Carrier Islands

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:

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..

Thanks Andy, interesting...
--

-Gord.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:B7Ztb.171248$9E1.880881@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

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?

Not single-engine, not a twin, no counter-rotating props, and never
operated
from a carrier...

Never?

LOL

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

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" wrote:
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:

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..

Thanks Andy, interesting...

There's a photograph I've seen somewhere (not in Brown, though he used
it at his talk at the symposium on 'carrier aviation at Yeovilton a
year ago) of Furious in the 1920s which makes the point about smoke
interference (and thus the need for something like an island, if
only a Glorious-or-Courageous type island which more or less just
consisted of the funnel) - essentially a huge, hideous clous
of opaque black smoke emerging from under the aft round-down.
Seeing where the carrier was would be dam; near impossible,
never mind the hot plume and eddies. Having a flush deck and smoke
ducts was also said to have cost Furious 10 aircraft as compared to
Glorious and Courageous.
The island was one of those truely brilliant ideas.

--
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)

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What, like a P-3?

Not single-engine, not a twin, no counter-rotating props, and
never operated from a carrier...

Never?

LOL

The P-3 Orion? Never.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:l7aub.170253$mZ5.1193885@attbi_s54...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What, like a P-3?

Not single-engine, not a twin, no counter-rotating props, and
never operated from a carrier...

Never?

LOL

The P-3 Orion? Never.

OK then.

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

snip

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..

OP jumping in to say thanks to all participants for the input.
Coincidentally, I've been engaged in an email discussion about rotary
engines, with a friend, albeit naval aircraft have not - yet - come into
play, there. Too bad I wasn't capable of adding two and two (rotary
torque-turning and my carrier question) and getting four, myself.
Again, I appreciate the responses.

--
Thomas Winston Ping

"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.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
:


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:B7Ztb.171248$9E1.880881@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

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?

Not single-engine, not a twin, no counter-rotating props, and never
operated from a carrier...

Never?

LOL

I assume you have some sort of evidence that a 140,000lb airplane that
needs 4,000+ft of runway was somehow able to operate off of a carrier,
right?

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