Off Topic - Spruce Goose

"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

Interesting anectdote on the one flight of the Spruce Goose. I took a
second tour through the inside of it recently at the Evergreen
Aviation Museum in McMinnville (first time was in Long Beach around
'81) and the old timer who was giving the talk said that when the HK-1
(H-4) Spruce Goose was airborne, the fuselage flexed more than it was
designed to and that there were a lot of cracking wood sounds...

Here are a couple of photos I took fore and aft of the innards of the
Goose, since I haven't seen any others around:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1946559

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1946571



- Cecil


"Steve Beaver" wrote in message ...
We have all seen the film of the Spruce Goose lifting off the water for a
few seconds only to be retired to its hangar never to fly again but I
wonder, what would its performance have been? Did Hughes determine in that
brief hop that the aircraft was no good or did ecconomic concerns ground it?

There are all kinds of aircraft performance analysis programs available now.
Has anyone ever plugged in the Goose specifications and determined how it
would fly?

"CecilWilliams" wrote in message
om...

Here are a couple of photos I took fore and aft of the innards of the
Goose, since I haven't seen any others around:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1946559

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1946571

Remarkable shots, Cecil. Thank you for sharing them with us.

Rich S.

Yes, Thanks. What are all the red bottles on the floor?

--
Dan D.



..
"Rich S." wrote in message ...
"CecilWilliams" wrote in message
om...

Here are a couple of photos I took fore and aft of the innards of the
Goose, since I haven't seen any others around:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1946559

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1946571

Remarkable shots, Cecil. Thank you for sharing them with us.

Rich S.

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.



"Bill Daniels" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Richard Isakson" wrote in message
...
"Steve Beaver" wrote ...
We have all seen the film of the Spruce Goose lifting off the water for
a
few seconds only to be retired to its hangar never to fly again but I
wonder, what would its performance have been? Did Hughes determine in
that
brief hop that the aircraft was no good or did ecconomic concerns ground
it?

I believe he discovered the airplane didn't have enough power to fly out
of
ground effect even at empty weight. Others say that he had to fly one
time
to collect the money from the contract. In either case, it's been shown
that it wouldn't have flown with a full load.

Rich

The prototype Hercules used 8 Pratt and Whitney R-4360 of 3500 HP each - the
wrong engines. The 5000 - 7000 HP Lycoming XR7755, then under development,
was the intended engine. The Convair B-36 and the Northrop B-35 were also
supposed to use the R7755. See:
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html

With a total of 56,000 HP instead of "just" 28,000 the "Spruce Goose" would
have been a outstanding success - don't blame the failure on the airframe.

It's interesting to speculate how these huge aircraft would have performed
with the enormous Liquid cooled Lycoming.

Bill Daniels

"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

In article om, Blueskies
says...

Yes, Thanks. What are all the red bottles on the floor?

CO2 for the fire suppresent system ,if I remember right. I was there, I saw it
and it was neat and so was the Queen Mary.

See ya

Chuck (I like wood planes too) S

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.

"Wright1902Glider" wrote in message
...

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.

Harry.............

Believe it or not - spark plug cost was a big factor.

Say, $5/plug in those days. B-36, six engines, 72 plugs/engine = 432 spark
plugs, every 100 hrs = $2160/100 hrs = $21.60/hr.

Rich S.

"Wright1902Glider" wrote in message
...
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.

All true. However, it was a long time after turbines became common in
fighter aircraft that the unrefueled long range capabilities of piston
engines were eclipsed - and then only by airborne refueling of turbine
aircraft. The Lockheed Neptune "Truculent Turtle" and, of course, the Rutan
Voyager were piston long-range aircraft that prove the point.

One could wonder what would have happened if jet fuel costs in 1957 at the
dawn of commercial jet travel had been $2 a gallon instead of $0.10. Those
old piston airliners might have had much longer careers.

For unrefueled range, pistons still rule.

Bill Daniels