Carrier Islands

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

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) 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.

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

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

"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

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

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)