Carrier Islands

In article , Bob McKellar
writes


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?

--
Thomas Winston Ping

A somewhat silly what-if:

Since the idea of using an angled deck is quite simple ( though brilliant,
even if it did come from them Brits ) what would have been different if it
had been used from the beginning?

A very sensible what-if, but at some time someone would have suggested
an observation tower of some sort, on an angled deck or straight.

Re. the angled deck (invented by a brilliant and modest Brit, who had an
excellent relationship with the USN dating from his wartime service in
Washington) it seems that when aircraft carriers were first conceived,
and aircraft speeds were very low, putting a straight runway on a ship
seemed simple and obvious. Only when aircraft speeds became much higher
did the problems of overrunning on landing manifest themselves. Even
then, with the naval aviation world seemingly fixated on the straight
deck, other schemes were considered first, including the rubber mat
landing strip, and even a two-storey concept with aircraft landing on
the top layer. When the angled deck was first suggested at an MoD
committee in London, the response was amusement and mild derision, but
to their credit the USN reacted at once to the idea and painted an
angled deck on a carrier within weeks.

As a beginning guess, I would say fewer crashes into islands, parked
aircraft etc.,

Agree that one...

and more losses to planes dribbling off the end of the
angle unable to regain flight.

Not necessarily - unable to regain flight in the old days seems to have
been mostly caused by late or over-cautious application of throttle.

Bob McKellar


Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Seraphim wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
news
"William Hughes" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 03:22:34 GMT, in rec.aviation.military "Gord
Beaman" ) wrote:
William Hughes 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 whole day. Hence, the island was placed on the
other side of the filght deck.

So what does one do in an a/c which has an engine turning the
opposite way?...

And which aircraft would that be? AFAIK, all aircraft engines
rotated the same way - clockwise from the pilot's point-of-view. At
least on single-engine birds; some twins may have had
counter-rotating props, but I don't think they operated from
carrier decks all that much.

What, like a P-3?

The P-3 doesn't have counter-rotating props, and AFAIK operates from land
bases.

So your point about the P-3 was?

Come on, it's the Tarver bot. Coherence is unexpected, much less a
point.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

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

And which aircraft would that be? AFAIK, all aircraft engines rotated the same
way - clockwise from the pilot's point-of-view. At least on single-engine birds;
some twins may have had counter-rotating props, but I don't think they operated
from carrier decks all that much.

As posted, British aircraft engines turned to the left, or
anti-clockwise as seen from the cockpit.

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

You are aware of the meaning of "AFAIK", are you not? If I am incorrect, you are
invited to enlighten me. Post snide comments, with no correcting information,
does not advance the discussion.

That was your second posting. The first one had no qualification.

Consider yourself enlightened.


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

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" wrote:
William Hughes 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
whole day. Hence, the island was placed on the other side of the filght deck.

So what does one do in an a/c which has an engine turning the
opposite way?...

You have a problem ;0
However, the island ended up where it still is because of the direction
the prop (and engine block) revolved in the Sopwith Pup, Camel and
such things as the Parnell Panther, all of which used Clerget or Bentley
rotary engines which swung in the same direction. Once ships were in
service with islands (by which time the rotary-engined aircraft
were gone from service..) and pilots had got used to them there
was no real advantage in making the change to islands on the opposite
side of the ship (prop. direction might not have changed in the
a/c, but to be honest I'm not that well informed on how the direction of
prop. revolution on output from a Napier Lion - Fairey III & so on -
or Armstrong-Siddley Jaguar - Fairey Flycatcher - compared with
that of the Bentley BR2..).
Islands were needed for fast carriers to get the smoke out without
obstructing the hanger deck, a single island was required so that
eddies from the island could be shed outboard instead of across
the flight deck, and the side chosen for the island was determined
by the turning characteristics of rotary-engined biplanes. Once
the island was on the starboard side, the longer life of ships
than aeroplanes ensured it stayed there..

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

In article ,
Dave Eadsforth wrote:
In article , Bob McKellar
and aircraft speeds were very low, putting a straight runway on a ship
seemed simple and obvious. Only when aircraft speeds became much higher
did the problems of overrunning on landing manifest themselves. Even

Exactly. Take-off run and landing distance weren't the problems -
Pups or Camels could take off from the foredeck of Furious (or
of Campania, for that matter) without trouble, and their landing
speeds were so low that there wasn't hardly any landing run (modus
operandi in the Furious trials seems to have been for several large chaps
to grab hold of the aircraft as it landed, more or less - the difficulty
was more of keeping it on the deck than stopping it). The problem
was eddiesthrown off from superstructure, which did really bad things
for the small, light, low-powered aircraft of the time (especially
as they didn't really have any throttle control - you had to blip
the engine on & off for landing). The island was a brilliant
solution to this problem (proposed by Murray Seuter, IIRC) which
allowed for uptakes well away from the approach path and an
easy way of casting any eddies away from the flight deck.
It wasn't until quite a lot later that take off and landing
distances became the issue - maybe with the Hawker Osprey/
Nimrod generation in the 1930s for fighters, earlier for attack
a/c. Certainly Furious, Glorious and Courageous still had their
low-level foredeck launching decks for flying off fighters
straight from the hanger in the early 30s.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 03:22:34 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

William Hughes 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
whole day. Hence, the island was placed on the other side of the filght deck.

So what does one do in an a/c which has an engine turning the
opposite way?...

Pray

Al Minyard

William Hughes wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:30:18 GMT, in rec.aviation.military "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
William Hughes wrote:


So what does one do in an a/c which has an engine turning the
opposite way?...

And which aircraft would that be? AFAIK, all aircraft engines rotated the same
way - clockwise from the pilot's point-of-view.

You think so?...amazing indeed...you sound most assured...I'd
have felt damned uneasy if it had been me making that big bald
statement to the whole world. WooHoo.

You are aware of the meaning of "AFAIK", are you not? If I am incorrect, you are
invited to enlighten me. Post snide comments, with no correcting information,
does not advance the discussion.


Nor does your snide remark of "And which a/c would that be".

Of course I know AFIK...I merely objected to the abruptness of
your remark that's all.

We're mostly mature people here and sharp remarks (or those
which can be mistaken for them) aren't needed.

Now then, I don't know which a/c have right turning and which
have left turning engines but I've certainly heard of both.
--

-Gord.