Is the Spruce Goose a Warbird now?

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:12 pm

All you have to do to make any airplane a warbird is paint invasion stripes on it!!

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7818

Obergrafeter wrote:

All you have to do to make any airplane a warbird is paint invasion stripes on it!!

Outstanding!!! :roll:

And here I thought one of the main criteria was 'orignal" vs "replica" or was it "authentic paint scheme" vs "non-authentic" or maybe it was "drab" vs "shinny", sharkmouths? ... and somewhere in there was "dataplates"? .... Hey!!!! I just realized I have a car that can now be categorized as a Warbird :wink:

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:12 pm

Hair-splitting time... You could argue that it was built for the military (using our tax dollars) and intended as a military transport, it's a Warbird - or you could also point out that since it never left civilian hands or received a military serial number, it's not a Warbird. You could make a somewhat similar argument about the Boeing 299.

As to the photos, was the Life photographer changing film when Howard got it off the step? "Never mind, I'll get it on the next pass..." :lol:

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:40 pm

I say civilian, there was a considerable amount of War Dept money invested but it pales compared to what Hughes put in of his own money and it's always only had a civil N number.
And Mark the tree is a SPRUCE, the H-4 was primarily made of BIRCHWOOD laminations.

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7818

The Inspector wrote:

Mark the tree is a SPRUCE

Oops!!!! sorry about that ... and I'm BIG on spelling things correctly. lol, now corrected.

BTW who here really thinks that big plane could actually fly. I mean really fly, not just a few feet off the water but really up there in the air.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3331

Mark Allen M wrote:

BTW who here really thinks that big plane could actually fly. I mean really fly, not just a few feet off the water but really up there in the air.

Well, the model one seemed to fly well enough in "The Rocketeer", so I'd say yes!

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:55 pm

Hard to say, in the book 'Mr Hughes and his Flying Boat' it's mentioned that there was some cracking of parts found in the tail or aft fuselage on just that little hop in ground effect. But I'd bet it would fly just fine but be slower to react and counter than a PBY is, in other words, awkward like flying a dirigible.

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7818

Indeed hard to say, but I'm thinking this aircraft was just too large and with being built mostly of wood? I'm not an expert with such material of this magnitude used in the construction of very large aircraft but one must wonder what such critical weather could do to the structural integrity of an airplane this size. Would have made for a very interesting site droning over your home though wouldn't it?

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:20 pm

Undoubtedly being made of wood would have a detrimental effect on the life of the aircaft, but I believe the H-4 was wooden because Aluminum in that quantity wasn't available being a critical strategic material, even with Henry Kaiser as a partner and it was more a 'proof of concept'. Years ago I worked with a guy who's Uncle helped build the H-4. His Uncle had scavenged a few odd trimmings from the construction process, the woodwork was amazing, a 1" X 1" OGEE stringer had hundreds of unbelievably thin veneers all glued together, it was as much pure art as it was a mechanical device and I felt honored to be able to see and touch them they made top end cabinetry work look like an apple box.

As part of the development process, two different engine lord mounts were built by Hughes and a pair of R-4360's were run on them at various power settings. The steel tube mount cracked and failed but the wooden one went several hundred more hours before they just decided to stop because they had proved their point.

maxum96 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:37 pm

While we're talking about the Spruce Goose, what about the XF-11? That thing looked so hot!

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:32 pm

maxum96 wrote:

While we're talking about the Spruce Goose, what about the XF-11? That thing looked so hot!

Another example of 'how come the rest of the world can make contra rotating propellers work but we can't?' XF-11, XB-35, XF8B-----all fell mechanical victim of the dreaded contra rotating prop.

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7818

So when did the XF-11 go from this ...

... to this? ....

... or vise versa? :rolleyes:

rahill · **Joined:** Fri May 14, 2010 5:43 pm **Posts:** 8

Mark Allen M wrote:

So when did the XF-11 go from this ...

... to this? ....

... or vise versa? :rolleyes:

Vise versa is right - and it was after the maiden flight (and unplanned off field "landing") of the contra-rotating version.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:11 pm

The second airplane was switched to single props right after HRH failed to make the golf course. The aft right prop went towards feather and had a Newtonian disagreement with the front prop about only one object occupying a given space at a time.

Warbird Information Exchange

Is the Spruce Goose a Warbird now?

Who is online