Off Topic - Spruce Goose

"Corrie" wrote in message
om...
First I've heard that the B-36 was originally designed to use the Lyc.
AFAIK it was always intended to use the Pratt 4360. The B-36 could
carry 84,000 lbs of weapons, on top of fuel and crew.
"Featherweighted" versions could exceed 48,000 ft (and outfly fighters
with heavier wing-loading), come close to 400 MPH over the target, and
flew missions of over 24 hrs (no inflight refueling). Not all at the
same time, of course. Range or payload, pick one.


The Lycoming R7755 (http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html)
likely would have been very efficient at cruise power due to the liquid
cooling, two speed gearbox and variable cam timing. The extra power would
have eliminated the need for the B-36's four jet engines that were required
with Pratt 4360's. This would have expanded the range, speed and/or payload
options. Additionally, the liquid cooling would have allowed vastly smaller
cooling inlets on the wing leading edge (think better wing performance)
while eliminating the notorious cooling problems with the Pratts. The same
things could have been true of the Spruce Goose and the Northrop B-35.

The XR-7755 was just one of the incredible piston engines under development
in the late 1940's. Probably the pinnacle of piston engine development was
the Napier Nomad 2-stroke diesel in Britain. This compact and powerful 12
Cylinder boxer had a sfc of 0.345 lb/ehp/hr.
http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/nomad.htm

It's interesting to speculate what an alternate aviation history would have
looked like had these engines emerged from their development stage and gone
into production. Turbines would have had a harder time displacing pistons.

Bill Daniels

Another interesting factoid that I ran across about the Lycoming... its water
pump was rated at 750 GPM... more that an average fire truck.

Even if these monsters had made it into production, it would not have been long
before the turbines caught up to and eclipsed them. I've read that Wright
intended its 3350-compound turbo engine (Super Connie) to be the market leader
for the next 50 years. Shortly thereafter, the big piston market dried up and
so did Wright.

Its not just the weight savings or increased operating efficiency that make
turbines better than big pistons. Its the incredible savings in maintenance
through increased TBO's and fewer AOG's. Of course, they'll never sound as
cool.

The Hughes Flying Boat was intended to fly in ground effect.

The Hughes Flying Boat was intended to fly in ground effect.

Wow, never heard that before!! What's the reference?

thanks

Ed Wischmeyer

"BlakeleyTB" wrote in message
...
The Hughes Flying Boat was intended to fly in ground effect.

Your source is ????
--
Jim in NC

We have all seen the film of the Spruce Goose lifting off the water for a

My father was the lead structural engineer for the Goose fues. analysis. He
and two others designed all the frames and other parts you see in the big hull.
He was employed at Hughes 1939-44, employee number 60 (I think) an Structural
Aero Engineer from Carnigie Tech.

His opinion was simple. The aircraft would not have been controllable in
"normal" flight. The control surfaces were direct driven with some sort of air
assist. Hughes insisted on direct connection to the surfaces, and it would
have not been possible to fly. With some of the boost systems developed in the
later 50's, it would have worked, but just ask those who flew the big bombers
in WW2 what it was like.

Bruce Patton
(more later, got to go now)

"BPattonsoa" wrote in message
...
We have all seen the film of the Spruce Goose lifting off the water for a

My father was the lead structural engineer for the Goose fues. analysis.
He
and two others designed all the frames and other parts you see in the big
hull.
He was employed at Hughes 1939-44, employee number 60 (I think) an
Structural
Aero Engineer from Carnigie Tech.

His opinion was simple. The aircraft would not have been controllable in
"normal" flight. The control surfaces were direct driven with some sort
of air
assist. Hughes insisted on direct connection to the surfaces, and it
would
have not been possible to fly. With some of the boost systems developed
in the
later 50's, it would have worked, but just ask those who flew the big
bombers
in WW2 what it was like.

Bruce Patton
(more later, got to go now)

There are many ways to get control boost that were known during the
development. It could be as simple as a servo tabs that offset the air
loads. The B-35 had a bellows device that used pitot pressure to provide
control boost that was proportional to airspeed. Even hydraulic control
boost was well known.

Remember, this was only a prototype and many enhancements could be expected
had it moved through normal flight test. Imagine if the first flight had
been in 1940 with the Atlantic full of German submarines. We might have
seen a fleet of huge flying boats.

The real reason that the project was cancelled was that the aircraft just
wasn't needed anymore at the time of the first flight.

Bill Daniels

We have all seen the film of the Spruce Goose lifting off the water for a

My father was the lead structural engineer for the Goose fues. analysis. He
and two others designed all the frames and other parts you see in the big hull.
He was employed at Hughes 1939-44, employee number 60 (I think) an Structural
Aero Engineer from Carnigie Tech.

His opinion was simple. The aircraft would not have been controllable in
"normal" flight. The control surfaces were direct driven with some sort of air
assist. Hughes insisted on direct connection to the surfaces, and it would
have not been possible to fly. With some of the boost systems developed in the
later 50's, it would have worked, but just ask those who flew the big bombers
in WW2 what it was like.

When I saw the Spruce Goose a few years ago, the Docent said that it
initially had one kind of control system boost (perhaps pneumatic), but
when that didn't work, it was changed to hydraulic. Don't recall if that
was before or after the flight.

This doesn't seem consistent with the opinion proffered.

The Docent also said that Hughes refused to fly with any other pilot.
The right seater on the one hop was something like a terrified engineer
-- not to mention the folks downstairs who probably didn't know that the
boss was planning to lift off..

Ed Wischmeyer

There seems to be an important part of the story missing in this thread. The
aircraft's original designation was HK-1, which stood for Hughes-Kaiser. But
when the aircraft finally flew, it was only designated H-1. So what happened
to our 'ol buddy Henry Kaiser? He saw the light. Without a war, a
monster-airplane is just that. And without payloads, that means a monster
hangar-queen. Which is what the H-1 eventually became. Kaiser quit the
project before it was finished. Hughes, on the other hand, kept at it. And as
systems problems delayed to completion of the plane, questions arose. He
didn't have much of a choice when it came to finishing and flying the plane...
he was being investigated by a Congressional committee who believed the entire
project was nothing more than a boondoggle.

Still, it would be intresting to see what the performance numbers would be. My
guess is that it would be very slow and very sluggish... not unlike a certain
other famous airplane built by two brothers from Ohio. Its longest flight
lasted about as long.

Harry

"Wright1902Glider" wrote in message
...
There seems to be an important part of the story missing in this thread.
The
aircraft's original designation was HK-1, which stood for Hughes-Kaiser.
But
when the aircraft finally flew, it was only designated H-1. So what
happened
to our 'ol buddy Henry Kaiser? He saw the light. Without a war, a
monster-airplane is just that. And without payloads, that means a monster
hangar-queen. Which is what the H-1 eventually became. Kaiser quit the
project before it was finished. Hughes, on the other hand, kept at it.
And as
systems problems delayed to completion of the plane, questions arose. He
didn't have much of a choice when it came to finishing and flying the
plane...
he was being investigated by a Congressional committee who believed the
entire
project was nothing more than a boondoggle.

Still, it would be intresting to see what the performance numbers would
be. My
guess is that it would be very slow and very sluggish... not unlike a
certain
other famous airplane built by two brothers from Ohio. Its longest flight
lasted about as long.

Harry

Henry Kaiser talked Howard Hughes into the project in the first place. In
1942, Kaiser was building Liberty Ships which were being sunk by Hitler's
submarines at an alarming rate. Henry wanted to deliver high priority cargo
by air and avoid the subs.

175 MPH is slow for a big airplane, but it is very fast compared to a 12
knot Liberty Ship. Had the HK-1 been available in '42 it would have been
seen as a war winner.

Is it fair to say that the HK-1 was late or that the war was won sooner than
many planners thought? Had critical battles in Europe gone Hitler's way,
WW2 might have lasted until 1950, and the HK-1's fate might have been very
different.

Bill Daniels