Carrier Islands

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"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...

Plus there's very few twin P-2's too, most have are four engines.
--

-Gord.

(Kirk Stant) wrote:

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

Now, just to be a ****-disturber I'll mention that you can't
always tell which way the engine turns by looking at the prop
either...most yes, not all...
--

-Gord.

Keith Willshaw wrote:


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.


Well, the RAF never even tried to fly a Lightning in combat, so
the argument is rather irrelevant in this case one way or the
other. I must note, however, that at high speeds many allied
aircraft could out maneuver most Japanese aircraft due to their
relatively poor high speed characteristics and slower top speeds.


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.

Lockheed's representative claimed that the aircraft met the
speed specifications, and the only thing that prevented a
very nasty court battle turned out to be the entry of the
United States into the war, at which point they simply swept
up all of the aircraft on the order. I believe that the two
main reasons were changed British requirements (high altitude
becoming much more important in the interim) and the
cash-based terms of the contract. I may be mistaken, as I
don't have the reference handy, but I believe that Ethel's
book stated that the British decided to reject the order
before receiving the first aircraft for performance testing.
In addition to the above, they were apparently much
put off the two-engine interceptor/fighter idea by
their experience with twin engined fighters they had
already seen in action (Bf-110 leaps to mind). One
other complaint (not covered in the contract
specifications) which was voiced was the existence
of high speed buffet. This appeared in the XP, IIRC,
and was diagnosed as due to prop wash on the inward
turning engines, which was eliminated by swapping them
side to side but which the Lightning I resurrected
with its single engine rotation scheme. This also
could be the buffet problem which was later solved
by the addition of the leading edge fillets at the
central fuselage joint.


The USAAF took over the 140 aircraft remaining and even after
fitting handed engines relegated them to a training role.

They still didn't have superchargers, and various systems
differences between Lightning I's and stock versions would have
required something akin to a full rebuild, making them
unsuitable as service birds (too expensive and time consuming
to rework, and requiring a different logistics chain than
what was going to be found in all the service birds). The
Lightning IIs were almost identical to the American versions
on the production line, and were rather easily reworked as
P-38G's, IIRC.

Mike

"Michael Williamson" wrote in
message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


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.


Well, the RAF never even tried to fly a Lightning in combat, so
the argument is rather irrelevant in this case one way or the
other. I must note, however, that at high speeds many allied
aircraft could out maneuver most Japanese aircraft due to their
relatively poor high speed characteristics and slower top speeds.


My reading suggests that the use of high speed slashing attacks
was the standard tactic and attempting to dogfight the Japanese
fighters was a serious and often fatal error.


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.

Lockheed's representative claimed that the aircraft met the
speed specifications, and the only thing that prevented a
very nasty court battle turned out to be the entry of the
United States into the war, at which point they simply swept
up all of the aircraft on the order.

I'd hardly expect the Lockheed rep to say otherwise but its
worth pointing out that the aircraft that passed to the USAAF
were mostly relegated to training duties. The testing done at
Boscombe Down was pretty rigorous however


I believe that the two
main reasons were changed British requirements (high altitude
becoming much more important in the interim) and the
cash-based terms of the contract.

The revised high altitude requirements were met by amending the
contract to include turbo supercharged engines in the second
batch of 500 aircraft and in the same period they were buying
other US aircraft such as the Mustang I and Kittyhawk (P-40D)
in considerable numbers.


I may be mistaken, as I
don't have the reference handy, but I believe that Ethel's
book stated that the British decided to reject the order
before receiving the first aircraft for performance testing.

No they tested three aircraft in March 1942, AF105 was sent to the
Cunliffe-Owen
Aircraft Limited at Swaythling, Southampton for examination and
experiments. AF106 was sent to the A&AEE at Boscombe Down
for flight evaluation. AF107 went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment
at Farnborough for experiments and evaluation.

All three described the performance of the aircraft delivered as
poor and recommended against its introduction into squadron service

In addition to the above, they were apparently much
put off the two-engine interceptor/fighter idea by
their experience with twin engined fighters they had
already seen in action (Bf-110 leaps to mind). One
other complaint (not covered in the contract
specifications) which was voiced was the existence
of high speed buffet. This appeared in the XP, IIRC,
and was diagnosed as due to prop wash on the inward
turning engines, which was eliminated by swapping them
side to side but which the Lightning I resurrected
with its single engine rotation scheme. This also
could be the buffet problem which was later solved
by the addition of the leading edge fillets at the
central fuselage joint.


The USAAF took over the 140 aircraft remaining and even after
fitting handed engines relegated them to a training role.

They still didn't have superchargers, and various systems
differences between Lightning I's and stock versions would have
required something akin to a full rebuild, making them
unsuitable as service birds (too expensive and time consuming
to rework, and requiring a different logistics chain than
what was going to be found in all the service birds). The
Lightning IIs were almost identical to the American versions
on the production line, and were rather easily reworked as
P-38G's, IIRC.


According to Baugher only one Lightning II was ever completed
It was taken over by the USAAF as P-38F-13-10, painted with US
national markings, but retained its British serial number.

The fact that the Lightning I's with handed engines were not
considered combat capable by the USAAF rather reinforces
my point that it was the inadequate performance of the non
supercharged engines rather than the handing that was the
major problem.

A great many high performance twin engined aircraft that
had both engines turning the same way were rather successful.

In RAF service the Gloster Whirlwind, Mosquito and Beaufighter
all come to mind.

Keith

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

In RAF service the Gloster Whirlwind, Mosquito and Beaufighter
all come to mind.

*Westland* Whirlwind - one of the products of the brilliant but
erratic Teddy Petter. Gloster did have a design which was a competitor
for the same spec. - using two Bristol Perseus, IIRC - but it wasn't
selected.

Ob. carriers: The De Havilland Sea Mosquito, using two merlins turning
the same way, had no problems operating from 'carriers. The Sea Hornet
did have handed engines, however.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

In RAF service the Gloster Whirlwind, Mosquito and Beaufighter
all come to mind.

*Westland* Whirlwind - one of the products of the brilliant but
erratic Teddy Petter. Gloster did have a design which was a competitor
for the same spec. - using two Bristol Perseus, IIRC - but it wasn't
selected.

Ob. carriers: The De Havilland Sea Mosquito, using two merlins turning
the same way, had no problems operating from 'carriers.

Guess that arrester hook stopped the wheel shimmy... :-)

The Sea Hornet
did have handed engines, however.

The last museum worthy example of which was seen departing off the end
of a carrier (unmanned and engines stopped) as a catapult test.

Ye Gods...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

"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?

In article ,
Dave Eadsforth wrote:
In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
The Sea Hornet
did have handed engines, however.

The last museum worthy example of which was seen departing off the end
of a carrier (unmanned and engines stopped) as a catapult test.

Should have used the bugger who suggested it instead. IMO.

--
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 Keeney" wrote in message
...

"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.

No, I was teasing Gord.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Weiss once again misses a subtle reference and craps himself.

Well, you obviously are thinking of a P-3 other than the Lockheed Orion.

No, I was teasing Gord.

Musta been so deep that it went humming right over my
head...cripes, that's been happening lately...hummm...
--

-Gord.