).
Accordingly, Goodall - who headed the aircraft carrier
section of naval construction - was looking for another way
of getting the smoke out. Streamlined central funnels were
considered (there's a picture of a model built to wind-tunnel
test a possible Furious conversion in "The Grand Fleet"),
but the eddies cast by them were nasty - remember that the
'carrier aircraft of the day was the Sopwith Pup, with all
of 80bhp. A single island allowed the ship to be steered so
that the eddies were shed outboard. As to putting the island
on the starboard side - the Pup (and the Camel) had rotary
engines, so turned much better one way than the other.
Putting the island to starboard when the aircraft turned
best to port meant more chance of aborting a landing
without impacting the island.
Argus was trialled with a mocked-up canvas-and-tube island
and it worked - in fact, pilots found it easier landing with
a structure to one side to help judge their height. After
that the designs for Eagle and Hermes were amended to
include a single starboard-side island (not sure how they'd
been originally planned to complete).
Once carriers were operational with starboard-side islands
and pilots had got used to it, the inadvisability of
swapping everything around to no good reason ensured they stayed
on that side.
As to other nations - well, Goodall was on loan to the USN
at the time they started getting into 'carrier aviation with
the conversion of Langley, so it's likely that there was
a deal of experience from Argus passed on then. The IJN's
carrier development owed a huge amount to British experience,
transferred both officially and - later - illictly - and
besides, their early 'carrier aeroplanes had rotary engines
too (and were of British design), so they were pushed in
the same direction.

The Japanese *did * try port-side islands in some 1920s ships,
with the intention of operating them in pairs with starboard-
side-island ships: the idea was to minimise interference
between the flights operated. It didn't work that well, and
wasn't repeated.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)