Just how big was the Spruce Goose?

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 05/27/2014 at 16:32 • Filed to: Planelopnik

7

30

Howard Hughes constructed the Hughes H-4 Hercules out of wood due to wartime limitations on the availability of aluminum. Nicknamed "The Spruce Goose," it took its brief maiden flight, with Hughes at the controls, in 1947. And never flew again.

After the first two taxi runs, four reporters left to file stories, but the remaining press stayed for the final test run of the day. After picking up speed on the channel facing Cabrillo Beach, the Hercules lifted off, remaining airborne at 70 ft (21 m) off the water at a speed of 135 miles per hour (217 km/h) for around a mile (1.6 km). At this altitude, the aircraft still experienced ground effect. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

As tall as an A380, and with a wingspan greater than the mighty An-225 Mriya, it is the largest flying boat ever constructed, and has the greatest wingspan of any airplane ever built. It is now preserved at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon.

GhostZ > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 16:35

2

I can only imagine what would happen if someone rebuilt it using carbon fiber and modern jet engines. As a large-scale transport plane, it was pretty revolutionary to be able to make something that large fly, but we've had 50 years of material science to improve it now.

ttyymmnn > GhostZ 05/27/2014 at 16:37

2

I think it would be cool to re-engine the prototype with some modern turboprops. I'm no aero engineer, but I would be willing to bet there would be plenty of power to get it airborne.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > GhostZ 05/27/2014 at 16:38

0

On top of that, I think a modern iteration would have significantly different shape, now that we understand physics better, also to better accommodate a jet-powered plane, rather than a prop-plane.

Klaus Schmoll > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 16:46

1

Need I say more?

Bluecold > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 05/27/2014 at 16:51

0

The understanding of physics hasn't improved that much. The navier stokes equations are known for a while now. The hard part is designing something that works, if all you've got is a set of equations for which no analytical solution exists and a computational solution takes a million years for an aircraft. We've gotten better at that, luckily.

pauljones > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 16:51

2

I still love this size comparison of scale models:

I grew up just a few miles down the road from where the Goose was kept in Long Beach, and I still hate that Disney and Long Beach let it all fall through.

Jayhawk Jake > GhostZ 05/27/2014 at 16:52

0

The russians kinda sorta did with the Antonov 225. It's close to the same size but built out of metal and powered by turbofan engines.

The flying boat aspect was more an issue of available runway space at the time and capability to takeoff/land something that massive.

Jayhawk Jake > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 16:53

0

It had plenty of power to begin with.

I don't care what any naysayers claim with the Hercules, it flew. It could have flown well, probably would have, but it never had the opportunity.

Bluecold > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 16:54

0

Yeah, but what's the point? It was a shit design that barely got airborne. Sure you could add modern power, and then it might get airborne. Would you like to fly in a plane that was designed by a person that though the plane would fly, and it ended up not flying?

ttyymmnn > pauljones 05/27/2014 at 16:54

0

That's a ridiculous comparison, and I mean that in a good way. The DC-3 is not a small airplane, at least not by 1940s standards.

DarrinW > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 16:56

0

its big lol. ive seen it and been in it!

ttyymmnn > Bluecold 05/27/2014 at 16:57

0

No point other than doing it. Would it have flown if he had more powerful engines? Perhaps. But there's so much more to the story than just a big plane: Hughes' hubris, his delusional personality, politics. He was obsessed with it until he proved it would fly. Then he moved on.

camaroboy68ss > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 17:08

0

it's BIG I've seen it at the evergreen museum. It gives you goosebumps when you see it in person. It's awe inspiring.

pauljones > Jayhawk Jake 05/27/2014 at 17:09

0

No, it really didn't. It got off the water, sure. But at 70 feet off the water, what the plane experienced was not free flight, but rather ground effect . Ground effect isn't quite the same thing as free flight, despite what it looks like. Understand, all aircraft experience ground effect during takeoff and landing. But an aircraft capable of free flight is one that is capable of sustaining sufficient lift outside of ground effect.

Could the Spruce Goose have done that? I honestly don't know. I do know, however, that it didn't during its demonstration.

All passion for the aircraft and the marvel that it is/was notwithstanding, the facts are the facts, and physics doesn't lie.

Team6.1 > Bluecold 05/27/2014 at 17:11

0

Adding lots of power to shit designs? Isn't that the epitome of American car culture? What wouldn't we but an sbc or ls1 into?

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 17:13

0

When I lived in Alaska in the 90's you would still see quite a few DC-3 used for cargo planes going out to service the villages out in the bush. Modern planes may be better in every way, but they all lack the poetry of motion and sound that these old birds had from day one.

rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S > Klaus Schmoll 05/27/2014 at 17:15

0

Exactly what I came here to post. :)

pauljones > Bluecold 05/27/2014 at 17:17

0

It's hard to say whether or not the Spruce Goose could have actually flown effectively. As to why it never got to fly, that has nothing to do with its design, and the fact that it never got the chance to fly does not imply that it was a shit design.

Rather, the more likely explanation for why it never got the chance to truly fly was that by the time it was finished, the war for which it was designed and built was long over. At that point in time, Howard Hughes was under Congressional investigation for misuse of wartime funds on a project that many in Congress at the time thought was a sham that couldn't get off the ground.

With no real need for the aircraft or its capabilities, all Hughes had to do to clear his name was to convince Congress that the aircraft was functional and capable of getting off the ground. He did that, knowing damn well that those in Congress were ignorant of the difference between simple ground effect and free flight.

Hughes did what he needed to do, and with the aircraft now an otherwise lame duck with purpose, he had no need or motivation to ever do anything with it again.

That being said, however, it is important to note that once the Spruce Goose had returned, it was put into a climate-controlled hangar and maintained in perfect flight condition for thirty years. I'll let you draw your own conclusions of its potential flight-worthiness from there.

ttyymmnn > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 05/27/2014 at 17:19

0

The DC-3 is still used in Alaska. There's something to be said for old school simplicity in difficult conditions. Some of the older airframes are being re-engined with turboprops now.

How sexy is that??

pauljones > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 17:21

2

I agree that the demonstration had everything to do with politics and Hughes' pride, but in this instance, I don't think his delusional personality was a part of it. Hughes was under trial for wartime fraud from Congress, and the only way to clear his name was to demonstrate the aircraft. He did that, and being left with a lame duck of an aircraft that had no purpose and was already on the verge of being obsolete, he had no reason or motivation to ever flight it again.

He did, however, love that airplane to death; after all, it was maintained in flight-ready condition in a climate-controlled environment for 30 years. That's not the sign of a man who simply got bored and didn't care. That's the sign of a man that knew the project was pointless and therefore doomed, but loved it too much to let it go completely.

ttyymmnn > pauljones 05/27/2014 at 17:22

0

Thanks for the info. Admittedly, I know very little about Hughes.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 17:22

0

Brings back a few frigid memories. Good ones, but cold ones.

Klaus Schmoll > rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S 05/27/2014 at 17:27

0

Great minds think alike!

Bluecold > pauljones 05/27/2014 at 17:42

0

My assertion of it being a shit design was slightly harsh, yes.

However, there has been a large history on the viability of oversize aircraft filling niches, such as aerial firefighting, or transport. I like to think that if it actually could fly well, the design could be modified to be of use.

I find it hard to draw conclusions from the air conditioned hangar as Howard Hughes had a penchant for being eccentric.

pauljones > Bluecold 05/27/2014 at 17:46

0

He was eccentric about things he cared a great deal about. When he testified to Congress that he put his life and reputation into that airplane, he meant it. If I had to guess, I would say that it was capable of free flight, however it would have had no purpose being that it's wooden construction would have made adapting it to other roles difficult at best. Nevertheless, he loved that airplane, and while he could absolutely be eccentric as all hell, he often did so with a single-minded purpose. It's unlikely that he would have spent so much to keep the aircraft in flight-ready condition for 30 years if it didn't have the ability to fly.

lonestranger > ttyymmnn 05/27/2014 at 18:02

2

"... in Alaska."

And all over the world. That photo is of a Canadian-registered aircraft in Antarctica.

Bluecold > pauljones 05/27/2014 at 18:02

0

I can't comment on the psyche of what Hughes would've done, clearly you're better informed on that, so I'll accept your point.

In any case, a wooden construction isn't necessarily harder to adapt than aluminum. They're just materials with properties. Wood has a few quite nice properties for planes even. No stress hardening so you'll get less problems with fatigue. And it's quite easy to make tapered constructions since wood glue is easy to work with. Still, it is indeed possible that it was not feasible to adapt the plane.

Jayhawk Jake > pauljones 05/27/2014 at 19:47

0

I am well aware of ground effect, I'm an aerospace engineer.

Did it leave ground effect? Probably not, but it didn't try to. Unfortunately we won't ever really know. Saying it didn't fly because of that is just being pedantic though, and no one likes that.

Jayhawk Jake > Bluecold 05/27/2014 at 19:52

0

How was it a shit design? It barely got airborne only because Hughes never tried to take it any further. There's nothing about the design that indicates it wouldn't have flown other than the size.

pauljones > Jayhawk Jake 05/27/2014 at 20:48

0

I'm glad you think it's being pedantic; I think it's being accurate. It did not achieve what is considered to be free flight.

At no point in my multiple comments have I said anything disparaging about Hughes, the H-4, or another commenter. I simply pointed out the reality that even Hughes himself realized.

I'm sorry you don't like that, but it is what it is.