Carrier Islands

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.

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" wrote in message
news

Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as
the
American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

No, British aircraft engines turned the other way. Still do, I
believe.

They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.


The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
Why would they? Their aircraft engines rotated in the same direction as

the

American's, thus generating the same port-biased torque.

No, British aircraft engines turned the other way. Still do, I
believe.

They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.



The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.


The supercharger supplied (actually just a low pressure
blower) was what was specified by the British, and what
was a standard feature on the Allison. The Allison was
intended to use a separate turbosupercharger for high
altitude work, but the British didn't feel that high
altitude performance was necessary at the time they
wrote the specification. In addition, turbosuperchargers
were not a high-volume production item, so including
them might have delayed deliver. By the time the aircraft
were delivered, however, the RAF had learned through
experience that high altitude performance was indeed
important.

The poor handling of the aircraft, however, was
indeed due to the fitting of same-direction rotating
engine and propeller combinations, which was done
to minimize the logistics tail, by using an engine
which was already in use by the RAF (in export
P-40s, IIRC). This engine also developed less
horsepower, even at sea level, than did the
V-1710F series engine used in all P-38s since
the XP.

A final possible reason for the British refusing
to accept the Lightning (and especially the
follow-on Lightning II, with turbosupercharging
and counter-rotating V-1710F engines) was due to
the method under which they were ordered. The
original order for these aircraft was prior
to lend-lease coming into being, and the British
would have had to pay cash for them, unlike
other aircraft ordered later. Given the
changed requirements making the Lightning I
less useful than expected, and the availability
of other aircraft under lend-lease, buying
the aircraft probably didn't seem a very
economical way to spend their treasure. The
Lightning II, if not for the cash requirement,
probably would have been very useful to the
British.

Mike

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
They famously emasculated the Lightning by burdening it with two
left-turning engines.

The problem with the version of the P-38 supplied to the RAF
was the inferior supercharger supplied on the export version
not the fact that it had 2 engines turning the same way.

While this is true, the previos Dan was correct. The P-38 had significant
tail flutter problems with "inword" rotateing engines. This was fixed on
American P-38's by having the engines rotate "outword" in opposite
directions, however the British version had two engines which in addition
to lacking the General Electric B-5 turbosuperchargers also rotated in
the same direction. This lead to one of the engines generating the same
effect that had been a problem with the P-38 prototypes.

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

"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

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

"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

"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?