Why Daddy, why?

[scribbler614]

Why are aircraft carrier islands always to starboard?
My toddler son asked me, I haven't a clue, and now it's bugging the hell out of me.:confused:
Some obvious technical reason? Obscure dark blue tradition? Don't tell me it's 'cos British pilots fly on the left, as it's the same the world over.
Help!

[Not_a_boffin]

The original reason was that the propeller-driven aircraft prevalent when carriers were being developed tended to pull to port (through torque effect). Sticking the island to starboard prevented the buffer having to spend time scraping wafus off the house-side and reducing the ship husbandry (painting) burden. The island is to one side as it allows better use of the flightdeck and hangar areas.

Over time, it became a convention (much like driving on the right in uncivilised countries) and so interlinked with landing patterns that to change it would have caused more grief than it was worth. The japanese did build two with a port side island, but I believe they experienced one or two difficulties.

[scribbler614]

Thanks, not-a-boffin. Obvious, really!
I can sleep peacefully at night once more.
:)

[Wensleydale]

Fixed-Wing pilots/captains traditionally sit in the left hand seat and therefore the left hand circuit is the norm as it gives the pilot a better view of the runway. My guess is (and it is a guess) that by having the island of a carrier on the starboard side then the pilot will get a better view of the deck on a left hand circuit. While most carrier aircraft are single/tandem seat, and therefore it doesn't matter, the pilots will have been trained in the tradition of left hand circuits.

[Speedpig]

Weren't most, if not all, the IJN carriers of WWII flat tops with the flight deck on top? Funnels etc sticking out sideways.


SP

[Wiley]

I find the prop torque story a bit hard to swallow given that American aircraft engines rotate in the opposite direction to British/European ones.

I stand by to be corrected.

[scribbler614]

Sigh.:sad:
I spoke too soon. Not so simple after all.
I can get away with dazzling the three-year-old with the engine torque theory, but I fear this is still going to bug me, thanks to Wiley and Speedpig
(thanks all the same).
Anyone written a definitive work on early carrier design?
If so you probably need to get out more, but I'd love to hear from you if can answer this.

[dakkg651]

The reason for having the island on the left is obvious.

Us Brits developed carrier operations. Everyone else copied. We drive on the correct side of the road (left) so it was natural to put the obstruction on the right. Steam catapults, angled decks, mirror landing sights - we led everyone followed - even the French!

Then in true British tradition we let successive labour governments fritter it all away

[Pontius Navigator]

Fixed-Wing pilots/captains traditionally sit in the left hand seat and therefore the left hand circuit is the norm as it gives the pilot a better view of the runway.

Disagree young chap.

Name one pre-war aircraft capable of a carrier landing that had side-by side seating.

Even post-war, the Sea Vixen 2 would be the nearest with an offset canopy. USN of course has several.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Left hand circuits seem to have been standard from very early in aviation. Wasn't it something to do with us right handed drivers finding left turns the most natural?

[QFIhawkman]

USN of course has several.

And there is where you contradict yourself Pontious old chap.

The left handed circuit has been around since flying began. It's the old standard, from way back when we were flying the likes of the Vickers Vimy. I'm still not sure why, but it has been suggested to me that as most pilots are right handed, it seemed natural in the early days of aviation to fly left handed circuits. It's how the brain prefers it apparently, with all that cross-lobe activity. A doctor can explain it better I'm sure!
As for side by side cockpit arrangements, you're right that pre-war there was nothing doing in that department. However there has been many an aircraft since. And not just in the USN.
I would suggest that seeing as the vast majority of carriers throughout history have been built since WW2 the original comment by wensleydale was not such a silly one after all.

[Wensleydale]

PN,

Had you read my post carefully.... I did say that aircraft were single seat/tandem (space on carrier). I also said that the pilots would have trained on land using left hand circuits because other side by siders set the tone. Once used to left hand circuits then the trend was set.

(Yes, I bit).:=

[Pontius Navigator]

And there is where you contradict yourself Pontious old chap.

Not at all. That the USN operates side by side seating NOW is an irrelevance. We got there first and put the island on the right. I agree the land left hand theory is better.

Cheese, OK, I missed part of your post but again name a pre-war side by side trainer.

504K, Moth etc all tandem.

[228 OCU]

I asked this question many, many, years ago of an old FAA chap.
He told me that he had also asked this of his instructor when he was u/t.
The reply from the equally ancient instructor was that, because a/c are designed for right hand flying, the natural instinct when things go tits-up is for the right hand to go across the body towards the left. It is far easier and quicker to go left than right. Try it for yourselves (put your stick in your hand...ooo err misses), and see which way is better/quicker.
For me though it would be a real bummer, as I'm sinister...good job I was not on flat tops!

[Hong Kong Fuey]

Not A Boffin was close, but 228 OCU has hit the nail on the head.
Flat Top superstructure is built on the right to assist a dead pilot in not hitting said structure. When the proverbial hits the fan, it is not only easier, but in physiological terms automatic to clench into a foetal position rather than open up and accept what's coming. This may sound rather callous, but when flying an aircraft to a carrier (with the vast majority of aircraft being flown with ones right hand on the stick), it is rather preferential to have nothing between the crash and the ogsplosh if things go wrong. The Admiral would probably agree.
As an aside, it was quickly learnt in WW1 (and re-learnt in WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc...) that the majority of pilots would break left when bounced. This knowledge was used to great effect by Adolf Galland for one. Personally, I have tried to teach myself to break right if this ever happenned to me. Never had the opportunity, though, as any bandit always seems to appear in front of me, rather than behind. Still, if the opportunity arises, I know which way I'm going ;) !

[Red Snow]

I 'm sure I read somewhere that the reason the Japanese built some carriers with islands on the port side was so that they could operate in a close-sailing pair with a 'conventional' starboard island carrier. Sailing with the islands 'back-to-back', as it were, one carrier could fly a left-hand pattern and the other a right-hand pattern simultaneously.

[dakkg651]

Cheese, OK, I missed part of your post but again name a pre-war side by side trainer.
504K, Moth etc all tandem.

Blackburn B2 side by side trainer.

[Kitbag]

A production run of 42 Blackburn B2s in 5 years of production suggests it probably didn't have a great deal of influence, especially as they were non military (although Blackburn provided them to RAFVR for flying training at Brough), let alone naval aircraft.

[ORAC]

Previous thread from April: Why are aircraft carriers right-handed. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=222803&highlight=akagi+hiryu)

[Not_a_boffin]

I got the torque story from a paper given by the FAA Museum curator in 1997, which says :

"Because the rotary engine fitted to early shipborne a/c such as the Sopwith Pup & 1 1/2 strutter produced a gyroscopic effect when the a/c turned pilots would overshoot to the left, going with the gyroscopic precession rather than against it".

However, the l/h landing pattern for right handers does seem to have been part of it as well.

All as covered in Orac link above....

[GreenKnight121]

According to one source (I believe it is "Japanese Warships of WW2", but the pages I have copied don't include the title), in the entry on Akagi:

" Following on the experiments with the Hosho it was decided to dispense with a bridge, and Akagi was completed without one. This, however, was found to be impracticable, and shortly after completion a small bridge was built outboard of the starboard edge of the top flight deck and towards the bow.
...
In October 1935 the Akagi went into Sasebo Naval Dockyard for modernisation.
...
Lack of a decent bridge had also been felt, and this was remedied in the modernisation, a proper "island" superstructure being constructed amidships on the port side. The port side was chosen as it was felt that this would cause less obstruction to a pilot's vision when landing on, and improve control of flying operations.
A similar experiment was tried out on the new carrier Hiryu under construction at the same time."

It is interesting to note that the funnels remained on the starboard side after the 1935-1938 modernisation, although they were angled downward and were totally below the flight deck. In fact, all of the IJN carriers had starboard funnels, regardless of island position.

Kaga was fitted with a starboard island during her 1934-1935 modernisation.

"Completed in December 1937 the Soryu was built with what was to become the standard design of bridge for a medium carrier, which was sited on the starboard side towards the bow."

Hiryu was laid down 18 months after Soryu, and had a number of changes in addition to:
"As the design of Hiyru had been so altered it was decided to reposition the bridge as well, and it was planned on the same lines as that of the Akagi. Sited on the port side amidships it was a much larger affair than on the Soryu having many more control, communications and command positions than that of Soryu. It was hoped that the siting of the bridge to port would give the commander (air) better control of the flying operations and enable the aircraft to have a greater length of flight deck available for take-off. In practice it proved a failure. Although it did give greater control of flying operations and better take-off facilities, the bridge seriously restricted the length of deck for landing operations and caused reduction in aircraft parking space on the flight deck. Far more serious than these defects, however, were the conflicting air currents and turbulence which appeared immediately aft of the bridge, causing much distress to the pilots. So dangerous were these defects that the Japanese Navy never again tried siting the bridge on the port side of a carrier."

From this, it seems the much-cited "formation sailing using opposing flight paths" theory was not a part of their thinking... but was invented by US theorists to explain what they had not understood.

I suppose that the air current issue probably did relate to the engine-torque issue... I believe the Japanese engines rotated the same direction as British ones, as most of their early aviation industry was developed with British, not US, aid.

I don't understand why a port island restricted aircraft parking and landing deck length more than a starboard one would, though, as the funnels were all below the flight deck.
:confused:

[FCWhippingBoy]

The left handed circuit has been around since flying began. It's the old standard ....

I just recently got back in the cockpit after a few years out, and found myself flying a right hand circuit.

The odd thing ... after 15 years of on and off flying (more off than on!), I realised that I'd never flown a right hand circuit before! Probably why I made it look harder than it is :\