HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
Originally I think it was something to do with early carrier aircraft experiments and operations at the end of WWI and just after using rotary engined aircraft and the torque of the engines spinning as Rotary engines do would be forcing the aircraft to the left so they didn't want anything in the way on that side so stuck the bridge on the right and it just became tradition. As far as I know apart from Argus, Furious and a couple of other flat decks that didn't have a permanent bridge structure at all only one ship had it's bridge on the left and that was the Japanese WWII carrier Akagi. It was originally converted from a Battlecruiser hull with no bridge structure but one was added during modernisation and I guess it fitted easier on the left.
Two. Hiryu and Akagi. With a starboard side island, aircraft approach and turn in from the port rear quarter. The Japanese idea was that in multi-carrier operations, mixing carriers so they had one with a port-side island steaming alongside one with a starboard side island, with the islands closest to one another, would mean that returning aircraft could form two separate approach patterns turning in from either side. Or at least I read that somewhere. Maybe it's just one of those myths that grew legs? I think it caused as many issues as it solved, and anyway, carrier design and development ultimately ended up in the hands of the US Navy with some input from British sources, so Imperial Japanese Navy ideas on carrier operations had a very short lifespan in the end...Google it.
From memory China's is a home built design, based on the Russian carrier they bought a few years ago.
USA are Ford class.
Indian one is similar in appearance to the Russian ones too, maybe designed with their assistance?
Italian one is officially a helicopter ship, but will be able to launch and recover F35B aircraft.
The Turkish one is not a true aircraft carrier either, but an assault ship which can launch aircraft.
From memory China's is a home built design, based on the Russian carrier they bought a few years ago.
USA are Ford class.
Indian one is similar in appearance to the Russian ones too, maybe designed with their assistance?
Italian one is officially a helicopter ship, but will be able to launch and recover F35B aircraft.
The Turkish one is not a true aircraft carrier either, but an assault ship which can launch aircraft.
Cold said:
Some say the propeller theory about the islands doesn't really hold true these days now that jet engines are so prolific.
@tespilotjim would like put the argument forward that perhaps it's still relevant.
(Just a reason to share his awesome picture
)
Indeed, thank you for sharing that awesome picture!@tespilotjim would like put the argument forward that perhaps it's still relevant.
(Just a reason to share his awesome picture
)Cold said:
There's an F35 on deck of HMSQNLZ at the moment. It went tech while the ship was at sea so couldn't leave before the ship returned to port.
The plane has now been fixed and will be flying home from the deck while QNLZ is still berthed in the next day or so.
After reading your post I just chased this up. Current thoughts are that they're trying to get it sorted for a Thursday take off. I'm going on the ship tomorrow and will try to find out more and see if there's a more accurate time slot, as I'll probably head down closer to it to watch if I can.The plane has now been fixed and will be flying home from the deck while QNLZ is still berthed in the next day or so.
Chuck328 said:
This has probably been asked before but, why did they build two islands? Seems a lot of extra expense and time when the US Navy seem to do just fine with one??
Aerodynamics - not for the ship herself but for the downstream airwake bubble aircraft have to fly through on approach. More important for cats and traps but still relevant for STOVL. It also makes the uptake trunking from the gas turbines simpler and more volume efficient.The twin island concept was also in the design long before the FLYCO was separated from the bridge.
BrettMRC said:
Several reasons IIRC, main ones being routing of exhaust gasses and seperation of air control/vessel control...
There is no need to have a separate island to physically separate air operations. Distance doesn't add anything. You could run them side by side, or on separate levels in the same island.98elise said:
BrettMRC said:
Several reasons IIRC, main ones being routing of exhaust gasses and seperation of air control/vessel control...
There is no need to have a separate island to physically separate air operations. Distance doesn't add anything. You could run them side by side, or on separate levels in the same island.FourWheelDrift said:
98elise said:
BrettMRC said:
Several reasons IIRC, main ones being routing of exhaust gasses and seperation of air control/vessel control...
There is no need to have a separate island to physically separate air operations. Distance doesn't add anything. You could run them side by side, or on separate levels in the same island.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff