Carrier Islands

"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...

"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

"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.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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

"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?

"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

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

"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...

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