I have no idea what the Spruce Goose cost, or whether it was worth it. However, I have read that development of the sophisticated hydraulic controls required for the huge airplane hastened the development of jet transport aircraft.
The Lockheed “Flying Wing” was another concept-before-its-time aircraft. It would have arguably made a suitable long-range bomber, but insurmountable problems with its contra-rotating propeller transmission delayed its introduction until the jet age arrived, and conversion to jet propulsion (and resultant higher fuel consumption) limited its range to sub-intercontinental, rendering it inferior to all-new jet designs by Boeing. (The weird, hybrid-propelled ten-engined Convair B-36 patrolled the stratosphere in the meantime.)
The Flying Wing was also a widowmaker, as its odd design made it hard to control with the technology yet available. I believe these problems probably would have been worked out had further development been afforded, however.
I understand that its low radar visibility was noted at the time (then regarded as something of an air-traffic-control problem) but when the “Stealth Bomber” was developed (in almost identical dimensions as the “Flying Wing”), the dying John Northrup was permitted to view a model of the still-classified aircraft, in acknowledgment of and respect for his development of the concept.
I can’t seem to find a cite, but I remember hearing that the Spruce Goose was only able to fly due to the ground effect. If it had attempted to fly any higher it would have crashed.
Any one else heard of this, can someone support, or shoot down this assumption?
The way I heard it, Hughes was not cleared for an actual flight and that he “accidentally” took off. (This happens a lot with homebuilts, I understand.)
The footage I’ve seen definitely looks as if the aircraft never left ground effect. But does that mean it couldn’t fly out of ground effect? Not at all. Hughes was an expert pilot who had designed aircraft before. While unexpected flight properties may pop up, you can be sure that the aircraft was flyable. The only thing that may have prevented it from flying higher would have been insufficient power; and they probably figured all of that out beforehand.
The Evergreen museum lists the Hughes Flying Boat as the HK-1, which makes sense since it involved Hughes and Kaiser.
Biggest ever? I did some research. The largest aircraft currently flying seems to be the Anotov An-225. It is longer than the HK-1 though not as high and with a smaller wingspan. Net weight for the An-225 (without payload) is nearly 5 times as much as the HK-1.
Combining all measures of “bigness”, the HK-1 may be larger than the An-225, but not “by far”.
I find it interesting that the B-36 bomber, which was contemporary to the HK-1, had a much larger payload, range, and maximum speed, and was a land plane.
Still, the HK-1 is a much more interesting airplane, and deserves a place in aviation history.
He was also out of his gourde. Is there a scientific backup that it would have flown if it had enough power? Lots of things have been pursued by capable men, but due to hubris rather than sense. Was Hughes past the point of being able to design this plane?
dantheman: Ground effect. Basically, if you are within a wingspan’s distance from the ground, the wing is more efficient due to a greater lift-to-drag ratio.
vertigo. Hughes didn’t become a recluse until much later. Hughes was not “past the point of being able to design this plane”. In addition, he had a very capable staff of engineers designing it. You’re asking for scientific data to prove the Hercules would not fly. How do you prove a negative?
But look at it aerodynamically. Except for its size, the aircraft was very conventional. Unlike the Northrop Flying Wing which had stability problems, the “Spruce Goose” is laid out like any other airplane. There is no reason to suspect that it would have had any adverse flying qualities.
The big issue with float planes like the SG is getting clear of the water. Water is a lousy lubricant and exerts significant drag. Any float plane powerful enough to clear the water is more than powerful enough to go way past ground effect.
As for the flying wings. These are quite unstable aerodynamically. It takes modern computer controlled systems to fly them and then just barely. These things crash all too often whenever conditions are not perfect. Still a generation away from doing it right IMHO. Note that Boeing has a plane on the drawing boards that is virtually all body. I woudn’t want to fly in one of those until a couple of years of real life flying has demonstrated their air-worthiness.
Welcome to the SDMB, jeffkopp, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at the link provided by dantheman.
Not strictly related, but I’m grateful to Cecil for clearing up a grey area in my Simpsons knowledge, i.e. Burns’ Spruce Moose plane design. I’m also deeply intrigued by the idea of a plane made entirely of wood, but then a lot of the stuff on here leaves me deeply intrigued.
Mr. Wensleydale, the B-36 may have been a better bomber, but the HK-1 (eventually H-4) was designed as a transport plane. The front of the plane was actually two huge doors that allowed loading and loading of vehicles, and it could carry 2 Sherman tanks. It wasn’t competing with the B-36.
According to this eyewitness account, there was advance notice Hughes was going to fly the plane, so it wasn’t an accident.
I take some exception to the comment that the Spruce Goose’s wood construction, while being used for small aircraft and gliders, was untested in a plane so large. Of course, it’s strictly true that everything in the plane had been untested in a plane so large because it was the largest plane of its time, but I digress…
Unless I’m mistaken, I believe the British Mosquito fighter/bomber which flew with great distinction throughout the war was also made of wood, again due to shortages of strategic materials. The successful use of wood for a twin engined fighter/bomber capable of flying over 300mph is a convincing demonstration of the suitability of making big planes out of wood.
Actually, fly wings are not as unstable as you might think if they have a rudder, consider the WWII aircraft, the Me 163 Komet. It was a rocket powered glider used as an inceptor. It was called a “tailess glider” since it has only a main wing and a rudder and no horizontal stablizer. See this link for a peek: Komet
The Komet was capable of nearly 600 mph, unfortunately its rocket motor was powered by liquid fuel (hydrogen peroxide and kerosene, I believe) and was somewhat unstable. There were apparantly mishaps where the plane would blow up while taking off or starting up the motor. Bad news for the pilot, I’d say.
There are also a few, though not many flying wing sailpanes (high performance glider) around as well. Several are similar in design to the Komet. Meaning a fuselage (short and stumpy), main wing and a rudder. The true flying wing, is just that, a wing. Nothing most would identify as a fuselage and no rudder. The rudder is probably where the instability problems were in the first true flying wings since in a conventional airplane the ailerons control the roll axis, the elevator controls the pitch axis (nose up or down about the CG) and the rudder controls the yawl axis (nose left or right). Generally with a conventional airplane a turn is performed using a bit of all three controls to accomplish the turn. Without a rudder the direction stability is much trickier, no doubt you can figure why.
Here is a link to info about the Northrop flying wing(s): XB-35 This also has links so you can follow the various experimental aircraft leading up to the B2.
