Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood

[javawizard]

In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over Beverly
Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a few
houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com

[BillJ]

javawizard wrote:
> In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over Beverly
> Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a few
> houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com
>
That scene was in the movie The Aviator.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

javawizard > wrote in news:1190305174.005153.236440
@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over Beverly
> Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a few
> houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com
>

That airplane was not plywood.


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, BillJ > posted:

> javawizard wrote:
>> In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over
>> Beverly Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a
>> few houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com
>>
> That scene was in the movie The Aviator.
>
I especially liked the way the aluminum wing cut through several units of
a brick apartment building. He must have been going close to the speed of
light! ;-)

Neil

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

javawizard wrote:
>In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over Beverly
>Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a few
>houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com

here's more.
Indeed not plywood.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/XF-11_crash_site.htm
Dang, He almost made the golf course.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"javawizard" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over Beverly
> Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a few
> houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com
>

Really? What was the aircraft?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-09-20 09:19:34 -0700, javawizard > said:

> In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over Beverly
> Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a few
> houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com

It severely damaged Howard Hughes. He nearly died from burns on his lungs.

As others have noted, it was not plywood. It was made of aluminum. The
XF-11 was patterned after an earlier plywood plane, the D-2, that
Howard Hughes had built, which may be the source of confusion. However,
the D-2 was destroyed by fire before the XF-11 was even built.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jay Honeck]

> > That scene was in the movie The Aviator.
>
> I especially liked the way the aluminum wing cut through several units of
> a brick apartment building. He must have been going close to the speed of
> light! ;-)

Yep, that scene nearly ruined an otherwise great movie. Whoever
their aviation adviser was on that flick was either over-ruled by the
director, or a complete maroon.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-09-20 11:25:45 -0700, "Neil Gould" > said:

> Recently, BillJ > posted:
>
>> javawizard wrote:
>>> In 1946 a test pilot lost control of his plywood airplane over
>>> Beverly Hills, California and plowed into a neighborhood, damaging a
>>> few houses. The test pilot was Howard Hughes. - from www.odd-info.com
>>>
>> That scene was in the movie The Aviator.
>>
> I especially liked the way the aluminum wing cut through several units of
> a brick apartment building. He must have been going close to the speed of
> light! ;-)
>
> Neil

Hmm. I thought it was just scraping tiles off a roof. I'll have to look
at it again.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" <> wrote

> Hmm. I thought it was just scraping tiles off a roof. I'll have to look at
> it again.

It was. They were terra-cotta roof tiles, which have the color and somewhat
the consistency of bricks, so it would be easy to confuse the two.
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "C J Campbell" <> wrote
>
>> Hmm. I thought it was just scraping tiles off a roof. I'll have to
>> look at it again.
>
> It was. They were terra-cotta roof tiles, which have the color and
> somewhat the consistency of bricks, so it would be easy to confuse
> the two.
>
Interesting, I'll have to look at it again sometime. But to the pilot, I
suspect that it would be a distinction without a meaningful difference.
;-)

Neil

[Kingfish]

On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> here's more.
> Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/XF-11_crash_site.htm

Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also
curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was
the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on
the second prototype.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
> economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin?
>

It was more economical to modify aircraft already in the inventory for the
reconnaissance mission than to procure dedicated reconnaissance aircraft.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
Kingfish > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> > here's more.
> > Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/XF-11_crash_site.htm
>
> Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
> economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also
> curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was
> the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on
> the second prototype.

The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look
at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to
negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" <> wrote

> The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look
> at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to
> negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side.

The contra rotating props are said to be more efficient, and it has to do
with the swirling motion props impart to the air.

When one prop hits the air, it sends it flying back at a much higher speed
which gives you thrust. It also starts the air spinning around. The energy
it takes to spin it is basically wasted, because it does not contribute to
forward thrust.

If you put another prop right behind the first prop rotating the opposite
way, the spin whacks the second prop, and takes the spin out, which converts
that spin into rearward velocity, and recovers some of the wasted energy of
the spinning prop wash.

So it is said. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Kingfish]

On Sep 27, 4:29 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> Kingfish > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:36 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> > > here's more.
> > > Indeed not plywood.http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/XF-11_crash_site.htm
>
> > Interesting the four-engine RB-50 (formerly B-29) was "much more
> > economical" for the photo recon mission than the XF-11 twin? I'm also
> > curious about the contra-rotating props on Hughes' plane - what was
> > the benefit? The article says he did have conventional props put on
> > the second prototype.
>
> The contra-rotating props helped absorb the power of the R-4360s. Look
> at the Russian Bear Bomber as another example. They also helped to
> negate P-factor, as each prop had blades coming down on each side.

I wonder how the Russians handle prop governor failures in the Tu-95?
I guess feathering props on one engine is not a huge deal when you
have three more?