Spruce Goose. Could it fly ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spruce Goose. Could it fly ?
Maybe someone out there with an in depth technical knowlege of the a/c can answer this... I've been pondering it for years. Could it fly ?
Certainly it got off the water... but in ground effect... and empty of all but minimal fuel load....Could it have been a viable a/c ? Does anyone out there have sufficient info ?
Certainly it got off the water... but in ground effect... and empty of all but minimal fuel load....Could it have been a viable a/c ? Does anyone out there have sufficient info ?
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in depth technical knowledge of the a/c
But then again, that is just a semi-educated guess.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using figures obtained from wikipedia weight per available HP looks like this;
Hughes H4 5.6kg/Hp
Martin Mars 7.5
Saro Princess 6.2 (plus 8000lb jet thrust)
Boeing B29 6.1
Shorts Sunderland 6.2
PBY Catalina 6.6
Whilst that is a far from scientific survey it shows the H4 has a considerable power/weight advantage over all the others which includes a number of sucessful operational types. Whether wiKi's figure of 180,000Kg "loaded weight" refers to MAUW or weight at the time of the air test is not clear.
If the Sunderland or Catalina with aerodynamics and wing technology dating from the '30s could perform adequately on a much lower power reserves then how could the H4 fail to better them, and by a long way too?
With such a large power margin, and knowing HH's fanaticism for precision in both design and build I find it very hard to see why this machine would not have soared like an eagle.
The fact it did not is another matter entirely.
HH was under congressional investigation for misappropriation of Govt funds to build what was clearly by the end of the war an outdated anachronism. A man as smart and well connected (business wise, not mentally...) as Hughes would have see the writing on the wall not only for seaplanes but also for those 4 row piston engines engines as turbines were clearly in the ascendancy.
He could also see (maybe knew for sure) that no large orders would be likely with the war ending.
He had no interest, then, in showing what it could do which might embroil him in further pointless and time consuming development for which he could see no commercial advantage. He may have suspected that it would not perform as well as hoped and be branded a failure later. No, better to prove them wrong once and once only, then draw a line under the project with honour intact. He'd stormed out of the congressional hearing swearing to leave the USA if it did not fly - a one-time short flight is just the way a man like HH would have put one in their eye, just to show them, and then no more. He was not a man to expose himself to unnecessary risk.
It only had to fly - that is, get off the ground, to secure the last of the funds to date and to silence the critics who said it could not.
It flew. The govt paid, and the critics had to eat their words.
Either way, we'll never know, unless someone does a proper computer model to find out?
ps.
Just as a random thought, how did it get dismantled to go to that museum?
It appears to have been kept airworthy until the mid 60s at the very least, if not into the 70s. Why? There is only one reason to do that - and that is the anticipation that it might fly again. HH was a nut, for sure, but he wouldn't have poured the millions into that storage-maintenance exercise unless he had a reason. It might have been no more than the last confidence boost/ego trip "Yah-Boo-Sucks!" for a sad old loonie - but he must have believed in it's ability to carry the job. Implicitly.
For my money it was a flyer, and probably a good one. Commercial success? Who knows - doubtful probably, but a sound flyer - I'd bet my last buck on that.
As I said, how did they dismantle it for transport? Did it come apart willingly or were chainsaws involved? I've just got this wonderful vision...instead of pouring money into that silly Vulcan...Now there's a project worthy of serious money!
Hughes H4 5.6kg/Hp
Martin Mars 7.5
Saro Princess 6.2 (plus 8000lb jet thrust)
Boeing B29 6.1
Shorts Sunderland 6.2
PBY Catalina 6.6
Whilst that is a far from scientific survey it shows the H4 has a considerable power/weight advantage over all the others which includes a number of sucessful operational types. Whether wiKi's figure of 180,000Kg "loaded weight" refers to MAUW or weight at the time of the air test is not clear.
If the Sunderland or Catalina with aerodynamics and wing technology dating from the '30s could perform adequately on a much lower power reserves then how could the H4 fail to better them, and by a long way too?
With such a large power margin, and knowing HH's fanaticism for precision in both design and build I find it very hard to see why this machine would not have soared like an eagle.
The fact it did not is another matter entirely.
HH was under congressional investigation for misappropriation of Govt funds to build what was clearly by the end of the war an outdated anachronism. A man as smart and well connected (business wise, not mentally...) as Hughes would have see the writing on the wall not only for seaplanes but also for those 4 row piston engines engines as turbines were clearly in the ascendancy.
He could also see (maybe knew for sure) that no large orders would be likely with the war ending.
He had no interest, then, in showing what it could do which might embroil him in further pointless and time consuming development for which he could see no commercial advantage. He may have suspected that it would not perform as well as hoped and be branded a failure later. No, better to prove them wrong once and once only, then draw a line under the project with honour intact. He'd stormed out of the congressional hearing swearing to leave the USA if it did not fly - a one-time short flight is just the way a man like HH would have put one in their eye, just to show them, and then no more. He was not a man to expose himself to unnecessary risk.
It only had to fly - that is, get off the ground, to secure the last of the funds to date and to silence the critics who said it could not.
It flew. The govt paid, and the critics had to eat their words.
Either way, we'll never know, unless someone does a proper computer model to find out?
ps.
Just as a random thought, how did it get dismantled to go to that museum?
It appears to have been kept airworthy until the mid 60s at the very least, if not into the 70s. Why? There is only one reason to do that - and that is the anticipation that it might fly again. HH was a nut, for sure, but he wouldn't have poured the millions into that storage-maintenance exercise unless he had a reason. It might have been no more than the last confidence boost/ego trip "Yah-Boo-Sucks!" for a sad old loonie - but he must have believed in it's ability to carry the job. Implicitly.
For my money it was a flyer, and probably a good one. Commercial success? Who knows - doubtful probably, but a sound flyer - I'd bet my last buck on that.
As I said, how did they dismantle it for transport? Did it come apart willingly or were chainsaws involved? I've just got this wonderful vision...instead of pouring money into that silly Vulcan...Now there's a project worthy of serious money!
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 13th Feb 2010 at 19:06.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch the video. After getting airborne, it appears Mr. Hughes actually levels the aircraft to keep it from climbing further. The aircraft does not appear to be anywhere near a stall. Hughes aircraft designs before the H4 Hercules and after the H4 all flew. Some quite well, some broke records. Anecdotal information indicates the tail structure of the H4 was weak and would require extensive reinforcement before any subsequent flights, however. Given the state of aerodynamic knowledge in the 1940s, it would be extremely rare for a design to progress that far, and then be unable to sustain level flight out of ground effect.
Hughes was not known as a sensible or particularly sane pilot,the crash he had in his recce a/c was because he was not following any sensible testing procedure.
I would imagine the spruce goose would have had lots of development problems,but to see an a/c appear to climb well on what was probably a very restricted fuel load is surely not a surprise - add a useful load and power and control might become problematical.
The guy was a meddling control freak - hardly I would suggest a good psychological profile for a competent engineering test pilot - hey but i am only an engineer...what would i know...
I would imagine the spruce goose would have had lots of development problems,but to see an a/c appear to climb well on what was probably a very restricted fuel load is surely not a surprise - add a useful load and power and control might become problematical.
The guy was a meddling control freak - hardly I would suggest a good psychological profile for a competent engineering test pilot - hey but i am only an engineer...what would i know...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm glad somebody said it. I figured all the Hughes acolytes would jump all over me if I did...
Kelly Johnson and Lockheed's chief pilot went flying one day with Hughes in the prototype L-049 Constellation, and Hughes was so dangerous during touch-and-goes that Johnson essentially ordered Hughes out of the left seat and told the factory pilot to take the damn airplane back to Burbank. This was a very brave thing to do, considering that Hughes was a major Lockheed customer.
Hughes was not a skilled pilot.
Kelly Johnson and Lockheed's chief pilot went flying one day with Hughes in the prototype L-049 Constellation, and Hughes was so dangerous during touch-and-goes that Johnson essentially ordered Hughes out of the left seat and told the factory pilot to take the damn airplane back to Burbank. This was a very brave thing to do, considering that Hughes was a major Lockheed customer.
Hughes was not a skilled pilot.
I think he had been quite skilled when younger,but as his 'problem' took hold he could not conduct himself in a professional manner, he seemed to think he could 'wing' it even in large multi engine a/c.
As I said previously - he was a real meddler and would not let his designers etc get on with their work.
As I said previously - he was a real meddler and would not let his designers etc get on with their work.
As I said, how did they dismantle it for transport?
Good story about it in Air & Space, February/March 1993...
Hughes was not known as a sensible or particularly sane pilot
Based at LA with the prototype for two or three months, was on standby 24/7 to be available at Mr. Hughes' whim. Don used to tell the story of getting the call in the dead of night, followed by an hour of VFR circuits, then await his next call. This went on for several months, all Don and family's expenses paid by Hughes.
Don always said Hughes was a good intuitive pilot, but not particularly methodical in his approach.
Looking at the inside of the Spruce Goose in the Long Beach museum many years ago, the structure hardly seemed strong enough to be airworthy, but who knows???
Last edited by twochai; 17th Feb 2010 at 10:50.
Hughes should have spent more on clothes
In fact, Don Rogers was a dead ringer for Howard Hughes, but he was the natty dresser.
Last edited by twochai; 17th Feb 2010 at 10:49. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Rogers, Avro Canada chief test pilot. Upon cancellation of the Avro CF-105 Arrow, he joined de Havilland Canada. Regarding the above H. Hughes photo, it was taken on a very windy day..
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard Hughes
I had the pleasure of flying with Howard Hughes in 1973 in England in both the Avro 748 and the HS125. He hadn't flown for 13 years but he actually flew very well. He knew exactly where the ground was but the problem was he liked to land on the first few feet of the runway which was very scary and no doubt frightened quite a few people besides myself. He remarked 'You're not the first guy who critcised my landings'. He was a very pleasant and knowledgeable avation man.
With regard to moving the Spruce Goose to Mcminville there is a splendid DVD showing how it was done obtainable from the Museum and it was organised by Jack Real, a true friend of Howard right to the end.
After the flight some test instrumentation was added to the right of the pilot, see page 161 of Tony Blackman, Test Pilot (sorry about the plug!)
With regard to moving the Spruce Goose to Mcminville there is a splendid DVD showing how it was done obtainable from the Museum and it was organised by Jack Real, a true friend of Howard right to the end.
After the flight some test instrumentation was added to the right of the pilot, see page 161 of Tony Blackman, Test Pilot (sorry about the plug!)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Spruce Goose was actually make of birch, with much of the adhesives developed at the time, by the Hughes organisation directly.
Very strong stuff.
About the tail.
Hughes mentioned to Donald Douglas (Sr) later on after the one and only flight, that the tail vibrated terribly on liftoff, with a violent twisting motion.
I know this only because, my Dad was a Douglas executive (engineering project manager DC-6 and DC-7) and knew DD quite well.
Very strong stuff.
About the tail.
Hughes mentioned to Donald Douglas (Sr) later on after the one and only flight, that the tail vibrated terribly on liftoff, with a violent twisting motion.
I know this only because, my Dad was a Douglas executive (engineering project manager DC-6 and DC-7) and knew DD quite well.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A said....
"Hughes mentioned to Donald Douglas (Sr) later on after the one and only flight, that the tail vibrated terribly on liftoff, with a violent twisting motion."
That explains [to me anyway] why Hughes remained close to the water! To have violent twisting on take off was not a good start to a maiden flight!
He had had enough injury from aeroplanes not to want to push his luck and he wasn't flying solo was he? 29 SOB.
Looking at the newsreel footage [angles are not great] it is hard to see any tail twisting.
Mind you 8x 3000 HP plus heavy spray etc and a lowish tailplane must have collected some turbulence!
The Martin Mars has quite a large dihedral on its tailplane doesn't it?
"Hughes mentioned to Donald Douglas (Sr) later on after the one and only flight, that the tail vibrated terribly on liftoff, with a violent twisting motion."
That explains [to me anyway] why Hughes remained close to the water! To have violent twisting on take off was not a good start to a maiden flight!
He had had enough injury from aeroplanes not to want to push his luck and he wasn't flying solo was he? 29 SOB.
Looking at the newsreel footage [angles are not great] it is hard to see any tail twisting.
Mind you 8x 3000 HP plus heavy spray etc and a lowish tailplane must have collected some turbulence!
The Martin Mars has quite a large dihedral on its tailplane doesn't it?
Join Date: May 2015
Location: texas
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This engish flying story of Howard Hughes obviously has attracted alot of attention in scholars trying to figure out when HH lost control of his business to his mormon staff.
Are you able to provide more information about your flying with Mr.Hughes.I had a relative that met with Hughes to discuss certan blueprints in the 1930s.The relative was an aircraft manufacturer.
Are you able to provide more information about your flying with Mr.Hughes.I had a relative that met with Hughes to discuss certan blueprints in the 1930s.The relative was an aircraft manufacturer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the film footage it seems to me that the aircraft was lacking in lateral control; when comparing with other large flying boats they seem to get both floats out of the water early on- the Goose just stumbled along one wing low.