# If the 'Spruce Goose' could fly, how effective would it have been ?



## timmy (Dec 19, 2010)

Its another What If thread

Just been reading up on the Hughes H-4 Hercules
If this aircraft had a successful development and had succeeded in meeting its original contract. 
That is being ready for full operation by 1944 would it have been a *Big contributor to the War effort* ? 

Yes I know of its constant delays and that it never really got off the ground

But what if it did ?

Being able to fly 3000 miles with 750 equipped troops and a Sherman tank is 
impressive. I think it would have had a big impact for both the European and
the Pacific theater

I also wonder if they just added a couple more Radials this thing would get off the Ground ?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 19, 2010)

It actually flew, briefly, one time. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5XSESxKfKE_

I don't know that it could have been a big contributor, if it had been on time. Between costs for an aircraft that size, and the fact that something that big, fully loaded would have made a very enticing aerial target with high value.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 19, 2010)

Hmm, thats just a good way to lose a whole battalion to one guy in a Zero or Fw190. I could see the H-4 going the way of the Me323 - sounding very impressive in theory, but in practice failing to deliver the goods, literally. Like Mr. Gilder says, every fighter along the flightpath would be out looking for this thing if it ever took off. And what is going to escort one of these things 3000 miles over water in the PTO?


----------



## claidemore (Dec 19, 2010)

Examining the record of the Me323 would give one a pretty good idea as to how useful the Spruce Goose might have been. 
And how vulnerable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2010)

You do have to look at the intent of the design. Imagine a dozen or so of these big flying boats each making a weekly round trip to England. 9000 troops a week and no worries about U-boats. Up the trips to 3 trips every 2 weeks and you are talking about a division a week. Granted little or no heavy equipment.

Same thing in the Pacific. Rapid movement of large numbers of troops between operational areas. 
The Me 323 was an assault transport, intended to fly into or near enemy airspace. It's down fall in the Mediterranean was flying in contested airspace. 

Even in the Pacific the "Goose" had no need to fly in contested airspace to be useful. 

If the Japanese had been able to station fighters along a flight path from California to Hawaii the US would have been in a lot more trouble than just the threat to the "Goose".


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2010)

I think their life span would be short due to fatigue issues with the wings.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 19, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The Me 323 was an assault transport, intended to fly into or near enemy airspace. It's down fall in the Mediterranean was flying in contested airspace.



Helped enormously by Ultra, all those air sea patrols that 'just happened' to encounter Rommel's supply chain at work.
Obviously it was skillfully done but even so it's amazing how the Germans never twigged.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 19, 2010)

They capt it fly Abel for him in to the 70's.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 19, 2010)

When the tide turned in the Battle of the Atlantic, it just wasnt necessary. It was obsolete by late 1943.
The Goose would only be viable if the allies had Air Superiority and If the Allies have air superiority, the convoys are a lot safer making the Goose unnecessary.
.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2010)

Strangely, none of the 12 Boeing 314s were lost due to enemy action in spite of years of operation ( and millions of miles of flight) in WW II. 

How many Consolidated PB2Y Coronados were lost to enemy action while operating as transports?

The need for the Spruce Goose did pass with the turning point of the Battle of the Atlantic and the likelihood of a 1944 version flying with R-3350s instead of the R-4360s seems a bit of a stretch, 10 or 12 engines needed instead of 8?


----------



## timmy (Dec 20, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Strangely, none of the 12 Boeing 314s were lost due to enemy action in spite of years of operation ( and millions of miles of flight) in WW II.
> 
> How many Consolidated PB2Y Coronados were lost to enemy action while operating as transports?
> 
> The need for the Spruce Goose did pass with the turning point of the Battle of the Atlantic and the likelihood of a 1944 version flying with R-3350s instead of the R-4360s seems a bit of a stretch, *10 or 12 engines needed instead of 8?*




We will all die wondering?

Maybe they should of tried those little rocket assisted take off devices?
I think JATO was available early in the war 
JATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## timmy (Dec 20, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Hmm, thats just a good way to lose a whole battalion to one guy in a Zero or Fw190. I could see the H-4 going the way of the Me323 - sounding very impressive in theory, but in practice failing to deliver the goods, literally. Like Mr. Gilder says, every fighter along the flightpath would be out looking for this thing if it ever took off. And what is going to escort one of these things 3000 miles over water in the PTO?



I'm not sure that would have been a big a problem

So many vulnerable Cargo planes and Flying boats made the Atlantic journey with out seeing any action. I'm not sure why that is, maybe they had fighter escorts when they got closer to France? Then again Axis fighter range was very poor, wouldn't they have to fly over Great Britain to get at them ???

Plus from what I hear the USAF was pretty keen on the B-29 based C-97 for transport operations. Which was another Giant that just missed the war. So I think they where keen on the concept


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 20, 2010)

timmy said:


> Plus from what I hear the USAF was pretty keen on the B-29 based C-97 for transport operations. Which was another Giant that just missed the war. So I think they where keen on the concept



Putting the C-97 and the Spruce Goose in the same category is like lumping the Stuart tank and the King Tiger in the same company.

.


----------



## mikewint (Dec 20, 2010)

As I recall Howard got it off the water one time and as I recall it reached a height of about 70ft for about one minute and less than a mile when it became so unstable he put it down again. it sat for 33years in its hanger and now is somewhere in oregon
again as i recall it was only "spruce" because of war shortages of Al.
Just too many eggs in one basket


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2010)

As Shortround6 explained, the mission was to supply Europe if the Atlantic could not be defended and as such the H-4 in theory could have been invaluable. I say in theory because it is assuming there is no great problems in it becoming operational, a big assumption. There is no obvious reason it would not have worked. It had about half the wing loading and 25% better power-to-weight ratio of the B-36B and that worked, more or less. How wood would have stood up to operations, I have no glue, I mean clue. I also agree to the arguments that it would probably not have faced significant airborne threats for its mission profile. Comparing it to a powered glider flying the hotly contested Mediterranean is not valid.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 20, 2010)

Pardon my ignorance but didn't it barely take off completely unloaded. Now add the huge mass it would need to carry...

Btw, the Me 323 barely flew any of the assault missions the 321 was originally designed for. I don't believe you can rely on such a huge transport, put hundreds of soldiers lives at stake, on the premise "oh it's not going to ever meet a fighter anyways".

What about non-combat losses (engine fires, structural problems or simply pilot error...)?

I'm with mikewint: Too many eggs in one basket.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2010)

Considering that it wasn't SUPPOSED to fly on the day it did I am not sure that any criticism of it's flight performance based off of that flight is valid. The story goes that they were conducting taxi tests. They may not have had clearance to actually fly. 

The allies had plenty of air routes that went nowhere near contested airspace.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2010)

You guys are comparing a converted glider to a large flying boat...

Look at the performance of the other large flying boats of the time, like the Bv222 and the Martin JRM-1. Yes the Bv222 was vulnerable, but it was also the largest aircraft of the war to shoot down an enemy aircraft as well, so it did have the capacity to put up a fight.

I think the "Goose" would have done well in a troop carrying capacity or even an anti-sub role, which the JRM-1 Mars was originally considered for.

There were plenty of routes the H-4 could have taken that would have allowed it to remain safe in ETO wether it was in ferry service or even conducting anti-sub patrol, since the German's didn't range didn't cover alot of the northern routes between England and North America.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Considering that it wasn't SUPPOSED to fly on the day it did I am not sure that any criticism of it's flight performance based off of that flight is valid. The story goes that they were conducting taxi tests. They may not have had clearance to actually fly.
> 
> The allies had plenty of air routes that went nowhere near contested airspace.



One of the rumors I heard is that one of the milestones for payment near the end of the prototype contract was that it demonstrate that it could fly..


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 20, 2010)

'Fraid I think the Spruce was a nonsense idea. So you load the thing up with hundreds of soldiers in the middle of winter, somehow manage to get airborne (let's assume it could manage that feat) and then trundle for hours over the wintery Atlantic (with ice and storms galore), the poor pilots are then supposed to land the thing when they reach dear old Blighty, with all the joys of winter storms? There are way too many imponderables there for it to be employed successfully, and that's ignoring the fact that, by the middle of the war, the writing was on the wall for large flying boats for either military or civilian applications. Shame really 'cos it was actually a clean, graceful looking aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2010)

Well, they were loading up Boeing 314s, Coronados and a few Empire flying boats and doing just that, weather permitting of course. The US Navy ordered 20 Martin Mars aircraft and the British even went for the Short Shetland and even post war the Saunders-Roe Princess. 

Events and development of land based aircraft and the proliferation of long runways around the world spelled the end of the flying boats but the need for specially trained crews and the hazards of operation (keeping landing/take off areas clear of floating debris) would have kept their numbers small or lead to theri end in any case.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> 'Fraid I think the Spruce was a nonsense idea. So you load the thing up with hundreds of soldiers in the middle of winter,


verses 1000s in a slow freighter in torpedo infected water.



> somehow manage to get airborne (let's assume it could manage that feat)



I am not sure why you said this given the H-4 had half the wing loading and more power to weight than the B-36. It should have flown quite easily.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> 'Fraid I think the Spruce was a nonsense idea. So you load the thing up with hundreds of soldiers in the middle of winter, somehow manage to get airborne (let's assume it could manage that feat) and then trundle for hours over the wintery Atlantic (with ice and storms galore), the poor pilots are then supposed to land the thing when they reach dear old Blighty, with all the joys of winter storms? There are way too many imponderables there for it to be employed successfully, and that's ignoring the fact that, by the middle of the war, the writing was on the wall for large flying boats for either military or civilian applications. Shame really 'cos it was actually a clean, graceful looking aircraft.


If the weather was going to be poor to hazardous, they usually diverted or cancelled flights, but they did fly aircraft along the North Atlantic route constantly during the war.

Why wouldn't it get airborne? Even though it's max load rating was 400,000 pounds, it was well designed and had 8 R-4360 radials pumping out 4,000 horses each, to get the job done.

In contrast, the Bv222 had a max load of 100,000 pounds with only 6 deisel engines rated at 1,000 hp each and the Mars had a max load of 90,000 pound with just 4 2,500 hp radials.

It's just too bad the "Goose" never got a chance to show off what it could do...


----------



## robwkamm (Dec 21, 2010)

if they strapped 10 r3350 radial on her she would not be around today. think wood,dope and a highly prone to fire engine.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 21, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> If the weather was going to be poor to hazardous, they usually diverted or cancelled flights, but they did fly aircraft along the North Atlantic route constantly during the war.



True, but those aircraft had a nice, solid,terra firma-based runway to land on. You'd need specially cleared landing areas in the sea (or a large lake) for a beast the size of the Spruce. It doesn't take much in the way of choppy waves to ruin a seaborne landing, particularly at high load weights or uneven distribution of the load that would lead to potentially destructive stresses on the airframe.




GrauGeist said:


> Why wouldn't it get airborne? Even though it's max load rating was 400,000 pounds, it was well designed and had 8 R-4360 radials pumping out 4,000 horses each, to get the job done.



This gets back to the question of whether the first flight was an accident or intentional. If the latter, then it truly struggled to get airborne. The problem with seaplanes is the "suckiness" of the water. If the design of the hull is wrong, the thing will never get airborne no matter how much power was available from the engines. Just because an aircraft is designed to do something is no proof that it could actually do it on a real mission.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 21, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, they were loading up Boeing 314s, Coronados and a few Empire flying boats and doing just that, weather permitting of course. The US Navy ordered 20 Martin Mars aircraft and the British even went for the Short Shetland and even post war the Saunders-Roe Princess.
> 
> Events and development of land based aircraft and the proliferation of long runways around the world spelled the end of the flying boats but the need for specially trained crews and the hazards of operation (keeping landing/take off areas clear of floating debris) would have kept their numbers small or lead to theri end in any case.



Agreed, Shortround, but the types you mention weren't carrying hundreds of troops, which leads back to the "all the eggs in one basket" argument. There were just too many risks associated with flying a behemoth the size of the Spruce. Your points about the Shetland and the SaRO Princess reinforce my point that, by mid-WWII, the writing was on the wall for seaplanes because of the large numbers of airfields that were built all over the world during the conflict.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2010)

I don't really buy 'accidental' based on achieving a little two much taxi speed. There is a huge difference in allowable taxi speed in Long Beach harbor and rotation speed.

In one sense it could have been filed as a taxi trial (but why) and Hughes just let his sheer exuberance of flying take over..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2010)

If I'm not mistaken I think part of the contract for the Spruce Goose was to have a flyable prototype available on a specified delivery date. Of course Hughes was 3 years behind schedule and a senate hearing on the project occurred a few months earlier where Hughes was accused of wasting taxpayers' money and that the aircraft would never fly. At that time I believe he made his famous statement about putting his reputation into this project and if it did not fly he would leave the country and never come back. 

Well it did fly. I don't know other details of the contract but it’s obvious that Hughes never turned the aircraft over to the US government. Bottom line, aside from being 3 years behind schedule it seems Hughes met his contract.

That flight was no accident - Hughes knew exactly what he was doing and the concept "could have" worked if the aircraft was developed a few years earlier and if it was operated in an area where there would be no contact with enemy aircraft. I believe it would have been a maintenance nightmare, but the concept was verified.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 21, 2010)

More than a few a/c have become airborne during fast taxi trials. Iirc the Vulcan did so just recently.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> The problem with seaplanes is the "suckiness" of the water. If the design of the hull is wrong, the thing will never get airborne no matter how much power was available from the engines. Just because an aircraft is designed to do something is no proof that it could actually do it on a real mission.


I have flown in sea planes and float planes and I can tell you that there is no "suckiness" when you establish proper pitch and take off speeds, if anything taxi can be difficult in calm waters because of momentum and the lack of drag under the waterline because you don't have a propeller or drive train on the hulls as seen on a boat. I can assure you that a float plane or sea plane designer is going to make darn sure their hull is going to work before metal is cut. The only time you're going to experience any type of "suckiness" as you call it is if one doesn't maintain proper pitch and airspeeds during take offs and landings.

In the case of the Spruce Goose, the fact that it left it's stable and actually flew was more than proof ot met most, if not all of its design criteria. There would have been other factors to be tested (payload capability, range etc.) but I would guess the possibilites would have been great that these requirements could have been met.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 21, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> True, but those aircraft had a nice, solid,terra firma-based runway to land on. You'd need specially cleared landing areas in the sea (or a large lake) for a beast the size of the Spruce. It doesn't take much in the way of choppy waves to ruin a seaborne landing, particularly at high load weights or uneven distribution of the load that would lead to potentially destructive stresses on the airframe.



A comparison with some contemporary seaplanes that were successfully operated:

H-4
Power to weight .08 hp/lb
Wing loading 35 lb/sqft

PB2Y
P/W .07 hp/lb
WL 38 lb/sqft

PBM 
P/W .064 hp/lb
WL 37 lb/sqft

BV 222 
P/W .072 hp/lb
WL 36 lb/sqft


From this simple data the H-4 should have needed less takeoff distance than any of these aircraft.



> This gets back to the question of whether the first flight was an accident or intentional. If the latter, then it truly struggled to get airborne. The problem with seaplanes is the "suckiness" of the water. If the design of the hull is wrong, the thing will never get airborne no matter how much power was available from the engines. Just because an aircraft is designed to do something is no proof that it could actually do it on a real mission.



I am not sure we know what power levels Hughes was using during this run. Also, seaplane hull design was quite mature at this time and there is no indication the H-4 design was flawed. It did break the water and seemed to do it very smoothly.

I do not see any reason the H-4 would not have been successful. All of its design criteria fell within, or better than, the norm of other successful seaplane designs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2010)

Milosh said:


> More than a few a/c have become airborne during fast taxi trials. Iirc the Vulcan did so just recently.



So did the first F-16


----------



## davparlr (Dec 21, 2010)

And also Gloster's first jet the E.28/39.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 21, 2010)

Hang on a second. The thing got airborne for a few seconds on what may, or may not, have been a high-speed taxi run. How does that possibly equate to evidence it could meet all of its performance requirements? Stall characteristics, handling, trimming for unbalanced loads, maximum speeds - none of these had been remotely examined. 

The "suckiness" i was referring to was in comparison to a conventional land-based aircraft - sorry for my use of non-technical words. However, overcoming hydrodynamic drag is critical and mistakes are made in designs. I agree the design of floatplane hulls was well understood but the hydrodynamic properties of the Spruce were never fully explored. For example, the Bv138 was completely redesigned, including a new planing hull, after early versions lacked performance. 

The safe operation of the Spruce would have presented massive challenges, not least the clearing of sufficient take-off and landing runs. Imagine a fully-laden Spruce with hundreds of soldiers and a tank onboard. During its take-off run, one of the sponson floats hits some debris that had not been cleared causing the float to fill with water. The normal result for seaplanes was a very nasty accident followed by the aircraft capsizing. How are those hundreds of soldiers going to escape and what would happen to the tank that was being ferried. The entire concept was such a leap over then-current experience that it was a disaster (or several disasters) waiting to happen.

My bottom line remains that, despite its grace and the sheer guts to build such a large seaplane, the Spruce never proved anything more than it could hop briefly. To extrapolate that single incident to suggest it could have been operationally viable is a huge stretch and still ignores the challenges of safe operation for the type.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Hang on a second. The thing got airborne for a few seconds on what may, or may not, have been a high-speed taxi run. How does that possibly equate to evidence it could meet all of its performance requirements? Stall characteristics, handling, trimming for unbalanced loads, maximum speeds - none of these had been remotely examined.


The major portion of the contract said it had to fly. With that said Hughes was relieved of justifying many of the cost over runs associated with the program. All the other characterizes would have come later at the discretion of the customer who choose not to pursue further development, that being the US government.


buffnut453 said:


> The "suckiness" i was referring to was in comparison to a conventional land-based aircraft - sorry for my use of non-technical words. However, overcoming hydrodynamic drag is critical and mistakes are made in designs. I agree the design of floatplane hulls was well understood but the hydrodynamic properties of the Spruce were never fully explored. For example, the Bv138 was completely redesigned, including a new planing hull, after early versions lacked performance.


OK, but I can assure you there isn't much more "suckiness" on water than a landplane trying to take off on wet grass. The greatest aerodynamic detractor on floatplanes and in some cases seaplanes are the floats themselves and any struts needed to support them.


buffnut453 said:


> The safe operation of the Spruce would have presented massive challenges, not least the clearing of sufficient take-off and landing runs. Imagine a fully-laden Spruce with hundreds of soldiers and a tank onboard. During its take-off run, one of the sponson floats hits some debris that had not been cleared causing the float to fill with water. The normal result for seaplanes was a very nasty accident followed by the aircraft capsizing. How are those hundreds of soldiers going to escape and what would happen to the tank that was being ferried. The entire concept was such a leap over then-current experience that it was a disaster (or several disasters) waiting to happen.


While you have valid points to risks that may have been encountered during operation, the same could be said for runway FOD hazards during the operation of large land based aircraft. The fact remains that flying boat operation at that time really did not produce a lot of accidents when operated in a cargo role. Look at the record of the Mars.


buffnut453 said:


> My bottom line remains that, despite its grace and the sheer guts to build such a large seaplane, the Spruce never proved anything more than it could hop briefly. To extrapolate that single incident to suggest it could have been operationally viable is a huge stretch and still ignores the challenges of safe operation for the type.


I disagree - as stated Hughes knew EXACTLY what he was doing and just the fact that it lifted into the air gave engineering viability to the concept of a huge transport aircraft moving large amounts of personnel and cargo over long distances. The fact that this aircraft was a flying boat did involk more operational risk, but the concept was proven and its amazing how the nose of the aircraft looked like the C-5!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 21, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Hang on a second. The thing got airborne for a few seconds on what may, or may not, have been a high-speed taxi run. How does that possibly equate to evidence it could meet all of its performance requirements? Stall characteristics, handling, trimming for unbalanced loads, maximum speeds - none of these had been remotely examined.



Nor does it equate to them not being met.



> The safe operation of the Spruce would have presented massive challenges, not least the clearing of sufficient take-off and landing runs.


No more so in takeoff length than the aircraft I listed for comparison, maybe a bit wider.


> Imagine a fully-laden Spruce with hundreds of soldiers and a tank onboard. During its take-off run, one of the sponson floats hits some debris that had not been cleared causing the float to fill with water. The normal result for seaplanes was a very nasty accident followed by the aircraft capsizing.


or imagine a A380, loaded down, striking debris on the runway causing catastrophic loss of the landing gear and/or engine/fuel system. Or an catastrophic engine loss puncturing a fuel tank over the Pacific. 



> My bottom line remains that, despite its grace and the sheer guts to build such a large seaplane, the Spruce never proved anything more than it could hop briefly. To extrapolate that single incident to suggest it could have been operationally viable is a huge stretch and still ignores the challenges of safe operation for the type.



My bottom line is that, at the time of its cancellation, the H-4 never did anything to show that it could not perform as designed nor was their any excess risk compared to contemporary designs including the B-36 and other large seaplanes like the Martin Mars. Size does matter and that does affect unknowns. Also, more engines increase failure rates and must be understood, but, all in all, I don't see a prediction of an accident waiting to happen after normal engineering development.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 21, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While you have valid points to risks that may have been encountered during operation, the same could be said for runway FOD hazards during the operation of large land based aircraft.
> 
> 
> > But once you've done a FOD-plod, by and large a runway will stay clear if it's not used. The same cannot be said of the sea. Look at the amount of detritus that gets washed up at every tide - trash, hunks of wood, etc. What's being discussed here is the use of a very large aircraft in a regular, frequent resupply operation and the Mars was never used for that, nor was it used for carrying hundreds of soldiers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 21, 2010)

davparlr said:


> or imagine a A380, loaded down, striking debris on the runway causing catastrophic loss of the landing gear and/or engine/fuel system. Or an catastrophic engine loss puncturing a fuel tank over the Pacific.



I'm afraid comparing the the reliability and emergency systems of Spruce with those of the A380 is not a credible argument. The A380 has benefitted from years of experience with escape slides, smoke hoods for passengers, multiple-redundancy of systemsetc etc that the Spruce never would have possessed. Also, in wartime, civilian flying constraints were thrown out - how many DC-3s were flown in overloaded conditions because the situation demanded it. As for the Spruce's take-off run, we are simply left with the calculations because it was never proven. None of the aircraft's performance was ever proven except that it could take off, fly briefly and then land again in a very lightweight configuration.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> But once you've done a FOD-plod, by and large a runway will stay clear if it's not used. The same cannot be said of the sea. Look at the amount of detritus that gets washed up at every tide - trash, hunks of wood, etc. What's being discussed here is the use of a very large aircraft in a regular, frequent resupply operation and the Mars was never used for that, nor was it used for carrying hundreds of soldiers.


Again, a "possible" risk that "could have" or "could not have" been encountered. As much debris as there is in the ocean, it is still very vast and I don't see this as an issue unless you have a very large item in the ocean directly in front of the hull or pontoon. Again, a "what if" that could have been probably mitigated.

As far as the Mars - 5 of them were used regularly between the US mainland and Hawaii and were retired in 1956. One of them burnt up as the result of an engine fire. They operated for 9 years with little or no problems and hauled hundreds of tons of cargo during the period. They also carried up to 105 passengers, probably not in comfort, but not a small amount by any means. Not the size of the Spruce Goose, I think this shows that a large flying boat was able to be operated on a regular basis.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 21, 2010)

*"The thing got airborne for a few seconds on what may, or may not, have been a high-speed taxi run"*

I would argue that if the H4 did get airborne by "_accident on a high speed taxi run_" as you call it, imagine what it could do at full take off speed and power. If the liftoff was a accident, perhaps the airframe was even more efficient and capable than you give it credit for, requiring even less power and speed than predicted. I personally believe Hughes planned for the takeoff, or the aircraft would not lifted off 70 feet out of the water, nor for the distance it flew. I believe Hughes planned on flying the H4 to silence his critics who accused him of war profiteering, and to prove to everyone the plane was capable of flight.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2010)

I'm not sure why there is so much debate as to the possibility of something going wrong while in service. There's been countless mishaps with reliable and proven aircraft that is the result of standard ops...you just can't have perfect conditions 100% of the time, and surely not during a wartime setting.

Yes, there's the chance of floating debris, yes there's a chance of rough seas, yes there's a chance of bad weather, yes there's the chance of attack by enemy aircraft, yes to all of the above.

Let's consider how many aircrews operating traditional (land/carrier based) aircraft (bomber/transport/fighter/observation) were lost due to malfunction, collision, friendly fire poor weather conditions over the duration of the war. We won't factor in enemy encounters. But if one person was lost, that's unacceptable, but in reality, the figure is way far and above that. That is an uncomfortable truth of war.

Of all the flying boats that operated in both theaters and both sides, few were lost to floatsam. One Bv222 was lost when it struck a submerged wreck as it was landing in the Med. Other than that, I don't recall hearing many reports of similiar losses, though that's not to say it didn't happen. But that was not a major issue. More flying boats were lost to enemy attack than anything.

As far as the H-4's flight, I also believe that Hughes did that last run on purpose. He let off some reporters prior to the last taxi, yet some remained aboard and I suspect it was more than coincidence.

And just for the record, there are two Martin Mars left, that actively fly fire bombing missions, the "Hawaii" and the "Caroline" out of Canada.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 21, 2010)

Hughes was a accomplished pilot, and I am sure could tell by the feel of the controls and speed of the craft that it was about to lift off. I do not buy the story that with him at the controls, this massive aircraft *"accidentally*" lifted off.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 21, 2010)

At one time it was to have the big 36 cylinder Lycoming when it was to be made of metal but the they said no metal.


----------



## mikewint (Dec 21, 2010)

The plane rose to 70ft so hardly an oops. but the one mile distance and 1 minute flight time argue for a major problem with the planes flying performance as does his immediate landing and storage for 33 years


----------



## N4521U (Dec 22, 2010)

If a loaded Spruce Goose could fly....

How far could that flying Spruce Goose fly?

About half the distance that flying Spruce Goose Did Fly!


----------



## bobguthrie (Dec 25, 2010)

Greetings One and All: The Spruce Goose was a Joke ! Howard Hughes got behind the simple controls and cranked the engines up. He knew he did not have the POWER to gain altitude. Why this HULK is a Shrine in a museum I don't know. It was said that 747 Engineers came to pay homage to the Flight Controls. Even they were a joke ! Bell Cranks and cables, the same as a Douglas DC-3 or DC-4, there was no break thru on the Spruce Goose. It cost the Tax Payers DEARLY. Hughes knew it would not FLY. No POWER A&P 19949540


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 25, 2010)

bobguthrie said:


> Greetings One and All: The Spruce Goose was a Joke ! Howard Hughes got behind the simple controls and cranked the engines up. He knew he did not have the POWER to gain altitude. Why this HULK is a Shrine in a museum I don't know. It was said that 747 Engineers came to pay homage to the Flight Controls. Even they were a joke ! Bell Cranks and cables, the same as a Douglas DC-3 or DC-4, there was no break thru on the Spruce Goose. It cost the Tax Payers DEARLY. Hughes knew it would not FLY. No POWER A&P 19949540


Well bobguthrie, I guess you're right...perhaps we should just burn it, scatter it's ashes and be done with the myth?

We can only speculate what went on in Hughes' mind that day, even if he was becoming a bit eccentric at that time, he still was an accomplished aviator and knew exactly what he was doing.

You say the machine had no power, yet the engines were more than capable of lifting that machine out of the water, as the H-4 was not carrying a load other than the crew and guests.

Common sense would dictate that the sheer scale of the aircraft would require a tremendous amount of time and effort to design, build and test by those day's standards. A comparable aircaft would be the B-36, which was saw conception even before the U.S. went to war and because of similiar strategic material supply issues, cost over-runs and design changes, wasn't even flown until 1946. It had similiar controls, a cramped flight deck and only 6 R-4360-53 radials instead of 8 so I suppose the B-36 was a joke to, then?

For comparison, the top photo is the H-4's cockpit, the bottom photo is the B-36...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 25, 2010)

bobguthrie said:


> Greetings One and All: The Spruce Goose was a Joke ! Howard Hughes got behind the simple controls and cranked the engines up. He knew he did not have the POWER to gain altitude. Why this HULK is a Shrine in a museum I don't know. It was said that 747 Engineers came to pay homage to the Flight Controls. Even they were a joke ! Bell Cranks and cables, the same as a Douglas DC-3 or DC-4, there was no break thru on the Spruce Goose. It cost the Tax Payers DEARLY. Hughes knew it would not FLY. No POWER A&P 19949540



And your sources??? I would think the aircraft would have "bell Cranks and cables, the same as a Douglas DC-3 or DC-4" because that was what was being used at the time!!!! It seems that you neglected to mention that some of these aircraft's flight controls were dynamically balanced so I don't see your point.

I also suggest you go back to post 31 were one of out more informed members calculated the H-4's power to weight ratio and wing loading. Its wing loading was LOWER than the PBM, PB2Y and the BV 222. It had a higher power to weight ratio than all three of them, so again, tell us your sources for your claims?!?!?!

BTW - A&P/*IA* 3023814, GROL R/E, CFII SEL.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 26, 2010)

a better and safer form of strategic transport were the fast troopships, like the Queen Mary. Very few troops embarked on ships of this type were ever intercepted by U-Boats. The QM shifted something like a million soldiers without a hitch. They were capable of a sustained sea speed of over 27 knots. Nothing could keep up with them over any distance. They were never risked in "hot" combat zones....they were far too valuable for that, but a few more like them would have made force projection a snap


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> a better and safer form of strategic transport were the fast troopships, like the Queen Mary. * Very few troops embarked on ships of this type were ever intercepted by U-Boats.* The QM shifted something like a million soldiers without a hitch. They were capable of a sustained sea speed of over 27 knots. Nothing could keep up with them over any distance. They were never risked in "hot" combat zones....they were far too valuable for that, but a few more like them would have made force projection a snap



But they were intercepted, no matter how few. The H-4 was supposed to eliminate this risk, but it is evident there were other risks within this concept.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 26, 2010)

I should qualify my post as well. There were in fact quite a few passengrt liners sunk, but none of the so called fast transports, of which Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were the most well known

Many of the ships lost were lost whilst operating close inshore, in restricted waters, and many were sunk by mines or aircraft. The US President Coolidge was sunk in the South Pacific in in 1942, to a mine I think. The biggest single loss in tonnage terms was the Empress Of Britiain, lost to a U-Boat skippered by the legendary Karl Topp in October 1940 (42000 tons). 

The type of ships I was referrig to represented just a handful of ships. The Queen Mary is the most famous that I know of. She never travelled in Convoy....no warship could hope to maintin the speed she could over the Atlantic crossing. She could do it in just over four days. The only other ships capable of this speed of crossing were the QE and the Normandie,and Normandie suffered a fire in 1942 in the port of New York.

These exceptionally fast ships never suffered a loss, though lesser, slower ships of the same type did.

If the Me 323 operations are anything to go by as a comparison to the projected H-4 operations, even if the H-4s were only used in non-combat areas, as a strategic transatlantic carrier, or similar, ther are going to be losses. Typically, allied types were sufferring about 2% losses to non-combat related causes per month. Engines fail, structural failures, that kinda thing. I think it likley the Spruce Goose would have suffered a somewaht higher attrition rate, based on just speculation. These aircraft were big, very big, and with lots of hull stress to worry about.

But for now, lets accept a 2% loss rate as an indicative number at least. If there were twelve of them, as someone suggested, and they were each averaging say two flights per week, thats roughly 9 flights per month. Lets say, on average they move 500 personnel per trip. That means the fleet as a whole will undertake about 100 flights per month, transporting 50000 men in the process. However they would lose 1000 of these men (assuming a 100% loss of personnel for every aircraft lost), thats a pretty heavy casualty rate in my opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I should qualify my post as well. There were in fact quite a few passengrt liners sunk, but none of the so called fast transports, of which Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were the most well known
> 
> Many of the ships lost were lost whilst operating close inshore, in restricted waters, and many were sunk by mines or aircraft. The US President Coolidge was sunk in the South Pacific in in 1942, to a mine I think. The biggest single loss in tonnage terms was the Empress Of Britiain, lost to a U-Boat skippered by the legendary Karl Topp in October 1940 (42000 tons).
> 
> ...


All good - but I think this is a whole different subject



parsifal said:


> If the Me 323 operations are anything to go by as a comparison to the projected H-4 operations, even if the H-4s were only used in non-combat areas, as a strategic transatlantic carrier, or similar, ther are going to be losses. Typically, allied types were sufferring about 2% losses to non-combat related causes per month. Engines fail, structural failures, that kinda thing. I think it likley the Spruce Goose would have suffered a somewaht higher attrition rate, based on just speculation. These aircraft were big, very big, and with lots of hull stress to worry about.


I can agree there, but then again I think that 2% non-combat attrition rate would have been similar for other allied transports of the period


parsifal said:


> But for now, lets accept a 2% loss rate as an indicative number at least. If there were twelve of them, as someone suggested, and they were each averaging say two flights per week, thats roughly 9 flights per month. Lets say, on average they move 500 personnel per trip. That means the fleet as a whole will undertake about 100 flights per month, transporting 50000 men in the process. However they would lose 1000 of these men (assuming a 100% loss of personnel for every aircraft lost), thats a pretty heavy casualty rate in my opinion.


It is, but then again compare those numbers to the Mars operations that were conducted well into the 1950s. Additionally I think the military in that era would have looked upon loosing 1000 men during transport operations as acceptable losses considering what was lost during some of the major campaigns of the war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> a better and safer form of strategic transport were the fast troopships, like the Queen Mary. Very few troops embarked on ships of this type were ever intercepted by U-Boats. The QM shifted something like a million soldiers without a hitch. They were capable of a sustained sea speed of over 27 knots. Nothing could keep up with them over any distance. They were never risked in "hot" combat zones....they were far too valuable for that, but a few more like them would have made force projection a snap



A total non-starter from the "increase" capacity over what we have now point of view. Yes they did good work but with the best intentions and resource shifting it was going to take around 3 years to build one. And it would be at the cost of a large carrier or similar sized ship (or two).

As far as the 2% goes these large aircraft would probably have had select, trained crews. What was the loss rate for the Boeing 314 Clippers, the Short Empire "G" class flying boats, Sikorsky VS-44s and a few others?
Granted a few were lost but none took the full crew/occupants with them and considering some of the these planes flew for 4years or more during WW II with heavy use it doesn't seem to be quite the problem you are making it out to be.


----------



## Zeke_Freak (Dec 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> What's being discussed here is the use of a very large aircraft in a regular, frequent resupply operation and the Mars was never used for that, nor was it used for carrying hundreds of soldiers.



Check this out:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZB3DPE7tUU_

The last two, Hawaii 2 and Phillipine, are going strong as water bombers. They live in my back yard (well, not literally... I'm a couple of miles from their home base on Sproat Lake): 

The World's Largest Flying Boats Ever Flown Operationally 

They are spectacular to see, whether parked, or in action.

Leif


----------



## boeing299 (Dec 30, 2010)

I seem to recall the C-5 Galaxy program being oversized, overweight, overdue and over budget. And some politicians making the same arguements as I've read here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 30, 2010)

boeing299 said:


> I seem to recall the C-5 Galaxy program being oversized, overweight, overdue and over budget. And some politicians making the same arguements as I've read here.


Yep...and on top of all that, some experts in the industry said it *technically* should not be able to get off the ground...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

boeing299 said:


> I seem to recall the C-5 Galaxy program being oversized, overweight, overdue and over budget. And some politicians making the same arguements as I've read here.



Yep - and 42 years later they're still flying


----------



## Messy1 (May 16, 2011)

Further proof that Hughes knew exactly what he was doing. I'm paraphrasing here, but found a old issue last night of Flight Journal where the article's author had spoken with and interviewed one of Hughes' head engineers, his last name was Reeder, first name might have been Paul. MR. Reeder said that Hughes had made 3 taxing runs in the H-4, and on the 4th run, turned the plane into the wind, and asked for flaps in the takeoff position. He then ran the engines to take off position, and had the only reporter who stayed on board call out the air speed until takeoff speed was achieved, and pulled back on the controls sending the H-4 into the air. There was also a mis-calculation in the design of the flaps, and Reeder reminded Hughes of the issue with the flaps, I believe they could not exceed a certain air speed because of a flaw in the flaps maybe. I'll pull the article and get more info from the article. This was all I could pull from memory.


----------



## glennasher (May 17, 2011)

Not exactly related to the H4, but I suspect the Air Force liked the C-97 because they'd had excellent service out of the B-29, and wanted to recoup some of that development money they spent on the things. How many WWII BILLIONS of dollars did they spend on it? 27? More? That's a heckuva lot of money in WWII terms, after all.
In any event, it was a boatload of money, and they needed something more to show for it than two smoking holes in Japan, so they got the B-29, B-50, and C-97s out of it, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting at the moment. And the Guppies and Super Guppy, too, lest we forget.


----------



## BAGTIC (Jul 22, 2011)

THe Hughes H-K 4 Hercules was* not *made of spruce. It was made of birch.
Also it *never flew *as it never got oiut of ground effect. It was a giant WIG or glorified hovercraft..


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2011)

BAGTIC said:


> ...Also it *never flew *as it never got oiut of ground effect. It was a giant WIG or glorified hovercraft..


Perhaps you missed the earlier posts in the discussion regarding this, but the aircraft did in fact get airborn.

While the altitude wasn't significent (at all), it was still airborn.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2011)

BAGTIC said:


> THe Hughes H-K 4 Hercules was* not *made of spruce. It was made of birch.
> Also it *never flew *as it never got oiut of ground effect. It was a giant WIG or glorified hovercraft..



Ground effect is usually an altitude about the wingspan of the aircraft in question and at a speed at or below Vs or Vso. It flew 70 feet at a speed in access of 135 mph so it was well out of ground effect as you put it.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 25, 2011)

BAGTIC said:


> THe Hughes H-K 4 Hercules was* not *made of spruce. It was made of birch.
> Also it *never flew *as it never got oiut of ground effect. It was a giant WIG or glorified hovercraft..


So going along with your thinking about the H4, would you also say the Wright brothers never flew at Kittyhawk either, seeing as their flights were only 10 feet or so off of the ground and only 125, 175. and 200 ft in length?


----------



## davparlr (Jul 26, 2011)

Interestingly, when I first saw the Hughes aircraft I was not particularly overawed. I had seen large flying boats before. Note the almost six foot tall man under the aircraft in the picture. The engine must be fifteen to eighteen feet above the ground. Also note, as large as this plane is, it only has two engines! I believe this is a Martin P5M.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 26, 2011)

Looks like a P5M to me too, Dave. That thing is a monster!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2011)

An aircraft that did make my jaw drop because of its sheer size was at the Sydney airshow more than 20 years agao......the AN-124. Can carry up to 150 tons in one load.....thats up to three MBTs in one hit....... I rememember looking at it parked next to a boeing 747 and thinking how small the boeing looked next to it.


As the song says.....Oh those russians....


----------



## icepac (Aug 5, 2011)

Hughes just wanted to prove what could be done in spite of wartime shortages of strategic materials.

He chose to achieve this with an airplane people thought could not be built without huge amounts of aluminum.

I think it was a F.U. to the establishment from the beginning.


----------

