Carrier Islands

AFAIK it's mainly because landing approaches (both land & sea) include a
final left turn. If the islands were on the port side of the ship the LSO
would loose sight of the plane (blocked by the island) and the pilote would
loose sight of the deck for a second or two, and that's enough to have a
major screw-up.
Any other explanation??
--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info


"Thomas W Ping" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
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?

--
Thomas Winston Ping

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:17:32 +0100, in rec.aviation.military "Pierre-Henri
Baras" wrote:
On 16 Nov 2003 07:15:07 GMT, in rec.aviation.military 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?

AFAIK it's mainly because landing approaches (both land & sea) include a
final left turn. If the islands were on the port side of the ship the LSO
would loose sight of the plane (blocked by the island) and the pilote would
loose sight of the deck for a second or two, and that's enough to have a
major screw-up.
Any other explanation??

Remember, the LSO was stationed behind the island, so losing sight of the
aircraft was not a problem.

Early piston aircraft had a lot of torque generated by the engine. In a wave-off
situation, the sharp increase in power would roll the aircraft slightly to port.
Combined with pulling back on the stick to gain altitude, this would result in a
climbing left turn. Having an island in the way when doing this could ruin your
whole day. Hence, the island was placed on the other side of the filght deck.

Early piston aircraft had a lot of torque generated by the engine. In a wave-off
situation, the sharp increase in power would roll the aircraft slightly to port.
Combined with pulling back on the stick to gain altitude, this would result in a
climbing left turn. Having an island in the way when doing this could ruin your

If so, then British carriers would have the island to port. Do they?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:37:15 -0500, in rec.aviation.military Cub Driver
wrote:


Early piston aircraft had a lot of torque generated by the engine. In a wave-off
situation, the sharp increase in power would roll the aircraft slightly to port.
Combined with pulling back on the stick to gain altitude, this would result in a
climbing left turn. Having an island in the way when doing this could ruin your

If so, then British carriers would have the island to port. Do they?

Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as the
American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as the
American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

No, British aircraft engines turned the other way. Still do, I
believe.

They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as
the
American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

No, British aircraft engines turned the other way. Still do, I
believe.

They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.


The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as

the

American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

No, British aircraft engines turned the other way. Still do, I
believe.

They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.



The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.


The supercharger supplied (actually just a low pressure
blower) was what was specified by the British, and what
was a standard feature on the Allison. The Allison was
intended to use a separate turbosupercharger for high
altitude work, but the British didn't feel that high
altitude performance was necessary at the time they
wrote the specification. In addition, turbosuperchargers
were not a high-volume production item, so including
them might have delayed deliver. By the time the aircraft
were delivered, however, the RAF had learned through
experience that high altitude performance was indeed
important.

The poor handling of the aircraft, however, was
indeed due to the fitting of same-direction rotating
engine and propeller combinations, which was done
to minimize the logistics tail, by using an engine
which was already in use by the RAF (in export
P-40s, IIRC). This engine also developed less
horsepower, even at sea level, than did the
V-1710F series engine used in all P-38s since
the XP.

A final possible reason for the British refusing
to accept the Lightning (and especially the
follow-on Lightning II, with turbosupercharging
and counter-rotating V-1710F engines) was due to
the method under which they were ordered. The
original order for these aircraft was prior
to lend-lease coming into being, and the British
would have had to pay cash for them, unlike
other aircraft ordered later. Given the
changed requirements making the Lightning I
less useful than expected, and the availability
of other aircraft under lend-lease, buying
the aircraft probably didn't seem a very
economical way to spend their treasure. The
Lightning II, if not for the cash requirement,
probably would have been very useful to the
British.

Mike

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.

The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.

While this is true, the previos Dan was correct. The P-38 had significant
tail flutter problems with "inword" rotateing engines. This was fixed on
American P-38's by having the engines rotate "outword" in opposite
directions, however the British version had two engines which in addition
to lacking the General Electric B-5 turbosuperchargers also rotated in
the same direction. This lead to one of the engines generating the same
effect that had been a problem with the P-38 prototypes.

The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.

How would you like to have to turn a fighter to the left to avoid a
Japanese fighter when you have two 1200-hp Allisons pouring on the
torque to the right? This was an all-but-impossible task.

I think your grasp of the subject leaves something to be desired,
Keith. British engines did turn anti-clockwise as seen from the
cockpit; the export Lightning was all but useless as a result of two
engines turning the same way; and carrier islands to starboard had
little or nothing to do with engine rotation.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as
the
American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

No, British aircraft engines turned the other way. Still do, I
believe.

They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.


The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.

The unhanded engines and the lack of the turbos were both
serious errors.