Howard Hughes' Little Airplane Accident in Hollywood

"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.

In article . com,
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...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.

"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

On Sep 27, 4:29 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article . com,

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...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?

"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?

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