 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Military - Naval Forum » 62 Years Ago: Maiden (and Only) Flight of Spruce Goose... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dennis... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
Operational history
Hughes H-4 Hercules on its maiden flight
During a break in the Senate hearings, Hughes returned to California to run
taxi tests on the H-4.[8] On 2 November 1947, the taxi tests were begun
with Hughes at the controls. His crew included Dave Grant as co-pilot, and
two flight engineers, 16 mechanics and two other flight crew. In addition,
the H-4 carried seven invited guests from the press corps plus an
additional seven industry representatives, for a total of 32 on board.[12]
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.[13] After picking
up speed on the channel facing Cabrillo Beach near Long Beach, the Hercules
lifted off, remaining airborne 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).[14] At this altitude,
the aircraft was still experiencing ground effect.[15] The aircraft never
flew again. Its lifting capacity and ceiling were never tested. Hughes once
told a friend the plane creaked so badly upon liftoff he feared it would
delaminate.[citation needed] A full-time crew of 300 workers, all sworn to
secrecy, maintained the plane in flying condition in a climate-controlled
hangar. The crew was reduced to 50 workers in 1962, and then disbanded
after Hughes' death in 1976.[16] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
[/quote]
If it were remoetly true, it would have another raison d'etre!
And one to two days a year they do the above as part of the group
picnic, because in reality they were all hired to do something
classified.
Read between the lines, its Hughes and his cronies, needing a reason
to hire a bunch of folks under cover.
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:29 pm, richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
[quote]On 2 Nov 2009 18:00:57 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi18NOS... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
Operational history
Hughes H-4 Hercules on its maiden flight
During a break in the Senate hearings, Hughes returned to California to run
taxi tests on the H-4.[8] On 2 November 1947, the taxi tests were begun
with Hughes at the controls. His crew included Dave Grant as co-pilot, and
two flight engineers, 16 mechanics and two other flight crew. In addition,
the H-4 carried seven invited guests from the press corps plus an
additional seven industry representatives, for a total of 32 on board.[12]
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.[13] After picking
up speed on the channel facing Cabrillo Beach near Long Beach, the Hercules
lifted off, remaining airborne 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).[14] At this altitude,
the aircraft was still experiencing ground effect.[15] The aircraft never
flew again. Its lifting capacity and ceiling were never tested. Hughes once
told a friend the plane creaked so badly upon liftoff he feared it would
delaminate.[citation needed] A full-time crew of 300 workers, all sworn to
secrecy, maintained the plane in flying condition in a climate-controlled
hangar. The crew was reduced to 50 workers in 1962, and then disbanded
after Hughes' death in 1976.[16]
Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
[/quote]
Probably took about 25 to fly the thing. When it was in Long Beach on
display they had portions of the hull replaced with some transperent
material. The fuel control alone must have required six or more. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 3:29 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 1:29 pm, richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
On 2 Nov 2009 18:00:57 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi18NOS... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
Operational history
Hughes H-4 Hercules on its maiden flight
During a break in the Senate hearings, Hughes returned to California to run
taxi tests on the H-4.[8] On 2 November 1947, the taxi tests were begun
with Hughes at the controls. His crew included Dave Grant as co-pilot, and
two flight engineers, 16 mechanics and two other flight crew. In addition,
the H-4 carried seven invited guests from the press corps plus an
additional seven industry representatives, for a total of 32 on board.[12]
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.[13] After picking
up speed on the channel facing Cabrillo Beach near Long Beach, the Hercules
lifted off, remaining airborne 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).[14] At this altitude,
the aircraft was still experiencing ground effect.[15] The aircraft never
flew again. Its lifting capacity and ceiling were never tested. Hughes once
told a friend the plane creaked so badly upon liftoff he feared it would
delaminate.[citation needed] A full-time crew of 300 workers, all sworn to
secrecy, maintained the plane in flying condition in a climate-controlled
hangar. The crew was reduced to 50 workers in 1962, and then disbanded
after Hughes' death in 1976.[16]
Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
Probably took about 25 to fly the thing. When it was in Long Beach on
display they had portions of the hull replaced with some transperent
material. The fuel control alone must have required six or more.
[/quote]
and on the other hand the Soviets had a flying battleship
http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/11/02/13207/aircraft-ungreen/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Casady... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2 Nov 2009 18:00:57 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi18NOSPAM at (no spam) hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
Operational history
Hughes H-4 Hercules on its maiden flight
During a break in the Senate hearings, Hughes returned to California to run
taxi tests on the H-4.[8] On 2 November 1947, the taxi tests were begun
with Hughes at the controls. His crew included Dave Grant as co-pilot, and
two flight engineers, 16 mechanics and two other flight crew. In addition,
the H-4 carried seven invited guests from the press corps plus an
additional seven industry representatives, for a total of 32 on board.[12]
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.[13] After picking
up speed on the channel facing Cabrillo Beach near Long Beach, the Hercules
lifted off, remaining airborne 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).[14] At this altitude,
the aircraft was still experiencing ground effect.[15] The aircraft never
flew again. Its lifting capacity and ceiling were never tested. Hughes once
told a friend the plane creaked so badly upon liftoff he feared it would
delaminate.[citation needed] A full-time crew of 300 workers, all sworn to
secrecy, maintained the plane in flying condition in a climate-controlled
hangar. The crew was reduced to 50 workers in 1962, and then disbanded
after Hughes' death in 1976.[16]
[/quote]
Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
osr at (no spam) uakron.edu wrote:
[quote]Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
If it were remoetly true, it would have another raison d'etre!
And one to two days a year they do the above as part of the group
picnic, because in reality they were all hired to do something
classified.
Read between the lines, its Hughes and his cronies, needing a reason
to hire a bunch of folks under cover.
[/quote]
Doubtful
It would take forty or fifty to maintain the shifts for site security,
about the same for the main building itself, three or four store-men,
there'd be a mechanical workshop, an engines workshop and a
radio/electronics workshop each with two or three men and whatever the
US calls a 'charge hand', plus admin support, drivers, canteen staff,
cleaners and various others.
That's a couple of hundred or so.
Then there's the vast climate controlled hangar, something very new
when it was built.
Add in a drawing office and a management structure and you're probably
at 300 people...
Don't forget that there was a Senate hearing about the bloody thing,
he'd have had to account for just about every penny.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:54 am, richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:23:54 +0000, William Black
william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
o... at (no spam) uakron.edu wrote:
Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
If it were remoetly true, it would have another raison d'etre!
And one to two days a year they do the above as part of the group
picnic, because in reality they were all hired to do something
classified.
Read between the lines, its Hughes and his cronies, needing a reason
to hire a bunch of folks under cover.
Doubtful
It would take forty or fifty to maintain the shifts for site security,
about the same for the main building itself
Half as many as a USAF base. Sure.
, three or four store-men,
there'd be a mechanical workshop, an engines workshop and a
radio/electronics workshop each with two or three men and whatever the
US calls a 'charge hand', plus admin support, drivers, canteen staff,
cleaners and various others.
That's a couple of hundred or so.
Then there's the vast climate controlled hangar, something very new
when it was built.
Air conditioning wasn't remotely new. It was common practice to to air
condition large office buildings and even refrigerate or freeze the
holds of freighters. While large cooling systems usually used ammonia
as the working fluid, the common practice on ships was to use air. But
I digress.
What you need is humidity control. In a well sealed building, it
wouldn't take all that much.
Add in a drawing office and a management structure and you're probably
at 300 people...
Don't forget that there was a Senate hearing about the bloody thing,
he'd have had to account for just about every penny.
You think you need a engine shop with full time employees to maintain
new engines that are never run. Nuff said. I had a plane of that
vintage, with a Pratt and Whitney radial engine, and it called for
engine oil and spark plugs every twenty five hours. It took an hour.
You would have to wax it two or three times a year if you flew it all
the time. You do an thorough inspection every 100 hours, and/or
annually.
Casady
[/quote]
"The craft was kept airworthy and the engines were fired up every
month. The Spruce Goose was painted white. Hughes continued to make
improvements, such as installing more powerful engines. When flooding
damaged the Spruce Goose, Hughes built a larger hangar. While the
United States government spent some $22 million on the project, Hughes
spent an estimated $7 to $18 million dollars of his own money to
complete and maintain the Spruce Goose."
http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/spruce-goose-the-%E2%80%9Cflying-lumberyard%E2%80%9D/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Chaplin... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in news:611de3fd-e31d-
4a27-8f78-4dd3845ba061 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
[quote]and on the other hand the Soviets had a flying battleship
http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/11/02/13207/aircraft-ungreen/
[/quote]
Pull the one with the bells on, Jack.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 11:47 am, richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:30:48 +0000, William Black
william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
and built using new techniques in a material they weren't familiar with,
with unknown characteristics and an unknown maintenance profile.
What material? Spruce? By all means, tell us more. If there were any
unfamiliar materials they have vanished from history. As for unknown
characteristics, they had materials testing labs, even then.
Casady
[/quote]
With a wingspan of 320 feet—longer than a football field—the Spruce
Goose has the distinction of being the largest aircraft ever built.
Planned and designed during World War II, when materials such as
aluminum were in short supply and were reserved for the most urgent
military projects, the Spruce Goose earned its name from its nearly
all-wood construction. Only the flaps, or control surfaces, were made
from fabric; the remainder of the plane was fashioned from layers of
plywood especially constructed at the Hughes Aircraft Company plant in
Culver City, California. Despite its nickname, the “Spruce Goose,”
only about 5 to 10 percent of the craft is constructed of spruce; the
remainder is birch plywood. The name stuck, however, because, in the
words of one worker, “nobody could think of a word that rhymed with
birch.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:22 pm, richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:01:42 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Despite its nickname, the “Spruce Goose,”
only about 5 to 10 percent of the craft is constructed of spruce; the
remainder is birch plywood. The name stuck, however, because, in the
words of one worker, “nobody could think of a word that rhymed with
birch.”
The famous gunfight involving Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and others, was
not at the OK Corral, which was down the street. It was in the vacant
lot next to C.S. Fly's Photographic Studio. Never fit that into a
ballad.
Casady
[/quote]
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/earp/epitaph.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Casady... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:23:54 +0000, William Black
<william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]osr at (no spam) uakron.edu wrote:
Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
If it were remoetly true, it would have another raison d'etre!
And one to two days a year they do the above as part of the group
picnic, because in reality they were all hired to do something
classified.
Read between the lines, its Hughes and his cronies, needing a reason
to hire a bunch of folks under cover.
Doubtful
It would take forty or fifty to maintain the shifts for site security,
about the same for the main building itself
Half as many as a USAF base. Sure.[/quote]
, three or four store-men,
[quote]there'd be a mechanical workshop, an engines workshop and a
radio/electronics workshop each with two or three men and whatever the
US calls a 'charge hand', plus admin support, drivers, canteen staff,
cleaners and various others.
That's a couple of hundred or so.
Then there's the vast climate controlled hangar, something very new
when it was built.
[/quote]
Air conditioning wasn't remotely new. It was common practice to to air
condition large office buildings and even refrigerate or freeze the
holds of freighters. While large cooling systems usually used ammonia
as the working fluid, the common practice on ships was to use air. But
I digress.
What you need is humidity control. In a well sealed building, it
wouldn't take all that much.
[quote]Add in a drawing office and a management structure and you're probably
at 300 people...
Don't forget that there was a Senate hearing about the bloody thing,
he'd have had to account for just about every penny.
[/quote]
You think you need a engine shop with full time employees to maintain
new engines that are never run. Nuff said. I had a plane of that
vintage, with a Pratt and Whitney radial engine, and it called for
engine oil and spark plugs every twenty five hours. It took an hour.
You would have to wax it two or three times a year if you flew it all
the time. You do an thorough inspection every 100 hours, and/or
annually.
Casady |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Casady wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:23:54 +0000, William Black
[/quote]
[quote]Read between the lines, its Hughes and his cronies, needing a reason
to hire a bunch of folks under cover.
Doubtful
It would take forty or fifty to maintain the shifts for site security,
about the same for the main building itself
Half as many as a USAF base. Sure.
[/quote]
You think I underestimated?
[quote], three or four store-men,
there'd be a mechanical workshop, an engines workshop and a
radio/electronics workshop each with two or three men and whatever the
US calls a 'charge hand', plus admin support, drivers, canteen staff,
cleaners and various others.
That's a couple of hundred or so.
Then there's the vast climate controlled hangar, something very new
when it was built.
Air conditioning wasn't remotely new.
[/quote]
It isn't 'air conditioned', it's 'climate controlled'.
It's different.
Climate control is an expensive and complicated business even today and
it still requires big complicated machines and specialists to mend and
maintain it.
[quote]Add in a drawing office and a management structure and you're probably
at 300 people...
Don't forget that there was a Senate hearing about the bloody thing,
he'd have had to account for just about every penny.
You think you need a engine shop with full time employees to maintain
new engines that are never run.
[/quote]
They were run every four weeks.
All equipment on the aircraft was run up regularly.
Nuff said. I had a plane of that
[quote]vintage, with a Pratt and Whitney radial engine, and it called for
engine oil and spark plugs every twenty five hours. It took an hour.
You would have to wax it two or three times a year if you flew it all
the time. You do an thorough inspection every 100 hours, and/or
annually.
[/quote]
It's not a 'plane of that vintage', it was a prototype of a new type
and built using new techniques in a material they weren't familiar with,
with unknown characteristics and an unknown maintenance profile.
Now tell us what 'black programme' Hughes was working on with his 300 men...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark Borgerson... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4aff2f98.781777154 at (no spam) news.east.earthlink.net>,
richardcasady at (no spam) earthlink.net says...
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:23:54 +0000, William Black
william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
osr at (no spam) uakron.edu wrote:
Anyone believe the bs about 300 full time to maintain a plane in a
hanger? Once a month you charge the batteries. Once a year you hose
off the dust.
Casady
If it were remoetly true, it would have another raison d'etre!
And one to two days a year they do the above as part of the group
picnic, because in reality they were all hired to do something
classified.
Read between the lines, its Hughes and his cronies, needing a reason
to hire a bunch of folks under cover.
Doubtful
It would take forty or fifty to maintain the shifts for site security,
about the same for the main building itself
Half as many as a USAF base. Sure.
, three or four store-men,
there'd be a mechanical workshop, an engines workshop and a
radio/electronics workshop each with two or three men and whatever the
US calls a 'charge hand', plus admin support, drivers, canteen staff,
cleaners and various others.
That's a couple of hundred or so.
Then there's the vast climate controlled hangar, something very new
when it was built.
Air conditioning wasn't remotely new. It was common practice to to air
condition large office buildings and even refrigerate or freeze the
holds of freighters. While large cooling systems usually used ammonia
as the working fluid, the common practice on ships was to use air. But
I digress.
What you need is humidity control. In a well sealed building, it
wouldn't take all that much.
Add in a drawing office and a management structure and you're probably
at 300 people...
Don't forget that there was a Senate hearing about the bloody thing,
he'd have had to account for just about every penny.
You think you need a engine shop with full time employees to maintain
new engines that are never run. Nuff said. I had a plane of that
vintage, with a Pratt and Whitney radial engine, and it called for
engine oil and spark plugs every twenty five hours. It took an hour.
You would have to wax it two or three times a year if you flew it all
the time. You do an thorough inspection every 100 hours, and/or
annually.
If you didn't run the engine for a long time, did you install oil[/quote]
drains in the lower spark plug holes? I talked to a part-time
mechanic at SkyDive Arizona whose only job was doing about 10
hours maintenance every week on a vintage DC-3. He said that you
had to either turn over the engines regularly, or drain the
oil from the lower cylinders. Otherwise, you could bust a
rod trying to start the engine if there was too much oil in
the cylinder.
I've seen and actually been inside the Spruce Goose. It is now
on display at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon.
It's quite an impressive museum. It has a an interesting collection,
from a Wright flyer replica to an SR-71.
Mark Borgerson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Casady... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:30:48 +0000, William Black
<william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]and built using new techniques in a material they weren't familiar with,
with unknown characteristics and an unknown maintenance profile.
[/quote]
What material? Spruce? By all means, tell us more. If there were any
unfamiliar materials they have vanished from history. As for unknown
characteristics, they had materials testing labs, even then.
Casady |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Casady... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:01:42 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]Despite its nickname, the “Spruce Goose,”
only about 5 to 10 percent of the craft is constructed of spruce; the
remainder is birch plywood. The name stuck, however, because, in the
words of one worker, “nobody could think of a word that rhymed with
birch.”
[/quote]
The famous gunfight involving Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and others, was
not at the OK Corral, which was down the street. It was in the vacant
lot next to C.S. Fly's Photographic Studio. Never fit that into a
ballad.
Casady |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:18 am
|
|