Re: Could the "Spruce Goose" fly without ground effect?
Rob Arndt
> I don't know how high you have to go to be out of ground effect. Did the
> Spruce Goose ever prove that it could fly without the assistance of
> ground effect? And in general terms, was this just an equivalent to the
> Ekranoplan(sp?).
Silly question, really.
The HK-1 was designed to fly at 175 mph at 5,000 ft, so NO it was not
a WIG craft. When it was flown by Hughes on 11/2/47 he attained 80
feet for less than a minute and covered less than 1 mile. He reached
93 mph for t/o. It was built for 750 troops or 154,000 lbs cargo.
Hughes did not have permission to fly, only to taxi, in Los Angeles
Harbor, but then took her up for a very brief flight indicated above.
Today, it still has the longest wingspan, but the An-225 is larger.
Rob
Vaughn Simon
"Herbert Viola" <wga...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:wgates-43729D....@news.verizon.net...
>
> I don't know how high you have to go to be out of ground effect.
Different references may give different answers to that question. In
general, it is safe to say that at around 1/2 wingspan from the ground, you are
probably in ground effect and at 2X wingspan you are probably out.
>Did the
> Spruce Goose ever prove that it could fly without the assistance of
> ground effect?
No
>And in general terms, was this just an equivalent to the
> Ekranoplan(sp?).
No
Vaughn
Rob Arndt
wrote:
LMFAO!
Do you really believe that Hughes could not have attained the other 80
ft of altitude with the HK-1 in Los Angeles Harbor?
He only had permission from California authorities to taxi and pulled
that "stunt" only at the last minute. I am quite confident he could
have flown the HK-1 to its full altitude and attained its speed listed
above.
After all, he only flew for less than 5,280 ft length and attained 80
feet altitude from t/o. I'm sure the throttles weren't wide open and
the a/c straining to make that.
But the "flight" was really an illegal stunt and Hughes knew it..
IIRC, Hughes was both fined and the HK-1 impounded.
Rob
Vaughn Simon
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68bcd3b2-b7b1-4cdd...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 3, 3:11?am, "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net>
wrote:
> "Herbert Viola" <wga...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:wgates-43729D....@news.verizon.net...
>
>
>
> > I don't know how high you have to go to be out of ground effect.
>
> Different references may give different answers to that question. In
> general, it is safe to say that at around 1/2 wingspan from the ground, you
> are
> probably in ground effect and at 2X wingspan you are probably out.
>
> >Did the
> > Spruce Goose ever prove that it could fly without the assistance of
> > ground effect?
>
> No
>
> >And in general terms, was this just an equivalent to the
> > Ekranoplan(sp?).
>
> No
>
> Vaughn
"Do you really believe that Hughes could not have attained the other 80
ft of altitude with the HK-1 in Los Angeles Harbor?"
Rob;
Kindly re-read the above and then tell us what the hell gave you THAT idea.
The point that I actually made in the other thread was that we will never know
if the HK-1 could meet its design goals, and that is a shame.
Vaughn
Rob Arndt
wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, you stated that the HK-1 failed to "prove" it could get out of
ground effect. That is not legit since Hughes only had permission to
taxi and was not attempting to realy "fly" her. He wanted to take a
short "hop" as a stunt and that is all he did w/o trying. I'm sure the
HK-1 would have easily made it to altitude and within its speed
envelope w/o any trouble at all. Remember, it was empty too- no 750
troops nor 154,000 lb payload.
You answered like an authority that it could not demonstratably get
out of ground effect. Hughes wasn't trying for an official flight.
What happened in Los Angeles harbor was a last-minute stunt and the
only people to witness it were the people lucky enough to be there
that day.
You cannot definatively answer "No" at all since you have no basis in
fact for the allegation even. The flight was to become the first and
only one for the poor a/c, but it really is unofficial in the same way
that the He-178 took a hop on 8/24/39 while the official first flight
was 8/27/39. The He-178 clearly flew when authorized to; I believe the
same would have held true for the HK-1.
Rob
p.s. Too bad Hughes was an eccentric (insane, but rich) person. The
HK-1 deserved a real flight. I also would like to know what happened
to his WW2 D-2 and his designs for the Hughes Bloodhound fighter...
Dan
Of course it's "legit," aren't, for whatever reason it never flew
out of ground effect. It doesn't matter why it didn't, it just didn't
leave ground effect.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
You would have to be a complete moron to make that statement. Hughes
wasn't on any ofcial flight and could have easily rose above 320 ft or
whatever it is that properly defines "out of ground-effect" in the
HK-1.
It was not his intention as he had no permission to do so.
Furthermore, the HK-1 was only half its weight empty at 198,000 lbs
and had 8x 3,000 hp P&W engines= 24,000 hp, more than enought power-to-
weight ratio to lift the behemoth.
Use some common sense, Dan.
You just posted to argue; albeit, about a US a/c this time ;)
Rob
Dan
You don't know that it could have "rose" above 80 feet, no one does.
The fact remains it never did. It's exactly the same as the Nazi paper
projects you have been known to boast about, aren't, they never
performed therefore no one knows how they would have done. The experts
can predict mathematically, but in reality performance could be better
or worse than predicted. Could the Goose have risen above 80 feet? I
would like to think so, but the fact remains it never did and thus no
proof exists that it could have.
>
> It was not his intention as he had no permission to do so.
He had no "permission" to leave the water either, aren't. His plan
was to just perform a taxi. When testing a new fixed wing aircraft each
test is closer to flight than the one before: low speed taxi, inspect
the aircraft and evaluate performance, high speed taxi, inspect the
aircraft and evaluate performance...etc... You just don't hop in, taxi
and take off. The only reason he flew it at all was to prove to his
critics it could fly.
>
> Furthermore, the HK-1 was only half its weight empty at 198,000 lbs
> and had 8x 3,000 hp P&W engines= 24,000 hp, more than enought power-to-
> weight ratio to lift the behemoth.
Power to weight is only one part of flight, aren't. Lift to weight,
thrust to drag etc are more important. With enough brute force an anvil
can fly, but the object of controlled flight is to use the least amount
of energy to perform a given maneuver.
>
> Use some common sense, Dan.
I have used common sense, aren't, you haven't. You are trying to say
because he never flew out of ground effect doesn't prove it couldn't.
That's true as far as it goes, but there is absolutely no proof it could
have. The only proof that counts would for it to have done so. It never
did so as both Simon and I have said. It doesn't matter there was "no
permission" or any other excuse, it just never flew out of ground effect
and thus never proved it could.
Let's try an analogy, shall we? Suppose the Nazis built Me-109 but
never flew it out of ground effect. We would never know that it could
until it did. Of course it could or else it wouldn't have been the
capable fighter it was. They proved it could fly it out of ground effect
by doing so, not predicting it on paper.
>
> You just posted to argue; albeit, about a US a/c this time ;)
No, I posted to correct an error you made, aren't.
Jack G
Using your logic, no one would ever build a new airplane because there is no
proof that it could fly without actually flying it - and no one would be
willing to invest the time, money, and energy, to design and develop an
expensive new airplane with no proof that it would fly.
In the case of a flying boat, probably the biggest unknown is not "WILL IT
FLY" but will it "UNSTICK" from the water. The fact that the Spruce Goose
was able to achieve this goes a very long way to establish that it could fly
outside ground effect. What could only be determined by actual testing is
if it could fly within the specifications of weight, payload, speed,
altitude, and range.
Jack G.
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ZJ55j.25$3J...@newsfe20.lga...
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 8:20 pm, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 3:14?pm, "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net>
Dan
> Dan -
>
> Using your logic, no one would ever build a new airplane because there is no
> proof that it could fly without actually flying it - and no one would be
> willing to invest the time, money, and energy, to design and develop an
> expensive new airplane with no proof that it would fly.
That's an interesting conclusion. Using established science and
variations of previous designs one can design an airplane that will fly.
With modern computers performance predictions are better than ever. One
can never predict actual performance until an aircraft is built and tested.
Back to the Goose, one can assume it would have flown out of ground
effect, but was never proven to be able to simply because no one tried.
Aren't was arguing that the Goose didn't fail to prove it could fly
higher than 80 feet AGL because it "wasn't allowed to." It probably
could, but didn't therefore proof doesn't exist. I don't know why Hughes
never flew it again. Maybe it was just because the military no longer
needed it and there was no reason not to sink more money into it. On the
other hand, Hughes may have had questions whether it could perform out
of ground effect or there were controllability problems. I don't think
we will ever know.
guy
> I don't know how high you have to go to be out of ground effect. Did the
> Spruce Goose ever prove that it could fly without the assistance of
> Ekranoplan(sp?).
Well, anyone have the powet to weight and wing loadings for this
beastie? That should pretty much answer your question.
Guy
Rob Arndt
For the historical record, Hughes was called before the US Senate War
Investigation Committee to testify about the use of government funds
for parts of the HK-1.
Many believe it was for this humiliation that Hughes deliberately took
off in the HK-1 on Nov 2, 1947 as many in the Committee and Military
did NOT EVEN BELIEVE THE HK-1 COULD FLY AT ALL.
Hmm... seems Hughes proved them wrong just with the t/o and short
unofficial flight.
The US Navy was going to fly the HK-1 in 1977, but that program was
cancelled.
WHY did Hughes never fly her again and kept her cocooned?
Because he was eccentric (rich). Had he not been a millionaire, he
would have been certified as insane.
His behavior that plagued his life had NOTHING to do with any doubts
about the HK-1's ability to fly. There, you are just grasping at
straws.
And, even if it was in ground-effect during that one unofficial
flight, that does not automatically make it a default Ekranoplan or
WIG!
It was, and is, a purpose-built military flying boat.
If you are looking for the modern ground-effect military transport
then you should look at the Pelican proposal which is just another rip-
off of a German design- Lippisch's Ram-Wing WIG.
Rob
Vaughn Simon
On Dec 3, 3:14?pm, "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net>
Exactly, and I said that is a shame. The rest is only in your head. Off
your meds again?
"That is not legit"
That is where you went off the deep end. The reason why it only skimmed the
water is unknown and not even relevent. The facts are the facts.
"Remember, it was empty too- no 750 troops nor 154,000 lb payload."
Yes...so?
"You answered like an authority that it could not demonstratably get
out of ground effect."
I stated the only facts I know. Do you have special knowledge that is not
available to the rest of us? Secret papers?
" Hughes wasn't trying for an official flight."
How do you know what the hell Hughes was thinking?
"You cannot definatively answer "No" at all since you have no basis in
fact for the allegation even."
Allegation? What allegation? I only stated the facts. I said that the HK1
never was flown out of ground effect and it has not been proven what its actual
capabilities were and that is a shame. Is that somehow wrong? Off your meds
again?
Vaughn
guy
Just done a very quick check, the SG had slightly more power than a
non-jet B36 with approx double the wing area. The loaded weight of a
B36 was about 3/4 that of the SG (data from wiki with SG wing area a
guestimate from the drawing)
That suggests to me that the Spuce Goose would fly ok barring
technical issues, but slower than a B36
Does anyone have more accurate figures?
Guy
frank
Unless I missed part of this answer in another response, which is
a good possibility, 'ground effect', IIRC, is considered to be about
half of the airplane's wingspan, so to officially get out of ground
effect, the HK-1 would have needed to have flown above 160'.
Typhoon502
> I don't know how high you have to go to be out of ground effect. Did the
> Spruce Goose ever prove that it could fly without the assistance of
> ground effect? And in general terms, was this just an equivalent to the
> Ekranoplan(sp?).
Fun fact...in the Crimson Skies PC flight "simulator" game, there's a
mission where one of your teammates hijacks the Spruce Goose and you
have to defend it from air threats and clear seaborne threats/
obstacles out of its way as it's fast-taxiing out of the harbor. The
programmers scaled the model to an accurate size and it's a BIG mutha.
Bombardier
> I don't know how high you have to go to be out of ground effect. Did the
> Spruce Goose ever prove that it could fly without the assistance of
> ground effect? And in general terms, was this just an equivalent to the
> Ekranoplan(sp?).
Good question. Let's fly it again and see. You take the left seat.
Eunometic
Obviously an 'empirical' argument is the main way forward. It
certainly seems to me that comparison to the B-36 suggests very
strongly that the Hughes H-4 (the disparagingly called spruce goose)
would have flown and flown quite well. The power loading was about
the same and the wing loading of the H-4 was actually less. Both
flying boats and land operated aircraft have the advantage of wing in
ground effect on takeoff.
One of the most critical phases of a flying boats flight phases is
takeoff: Getting out of the water is very difficult. The achievable
angle of attack is limited, the drag of the water is very high
compared to wheels on tarmac and special structures need to be built
into the hull bottom to break the surface tension. If it got out of
the water it was surely going to be able to fly. The designer of the
Hughes giant flying boat was Glenn Odekirk who also designed the
Hughes H-1 Racer which set a world speed record of 352.39 miles per
hour in 1935 beating Raymond Delmotte's (of France) record of 314.32
miles per hour. The plane was revolutionary for its time and was one
of the first planes in history to sport retractable landing gear and
special countersunk screws and flat rivets to reduce wind resistance.
In other words the planes designer was an experienced and innovative
engineer.
Both the B-36 and the Hughes H-4 (disparagingly called the Spruce
Goose) used the new NACA 'laminar flow' airfoils again evidence of
someone abreast of the latest technology.
It seems to me that it could have fullfilled its objective of
resuplying Britain by air something that nearly came to be neccessary:
despite all of the hoohah about Huff Duff and Microwave radars
whenever Blechley park went blind u-boat losses dropped dramatically.
One pre-requisit might be that the aircraft could carry its own return
fuel supplies.
Convair 36 B-36 Peacemaker Roots NACA 63(420)-422, Tips NACA
63(420)-517
Wing Area Wing area: 4,772 ft² (443.3 m²
Empty weight: 171,035 lb (77,580 kg)
Loaded weight: 266,100 lb (120,700 kg
Max takeoff weight: 410,000 lb (190,000 kg)
Engines (6) Pratt & Whitney R-4360 28 cylinder
horsepower total power 21,000 hp. B36J and jet engines as well.
Hughes H-4 Hercules_______ Roots NACA 63(420)-321, Tips NACA
65(420)-415
Wing Area 11,430 sqft.
Gross weight 300,000 Ibs.
Pay load 130,000 Ibs
Max Weight over: 400,000 pounds
Engines (8) Pratt & Whitney R-4360 28 cylinder
3000 horsepower total power 24,0000hp.
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hell I am good! I guessed the SG wing area as 11165 going by the
little wiki drawing;-)
Guy
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great guess... but anyone with a brain and common sense could figure
out that Hughes could have taken her out for a real flight to height
if he had wanted to. The plane was empty, half max t/o weight, and
with all that power.
He left the water and too bad he did not break the rules further and
flown her around Los Angeles Harbor at least once above 160 ft for the
critics.
People like Dan and those who claim the HK-1 could not fly out of
ground effect are fools.
Also, even though the plane became known as the Hughes H-4, it's
correct technical designation is always Hughes-Kaiser HK-1. It is no
more an H-4 than a "Spruce Goose". It was built as the HK-1.
Rob
raoul
>
> He left the water and too bad he did not break the rules further and
> flown her around Los Angeles Harbor at least once above 160 ft for the
> critics.
>
> People like Dan and those who claim the HK-1 could not fly out of
> ground effect are fools.
No, Herr Arndt, Dan (and others) said and say that the discussion is
moot because it didn't. *That* is a fact.
raoul
guy
The argument 'it did not so it could not' is an absurdity.
Presumably that means that it was technically impossible for a Po16 to
fly in defence of Pearl Harbour because it did not, or that I am
physically incapable of walking to the lighthouse 4 miles from here
because I have not. In fact it means that nothing is capable of
anything, because at creation nothing has done anything.
Guy
Rob Arndt
Hughes took off at 93 mph and left the water to a height of 80 ft with
no problems at all. Although he was in "ground-effect", what mystical
aerodynamic barrier can you cite that would have prevented him from
rising to 160ft or even the 5,000 ft the HK-1 was designed to reach?
The plane's power and wing loading are facts too and they support it
could fly.
It was Hughes' DECISION not to climb higher that is the "fact" with
the Nov 2, 1947 flight, not that the plane could not have gotten out
of ground-effect. The subsequent "fact" that Hughes CHOSE not to fly
the HK-1 ever again is attributed to his eccentricity and also has
NOTHING to do with the plane itself, which you are attacking.
You have no grounds to make unsupported allegations that the HK-1
could not break ground-effect.
You are being ridiculous.
This is the most absurd argument ever on this NG.
Rob
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
he Rob read what I said! I am ***agreeing*** with you!
Guy
Dan
Again, aren't, we don't know that it could have been "taken her out
for a real flight."
>
> He left the water and too bad he did not break the rules further and
> flown her around Los Angeles Harbor at least once above 160 ft for the
> critics.
>
> People like Dan and those who claim the HK-1 could not fly out of
> ground effect are fools.
I never said it couldn't, did I? As a matter of fact I said it
probably could. I said it never proved it could, that's not the same thing.
Dan
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. Aren't said
"No, you stated that the HK-1 failed to "prove" it could get out of
ground effect. That is not legit since Hughes only had permission to
taxi and was not attempting to realy "fly" her."
The point I have been making all along, and aren't has been
misunderstanding, is that the Goose never proved it could fly out of
ground effect. Her statement that isn't "legit" is ridiculous on the
face of it. In any event this had gone around in circles long enough.
I will say again: the fact the Goose never flew out of ground effect
is not proof it couldn't, it is simply proof it never did.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry Guy, I hit the wrong reply button on the wrong post. I agree
with you 100% :)
Rob
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
It wasn't even a real flight, just a Hughes stunt... so it is invalid
to make any allegations against the HK-1 at all.
Same for the Coanda Turbine Aeroplane which was a thermal jet-world's
first in 1910 in Paris. Coanda was not a pilot, so when he was tuning
the engine and it started rolling forward, he jumped in and TRIED to
fly her. The fact that the plane crashed and another was not built is
not proof that the Turbine Aeroplane biplane jet could not fly or was
a failure. It was Coanda's failed attempt at flying.
For Hughes, it was a stunt and a bad decision on his part to never fly
the HK-1 again. The faults lie squarely with the fliers, not the the a/
c. Fortunately, the HK-1 is still around and can be flown to disprove
you :)
Get the picture, Dan?
Rob
guy
Actually Dan myself and you probably all agree(!!!) that the HK1 did
not prove it could fly out of ground effect, but equally it almost
certainly could if it had actually tried to. (why on earth would it
not have been able to?)
I think the real discussion is really about wether it could have
carried out its mission, and to be honest I do not think anyone will
ever know the answer to that one, unless it flies again.
Guy
Dan
the Goose never proved it could fly out of ground effect. I never said
it couldn't. You keep saying I said it couldn't fly out of ground effect
which I never did.
Since you either can't or won't understand that, I won't discuss this
further with you.
Indrek Aavisto
RA> You are being ridiculous.
RA> This is the most absurd argument ever on this NG.
Perhaps a somewhat hyperbolic statement. I'm sure many of the regulars will
remember Engineer Tarver and his frequent palpably idiotic arguments.
Cheers,
Indrek Aavisto
--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill