Carrier Islands

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

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.

"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

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)

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

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.

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

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

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