Carrier Islands

[Thomas W Ping]

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

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

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

[William Hughes]

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.

[Grantland]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > top-posted rudely:

>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

They should hang the damn obstacle wayyyyyy out on an arm-type thingie
like a cupola on a curved eyestalk. Major deckspace and safety
plusses. And where's the bimaran composite carrier, eh? Eh? Losers.

Genyav
>
>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
>
>

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

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)

[Bob McKellar]

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?

As a beginning guess, I would say fewer crashes into islands, parked
aircraft etc., and more losses to planes dribbling off the end of the
angle unable to regain flight.

Bob McKellar

[Gerdeus]

> Bob McKellar

> 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?

> As a beginning guess, I would say fewer crashes into islands, parked
> aircraft etc., and more losses to planes dribbling off the end of the
> angle unable to regain flight.

Duh.

[WDA]

During World War II the Japanese had carriers with right side islands and
carriers with left side islands.

WDA

end

"Thomas W Ping" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Cub Driver]

When Akagi was rebuilt in 1938, she had an island on the port side.
When Kaga was rebuilt in 1934, she had an island to starboard.
Previously they (and other early Japanese carriers) had no island at
all.

The island didn't serve as a venue for smokestacks. Instead, the
stacks were vented to the side and down.

There are later Japanese carriers with the island to port and also to
starboard.

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]

>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

[William Hughes]

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.

[WaltBJ]

Don't know much about boats but doesn't the ship crossing from the
starboard - the right - have the right of way, so it's a navigation
thing? But the torque reaction is a good reason, too; I've seen
Hellcats wrapped up in a tight left bank from too enthusiastic power
application when the drones (and chase) were flying out of Naha in the
late 50's.
Walt BJ

[[email protected]]

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?...
--

-Gord.

[William Hughes]

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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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?

[[email protected]]

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.
--

-Gord.

[John R Weiss]

"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...

So, "like" what?

[Seraphim]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in
:

>
> "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?

[William Hughes]

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.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article <B7Ztb.171248$9E1.880881@attbi_s52>,
John R Weiss > wrote:
>"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...
>
>So, "like" what?

The De Havilland Sea Hornet was a twin with the props revolving in
opposite directions and that operated from carriers (as, of course,
was the Gannet :), but that wasn't until *long* after the location of
the island was a done deal.

--
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)

[Dave Eadsforth]

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

[Marc Reeve]

Seraphim > wrote:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in
> :
> > "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

[Cub Driver]

>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]

>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

[Cub Driver]

>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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >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

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

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)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

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)

[Alan Minyard]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

(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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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

[Michael Williamson]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>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

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

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)

[John R Weiss]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Thomas W Ping]

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

[Seraphim]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 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.

[Seraphim]

"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?

[Cub Driver]

>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

[John R Weiss]

"Seraphim" > wrote...
> "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

> 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?

Lack of evidence never stopped Tarver from posting drivel...

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >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.
>

You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning
and the RAF never tried to do so.

> I think your grasp of the subject leaves something to be desired,
> Keith. British engines did turn anti-clockwise as seen from the
> cockpit;

I never said otherwise.

> the export Lightning was all but useless as a result of two
> engines turning the same way;

That was not the reason the RAF rejected them however, they
did so because of the extremely poor performance achievable
with the engines supplied. I am aware that was what the British
purchasing commission ordered but the factory guaranteed a
minimum speed of 400 mph at 16,900 ft with the original engines.
As the aircraft as delievered could barely achieve 350 mph it
was rejected by the RAF.

The USAAF took over the 140 aircraft remaining and even after
fitting handed engines relegated them to a training role.

> and carrier islands to starboard had
> little or nothing to do with engine rotation.
>

They did in 1918 when the Island location was fixed
on the 1st generation carriers and of course P-38's didnt operate
from carriers so their situation is irrelevant.

Keith

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:bSbub.175559$ao4.582418@attbi_s51...
> "Seraphim" > wrote...
> > "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
>
> > 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?
>
> Lack of evidence never stopped Tarver from posting drivel...

Weiss once again misses a subtle reference and craps himself.

[John Keeney]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >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.

[John Keeney]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:bSbub.175559$ao4.582418@attbi_s51...
> > "Seraphim" > wrote...
> > > "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
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Lack of evidence never stopped Tarver from posting drivel...
>
> Weiss once again misses a subtle reference and craps himself.

Well, you obviously are thinking of a P-3 other than the Lockheed Orion.
As far as I know the USAAC Curtiss P-3 never found its way on board, nor
would that been its designation in the Navy system of old. Even ignoring
the inappropriateness of the "-", looks like none of the P3(whatever) planes
from the US Navy did either.
Am I missing some other than American type?
Or are you by chance thing of the P-2 Neptune which was a twin and did
operate in a limited sense from flattops?

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>

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

Perhaps but the fact remains that the aircraft as delivered did not
meet the manufacturers claimed performance specification.

The second batch of aircraft (Lightning II) would have included
the turbos, one of the reasons they were omitted from the first
batch was reportedly that there was considered to be a serious
risk of delay due to shortage of turbochargers.

Its also worth recalling that the RAF accepted into service
other aircraft using un-turbocharged Allison engines. They
were rather happy with the Kittyhawks and Mustang I
despite their altitude limitations.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:22:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning

Before I put you in the kill file, Keith, let me remind you that
AmericanLightning pilots did in fact out-maneuver Japanese fighters by
chopping one engine and firewalling the other.

Now: plonk!

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]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:22:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning
>
> Before I put you in the kill file, Keith, let me remind you that
> AmericanLightning pilots did in fact out-maneuver Japanese fighters by
> chopping one engine and firewalling the other.
>
> Now: plonk!
>

How sad

Keith

[John R Weiss]

"John Keeney" > wrote...
>
> Or are you by chance thing of the P-2 Neptune which was a twin and did
> operate in a limited sense from flattops?

No counter-rotating props there, either...

[Kirk Stant]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >
> As posted, British aircraft engines turned to the left, or
> anti-clockwise as seen from the cockpit.

Not true at all. Merlins turn one way (clockwise from cockpit - as do
most US engines), Griffons, Centaurus's, and Hercules's (Tempest 2,
Sea Fury, Beaufighter) turn the other way, as does the smaller DH
Gypsy engine used by the Tiger Moth, for example. Many smaller
Russian and Czech engines turn counter-clockwise, but it looks like
the bigger WW2 Russian fighter engines turned clockwise. I think most
German WW2 engines turn clockwise - at least the main DB, BWM, and
Jumo ones appear to. I think big Japanese engines are clockwise,
also.

And that is the basic engine - "handed" Merlins used on Hornets, I
believe, and of course Griffons also were made with contraprops.

So unless you are looking at the prop, you can't be sure. And make
sure the photo you are looking at hasn't been reversed!

So as far as carrier islands are concerned, the Seafire had both
Merlin (clockwise) and Griffon (counterrotating) engines, Sea Furies
had Centaurus (counter-clockwise) rotating engines, and Fireflies had
Griffon (counter-clockwise) engines. And of course, all the US
carrier planes (Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger, etc) had clockwise
R-1820, R-1830, R-2600, and R-2800 engines.

Kirk

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"John Keeney" > wrote...
>>
>> Or are you by chance thing of the P-2 Neptune which was a twin and did
>> operate in a limited sense from flattops?
>
>No counter-rotating props there, either...

Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

(Kirk Stant) wrote:

>Cub Driver > wrote in message >
>> As posted, British aircraft engines turned to the left, or
>> anti-clockwise as seen from the cockpit.
>
>Not true at all. Merlins turn one way (clockwise from cockpit - as do
>most US engines), Griffons, Centaurus's, and Hercules's (Tempest 2,
>Sea Fury, Beaufighter) turn the other way, as does the smaller DH
>Gypsy engine used by the Tiger Moth, for example. Many smaller
>Russian and Czech engines turn counter-clockwise, but it looks like
>the bigger WW2 Russian fighter engines turned clockwise. I think most
>German WW2 engines turn clockwise - at least the main DB, BWM, and
>Jumo ones appear to. I think big Japanese engines are clockwise,
>also.
>
>And that is the basic engine - "handed" Merlins used on Hornets, I
>believe, and of course Griffons also were made with contraprops.
>
>So unless you are looking at the prop, you can't be sure. And make
>sure the photo you are looking at hasn't been reversed!
>
>So as far as carrier islands are concerned, the Seafire had both
>Merlin (clockwise) and Griffon (counterrotating) engines, Sea Furies
>had Centaurus (counter-clockwise) rotating engines, and Fireflies had
>Griffon (counter-clockwise) engines. And of course, all the US
>carrier planes (Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger, etc) had clockwise
>R-1820, R-1830, R-2600, and R-2800 engines.
>
>Kirk

Now, just to be a ****-disturber I'll mention that you can't
always tell which way the engine turns by looking at the prop
either...most yes, not all...
--

-Gord.

[Michael Williamson]

Keith Willshaw wrote:


>>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.
>>
>
>
> You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning
> and the RAF never tried to do so.
>

Well, the RAF never even tried to fly a Lightning in combat, so
the argument is rather irrelevant in this case one way or the
other. I must note, however, that at high speeds many allied
aircraft could out maneuver most Japanese aircraft due to their
relatively poor high speed characteristics and slower top speeds.

>
> > the export Lightning was all but useless as a result of two
>
>>engines turning the same way;
>
>
> That was not the reason the RAF rejected them however, they
> did so because of the extremely poor performance achievable
> with the engines supplied. I am aware that was what the British
> purchasing commission ordered but the factory guaranteed a
> minimum speed of 400 mph at 16,900 ft with the original engines.
> As the aircraft as delievered could barely achieve 350 mph it
> was rejected by the RAF.

Lockheed's representative claimed that the aircraft met the
speed specifications, and the only thing that prevented a
very nasty court battle turned out to be the entry of the
United States into the war, at which point they simply swept
up all of the aircraft on the order. I believe that the two
main reasons were changed British requirements (high altitude
becoming much more important in the interim) and the
cash-based terms of the contract. I may be mistaken, as I
don't have the reference handy, but I believe that Ethel's
book stated that the British decided to reject the order
before receiving the first aircraft for performance testing.
In addition to the above, they were apparently much
put off the two-engine interceptor/fighter idea by
their experience with twin engined fighters they had
already seen in action (Bf-110 leaps to mind). One
other complaint (not covered in the contract
specifications) which was voiced was the existence
of high speed buffet. This appeared in the XP, IIRC,
and was diagnosed as due to prop wash on the inward
turning engines, which was eliminated by swapping them
side to side but which the Lightning I resurrected
with its single engine rotation scheme. This also
could be the buffet problem which was later solved
by the addition of the leading edge fillets at the
central fuselage joint.


> The USAAF took over the 140 aircraft remaining and even after
> fitting handed engines relegated them to a training role.

They still didn't have superchargers, and various systems
differences between Lightning I's and stock versions would have
required something akin to a full rebuild, making them
unsuitable as service birds (too expensive and time consuming
to rework, and requiring a different logistics chain than
what was going to be found in all the service birds). The
Lightning IIs were almost identical to the American versions
on the production line, and were rather easily reworked as
P-38G's, IIRC.

Mike

[Keith Willshaw]

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in
message ...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> >>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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning
> > and the RAF never tried to do so.
> >
>
> Well, the RAF never even tried to fly a Lightning in combat, so
> the argument is rather irrelevant in this case one way or the
> other. I must note, however, that at high speeds many allied
> aircraft could out maneuver most Japanese aircraft due to their
> relatively poor high speed characteristics and slower top speeds.
>

My reading suggests that the use of high speed slashing attacks
was the standard tactic and attempting to dogfight the Japanese
fighters was a serious and often fatal error.

> >
> > > the export Lightning was all but useless as a result of two
> >
> >>engines turning the same way;
> >
> >
> > That was not the reason the RAF rejected them however, they
> > did so because of the extremely poor performance achievable
> > with the engines supplied. I am aware that was what the British
> > purchasing commission ordered but the factory guaranteed a
> > minimum speed of 400 mph at 16,900 ft with the original engines.
> > As the aircraft as delievered could barely achieve 350 mph it
> > was rejected by the RAF.
>
> Lockheed's representative claimed that the aircraft met the
> speed specifications, and the only thing that prevented a
> very nasty court battle turned out to be the entry of the
> United States into the war, at which point they simply swept
> up all of the aircraft on the order.

I'd hardly expect the Lockheed rep to say otherwise but its
worth pointing out that the aircraft that passed to the USAAF
were mostly relegated to training duties. The testing done at
Boscombe Down was pretty rigorous however


> I believe that the two
> main reasons were changed British requirements (high altitude
> becoming much more important in the interim) and the
> cash-based terms of the contract.

The revised high altitude requirements were met by amending the
contract to include turbo supercharged engines in the second
batch of 500 aircraft and in the same period they were buying
other US aircraft such as the Mustang I and Kittyhawk (P-40D)
in considerable numbers.


> I may be mistaken, as I
> don't have the reference handy, but I believe that Ethel's
> book stated that the British decided to reject the order
> before receiving the first aircraft for performance testing.

No they tested three aircraft in March 1942, AF105 was sent to the
Cunliffe-Owen
Aircraft Limited at Swaythling, Southampton for examination and
experiments. AF106 was sent to the A&AEE at Boscombe Down
for flight evaluation. AF107 went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment
at Farnborough for experiments and evaluation.

All three described the performance of the aircraft delivered as
poor and recommended against its introduction into squadron service

> In addition to the above, they were apparently much
> put off the two-engine interceptor/fighter idea by
> their experience with twin engined fighters they had
> already seen in action (Bf-110 leaps to mind). One
> other complaint (not covered in the contract
> specifications) which was voiced was the existence
> of high speed buffet. This appeared in the XP, IIRC,
> and was diagnosed as due to prop wash on the inward
> turning engines, which was eliminated by swapping them
> side to side but which the Lightning I resurrected
> with its single engine rotation scheme. This also
> could be the buffet problem which was later solved
> by the addition of the leading edge fillets at the
> central fuselage joint.
>
>
> > The USAAF took over the 140 aircraft remaining and even after
> > fitting handed engines relegated them to a training role.
>
> They still didn't have superchargers, and various systems
> differences between Lightning I's and stock versions would have
> required something akin to a full rebuild, making them
> unsuitable as service birds (too expensive and time consuming
> to rework, and requiring a different logistics chain than
> what was going to be found in all the service birds). The
> Lightning IIs were almost identical to the American versions
> on the production line, and were rather easily reworked as
> P-38G's, IIRC.
>

According to Baugher only one Lightning II was ever completed
It was taken over by the USAAF as P-38F-13-10, painted with US
national markings, but retained its British serial number.

The fact that the Lightning I's with handed engines were not
considered combat capable by the USAAF rather reinforces
my point that it was the inadequate performance of the non
supercharged engines rather than the handing that was the
major problem.

A great many high performance twin engined aircraft that
had both engines turning the same way were rather successful.

In RAF service the Gloster Whirlwind, Mosquito and Beaufighter
all come to mind.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>In RAF service the Gloster Whirlwind, Mosquito and Beaufighter
>all come to mind.

*Westland* Whirlwind - one of the products of the brilliant but
erratic Teddy Petter. Gloster did have a design which was a competitor
for the same spec. - using two Bristol Perseus, IIRC - but it wasn't
selected.

Ob. carriers: The De Havilland Sea Mosquito, using two merlins turning
the same way, had no problems operating from 'carriers. The Sea Hornet
did have handed engines, however.

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

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
> writes
>In article >,
>Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>>
>>In RAF service the Gloster Whirlwind, Mosquito and Beaufighter
>>all come to mind.
>
>*Westland* Whirlwind - one of the products of the brilliant but
>erratic Teddy Petter. Gloster did have a design which was a competitor
>for the same spec. - using two Bristol Perseus, IIRC - but it wasn't
>selected.
>
>Ob. carriers: The De Havilland Sea Mosquito, using two merlins turning
>the same way, had no problems operating from 'carriers.

Guess that arrester hook stopped the wheel shimmy... :-)

>The Sea Hornet
>did have handed engines, however.
>
The last museum worthy example of which was seen departing off the end
of a carrier (unmanned and engines stopped) as a catapult test.

Ye Gods...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[John Keeney]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:22:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning
>
> Before I put you in the kill file, Keith, let me remind you that
> AmericanLightning pilots did in fact out-maneuver Japanese fighters by
> chopping one engine and firewalling the other.
>
> Now: plonk!

Dan, you seem to have suffered a sever attitude change lately.
Something wrong?

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Dave Eadsforth > wrote:
>In article >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
>>The Sea Hornet
>>did have handed engines, however.
>>
>The last museum worthy example of which was seen departing off the end
>of a carrier (unmanned and engines stopped) as a catapult test.

Should have used the bugger who suggested it instead. IMO.

--
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]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> > news:bSbub.175559$ao4.582418@attbi_s51...
> > > "Seraphim" > wrote...
> > > > "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
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Lack of evidence never stopped Tarver from posting drivel...
> >
> > Weiss once again misses a subtle reference and craps himself.
>
> Well, you obviously are thinking of a P-3 other than the Lockheed Orion.

No, I was teasing Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Weiss once again misses a subtle reference and craps himself.
>>
>> Well, you obviously are thinking of a P-3 other than the Lockheed Orion.
>
>No, I was teasing Gord.
>
Musta been so deep that it went humming right over my
head...cripes, that's been happening lately...hummm...
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Weiss once again misses a subtle reference and craps himself.
> >>
> >> Well, you obviously are thinking of a P-3 other than the Lockheed
Orion.
> >
> >No, I was teasing Gord.
> >
> Musta been so deep that it went humming right over my
> head...cripes, that's been happening lately...hummm...

Quite a large on topic churn here lately.

[Cub Driver]

>Dan, you seem to have suffered a sever attitude change lately.
>Something wrong?

Not at all! In fact, things are looking better and better: this Keith
guy I plonked took out 318 postings with him! Can you imagine how
much extra time that gives me each day?

I highly recommend Forte Agent to readers of this newsgroup, and a
generous use of its filtering capabilities. For $25 you are spared all
kinds of trash.

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

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
> writes
>In article >,
>Dave Eadsforth > wrote:
>>In article >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
>>>The Sea Hornet
>>>did have handed engines, however.
>>>
>>The last museum worthy example of which was seen departing off the end
>>of a carrier (unmanned and engines stopped) as a catapult test.
>
>Should have used the bugger who suggested it instead. IMO.
>
And I'm sure that the only debate we would have had would be which part
of his anatomy we would avail ourselves of to attach the strop...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:01:55 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>"John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
>>"John Keeney" > wrote...
>>>
>>> Or are you by chance thing of the P-2 Neptune which was a twin and did
>>> operate in a limited sense from flattops?
>>
>>No counter-rotating props there, either...
>
>Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.

Actually, the P-2V Neptune was a twin.

Al MInyard

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:01:55 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
--cut--
>>
>>Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.
>
>Actually, the P-2V Neptune was a twin.
>
>Al MInyard
>

Yes AL, as my 'very few' indicated...most had four engines
eventually though.

When the RCAF got them in 1955 (P2V-7) they indeed were twins, I
logged about 110 hours in that configuration then later they were
fitted with the jets.


--

-Gord.

[Ron]

>>Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.
>
>Actually, the P-2V Neptune was a twin.
>
>Al MInyard
>

Depends which model of the P2V


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[QDurham]

>Depends which model of the P2V

True. Later models of the P2V had two turning (piston) and two burning (jet).

Quent

[John Keeney]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:01:55 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:
>
> >"John R Weiss" > wrote:
> >
> >>"John Keeney" > wrote...
> >>>
> >>> Or are you by chance thing of the P-2 Neptune which was a twin and did
> >>> operate in a limited sense from flattops?
> >>
> >>No counter-rotating props there, either...
> >
> >Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.
>
> Actually, the P-2V Neptune was a twin.

The Neptune came in multiple flavors: P2V-1, P2V-3 and P2V-5
were twins with various flavors of R-3350s. The P2V-7 on the other
hand had a pair of J34s to go along with its flavor of R-3350s.
If you start talking foreign version, the Japanese even had a turbo
prop version.
I don't have the production figures handy to check the statement
that "most" had four engines.

[[email protected]]

"John Keeney" > wrote:

>
>
>The Neptune came in multiple flavors: P2V-1, P2V-3 and P2V-5
>were twins with various flavors of R-3350s. The P2V-7 on the other
>hand had a pair of J34s to go along with its flavor of R-3350s.
>If you start talking foreign version, the Japanese even had a turbo
>prop version.
>I don't have the production figures handy to check the statement
>that "most" had four engines.
>

Well, that was just off the top of my head John...seeing as how
there seemed to be many more -7's around than earlier marks and
they all seemed to have the jets...matter of fact it was so
widely believed that when some stranger at a flea market remarked
in my hearing range that the model P2V-7 he was looking at was a
fake because it had no jets I had to correct him.

The argument got quite heated and ended when I bet him (in a firm
voice) $100.00 (and produced it) that the RCAF had flown the
P2V-7 like that for awhile. (The fact that I have about 100 hours
on them helped my confidence) :)

He'll likely be more careful about loud public statements in
future...
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:49:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:01:55 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>
> --cut--
>>>
>>>Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.
>>
>>Actually, the P-2V Neptune was a twin.
>>
>>Al MInyard
>>
>
>Yes AL, as my 'very few' indicated...most had four engines
>eventually though.
>
>When the RCAF got them in 1955 (P2V-7) they indeed were twins, I
>logged about 110 hours in that configuration then later they were
>fitted with the jets.
>
>
OOps, forgot about the "two turnin', two burnin'" jobs. Sorry bout that.

Al Minyard

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> "John Keeney" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>The Neptune came in multiple flavors: P2V-1, P2V-3 and P2V-5
>>were twins with various flavors of R-3350s. The P2V-7 on the other
>>hand had a pair of J34s to go along with its flavor of R-3350s.
>>If you start talking foreign version, the Japanese even had a turbo
>>prop version.
>>I don't have the production figures handy to check the statement
>>that "most" had four engines.
>>
>
> Well, that was just off the top of my head John...seeing as how
> there seemed to be many more -7's around than earlier marks and
> they all seemed to have the jets...matter of fact it was so
> widely believed that when some stranger at a flea market remarked
> in my hearing range that the model P2V-7 he was looking at was a
> fake because it had no jets I had to correct him.
>
> The argument got quite heated and ended when I bet him (in a firm
> voice) $100.00 (and produced it) that the RCAF had flown the
> P2V-7 like that for awhile. (The fact that I have about 100 hours
> on them helped my confidence) :)
>
> He'll likely be more careful about loud public statements in
> future...

It's how we learn, I guess. A lot of P2V-5s had the jets, too. I
have a P2V-5/P-2E Natops Manual kicking around here, and the jets are
definitely there. In fact, there are no takeoff distance charts for
recip-only operation - the jets were to be used on every takeoff, I
guess. (Although, being J34s, they really don't contribute all that
much - both jeta at 100 kts would give you about 1800 HP, or half an
engine's worth of thrust. Still, there's no power like Excess Power.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[John Keeney]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> > "John Keeney" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>The Neptune came in multiple flavors: P2V-1, P2V-3 and P2V-5
> >>were twins with various flavors of R-3350s. The P2V-7 on the other
> >>hand had a pair of J34s to go along with its flavor of R-3350s.
> >>If you start talking foreign version, the Japanese even had a turbo
> >>prop version.
> >>I don't have the production figures handy to check the statement
> >>that "most" had four engines.
> >>
> >
> > Well, that was just off the top of my head John...seeing as how
> > there seemed to be many more -7's around than earlier marks and
> > they all seemed to have the jets...matter of fact it was so
> > widely believed that when some stranger at a flea market remarked
> > in my hearing range that the model P2V-7 he was looking at was a
> > fake because it had no jets I had to correct him.
> >
> > The argument got quite heated and ended when I bet him (in a firm
> > voice) $100.00 (and produced it) that the RCAF had flown the
> > P2V-7 like that for awhile. (The fact that I have about 100 hours
> > on them helped my confidence) :)
> >
> > He'll likely be more careful about loud public statements in
> > future...
>
> It's how we learn, I guess. A lot of P2V-5s had the jets, too. I
> have a P2V-5/P-2E Natops Manual kicking around here, and the jets are
> definitely there. In fact, there are no takeoff distance charts for
> recip-only operation - the jets were to be used on every takeoff, I
> guess. (Although, being J34s, they really don't contribute all that
> much - both jeta at 100 kts would give you about 1800 HP, or half an
> engine's worth of thrust. Still, there's no power like Excess Power.

I had suspected there were retrofits, but couldn't produce any references
quickly. What I have did show the P2V-5s as starting life jetless.

[Merlin Dorfman]

John R Weiss ) wrote:
: "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...

: So, "like" what?

I expect he meant P-38.

[[email protected]]

"John Keeney" > wrote:

>> It's how we learn, I guess. A lot of P2V-5s had the jets, too. I
>> have a P2V-5/P-2E Natops Manual kicking around here, and the jets are
>> definitely there. In fact, there are no takeoff distance charts for
>> recip-only operation - the jets were to be used on every takeoff, I
>> guess. (Although, being J34s, they really don't contribute all that
>> much - both jeta at 100 kts would give you about 1800 HP, or half an
>> engine's worth of thrust. Still, there's no power like Excess Power.
>
>I had suspected there were retrofits, but couldn't produce any references
>quickly. What I have did show the P2V-5s as starting life jetless.
>

Ok...I know for a fact that ours were P2V-7's and were jetless
for at least a year after we got them in about midsummer of 1955.

I believe they were retrofitted in late 1956 and I can confirm it
exactly if you need. One of my coffee buddies loves and flew them
for a few years after I left them, he even has experience with
the rockets that they used for awhile.
--

-Gord.

[John R Weiss]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote...

>> It's how we learn, I guess. A lot of P2V-5s had the jets, too. I
>> have a P2V-5/P-2E Natops Manual kicking around here, and the jets are
>> definitely there.
>
> Ok...I know for a fact that ours were P2V-7's and were jetless
> for at least a year after we got them in about midsummer of 1955.

Back in 75-78, we had -5s and -7s at VC-8 in Roosy Roads, PR. All of them had
jets. They were the last active P-2s in the US Navy, and were retired shortly
after I left in 78.

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>
>>> It's how we learn, I guess. A lot of P2V-5s had the jets, too. I
>>> have a P2V-5/P-2E Natops Manual kicking around here, and the jets are
>>> definitely there.
>>
>> Ok...I know for a fact that ours were P2V-7's and were jetless
>> for at least a year after we got them in about midsummer of 1955.
>
>Back in 75-78, we had -5s and -7s at VC-8 in Roosy Roads, PR. All of them had
>jets. They were the last active P-2s in the US Navy, and were retired shortly
>after I left in 78.

Ahh yes! Rosy Roads!...great base, I've spent many a memorable
ASW exercise there.

Great NCO Club, especially enjoyable when the fleet's out...
--

-Gord.

[funkraum]

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message

[various - on turning Lightnings]

You may wish to have a search for some of the CDB posts on this topic.
I cannot remember whether he made comparisons but he certainly focused
on the turning ability of the above.