Off Topic - Spruce Goose

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

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

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

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:58:46 -0600, "L.D."
wrote:

I don't know if it is true or just hanger talk but I've always heard
that aeronautical engineers say it is impossible for a bumble bee to
fly. However we all know they do it well. I would like for someone to
plug in aircraft performance analysis programs a bubble bees
specifications and see if it is possible for him to fly. OH well it
probably won't work because a bumble bee isn't an aircraft, or is he?

Your information is mistaken. This is a very old story and was
corrected almost immediately.

Here's what constitutes the usual explanation: "It apparently first
surfaced in Germany in the 1930s, and the story was about a prominent
Swiss aerodynamicist. One evening, the researcher happened to be
talking to a biologist at dinner, who asked about the flight of bees.
To answer the biologist's query, the Swiss engineer did a quick
"back-of-the-napkin" calculation.

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the
bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the
wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift. But that was
about all he could do at a dinner party. The detailed calculations had
to wait.

To the biologist, however, the aerodynamicist's initial failure was
sufficient evidence of the superiority of nature to mere engineering.
The story spread, told from the biologist's point of view, and it
wasn't long before it started to appear in magazine and newspaper
articles."

The further explanation is that once the aerodynamicist got back to
his lab he researched further and examined a bumblebee under a
microscope and realised his initial calculations were way off. He
corrected his error but of course the correction did not get the print
that the original statement got, and folks have been scoffing at
scientists ever since.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
The further explanation is that once the aerodynamicist got back to
his lab he researched further and examined a bumblebee under a
microscope and realised his initial calculations were way off. He
corrected his error but of course the correction did not get the print
that the original statement got, and folks have been scoffing at
scientists ever since.


I think the missing links were the figure-8 flapping motion and wing-warping
that the bee used.

"C.D.Damron" wrote in message news:0fzKb.299691$_M.1710730@attbi_s54...

I think the missing links were the figure-8 flapping motion and wing-warping
that the bee used.

Yes, the biggest factor is that they moving wing generates more lift than the
fixed wing theory would predict. In addition, the low reynolds numbers
involved also screws up attempts to extrapolate to larger flying craft.

"C.D.Damron" wrote in message
news:0fzKb.299691$_M.1710730@attbi_s54...

I think the missing links were the figure-8 flapping motion and
wing-warping
that the bee used.


All of this was after the Wright Brothers' patent for wing-warping and what
the aerodynamicist really said was that there was no way a bumblebee could
fly... without infringing on that patent =D

Eric

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:03:40 GMT, "C.D.Damron"
wrote:


"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
The further explanation is that once the aerodynamicist got back to
his lab he researched further and examined a bumblebee under a
microscope and realised his initial calculations were way off. He
corrected his error but of course the correction did not get the print
that the original statement got, and folks have been scoffing at
scientists ever since.


I think the missing links were the figure-8 flapping motion and wing-warping
that the bee used.

Right. But the point is, the original premise: that scientists proved
erroneously that the bumblebee couldn't fly, is false. "Scientists"
did not prove this, it was a cocktail estimation by one person made
with what he knew was inadaquate information. It only proved:
"garbage in, garbage out". It was just passing conversation blown out
of proportion and the media and critics of science have run with this
ever since.

Corky Scott

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