Carrier Islands

"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?

"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?

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)

"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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What, like a P-3?

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

Never?

LOL

The P-3 Orion? Never.

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

What, like a P-3?

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

Never?

LOL

The P-3 Orion? Never.

OK then.

"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?

"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...

"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.

"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?