Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well bobguthrie, I guess you're right...perhaps we should just burn it, scatter it's ashes and be done with the myth?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
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
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
All good - but I think this is a whole different subjectI 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.
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 periodIf 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.
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.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.
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
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.
Yep...and on top of all that, some experts in the industry said it *technically* should not be able to get off the ground...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.
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.