Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Stabilising at 70 ft amsl in 'Ground Effect' is hardly 'flying'!
The guy who flew it and then employed a massive team to keep it in "flying" condition for 29 years after that flight (well...hop), must have thought it was viable for proper flight otherwise, why would he bother? The original flight wasn't even a scheduled flight, he was only supposed to be taxiing. I'm guessing, but based on the above reasoning I bet he knew the aeroplane was going to get binned for commercial reasons and was desperate to prove to everyone that his baby could really fly, but didn't dare take it up properly without permission.
The Wiki entry is a very interesting read about the aeroplane and the man behind it. Amazing aeroplane! Constructed of wood with 68 tonnes cargo capacity or 750 equipped troops and 28,000hp pulling it along
Edited by AlexC1981 on Friday 16th October 21:16
AlexC1981 said:
The guy who flew it and then employed a massive team to keep it in "flying" condition for 29 years after that flight (well...hop), must have thought it was viable for proper flight otherwise, why would he bother?
Because he refused to let go of a flawed idea?AlexC1981 said:
The original flight wasn't even a scheduled flight, he was only supposed to be taxiing. I'm guessing, but based on the above reasoning I bet he knew the aeroplane was going to get binned for commercial reasons and was desperate to prove to everyone that his baby could really fly, but didn't dare take it up properly without permission.
The 'original flight' wasn't a 'flight'. The Spruce Goose struggled to get airborne and stabilised in Ground Effect, whereupon it could not climb out of Ground Effect. It is well documented that the thing was a total non-flyer.AlexC1981 said:
The Wiki entry is a very interesting read about the aeroplane and the man behind it. Amazing aeroplane! Constructed of wood with 68 tonnes cargo capacity or 750 equipped troops and 28,000hp pulling it along
Try doing some research (you know, about how aircraft actually fly maybe? 1/2 Rho V Squared S (and all that?) before you show yourself to be a total idiot about flying.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
AlexC1981 said:
The guy who flew it and then employed a massive team to keep it in "flying" condition for 29 years after that flight (well...hop), must have thought it was viable for proper flight otherwise, why would he bother?
Because he refused to let go of a flawed idea?AlexC1981 said:
The original flight wasn't even a scheduled flight, he was only supposed to be taxiing. I'm guessing, but based on the above reasoning I bet he knew the aeroplane was going to get binned for commercial reasons and was desperate to prove to everyone that his baby could really fly, but didn't dare take it up properly without permission.
The 'original flight' wasn't a 'flight'. The Spruce Goose struggled to get airborne and stabilised in Ground Effect, whereupon it could not climb out of Ground Effect. It is well documented that the thing was a total non-flyer.AlexC1981 said:
The Wiki entry is a very interesting read about the aeroplane and the man behind it. Amazing aeroplane! Constructed of wood with 68 tonnes cargo capacity or 750 equipped troops and 28,000hp pulling it along
Try doing some research (you know, about how aircraft actually fly maybe? 1/2 Rho V Squared S (and all that?) before you show yourself to be a total idiot about flying.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
AlexC1981 said:
The guy who flew it and then employed a massive team to keep it in "flying" condition for 29 years after that flight (well...hop), must have thought it was viable for proper flight otherwise, why would he bother?
Because he refused to let go of a flawed idea?Trevatanus said:
Anyone know if the bridge is still there?
Sadly not - there's a bridge in its place but the road was widened to accommodate the M3. If ever you've passed Winchester on the motorway, you've driven through that gorge though.Streetview
More info
james_tigerwoods said:
I take it that's a 'shop then as the aircraft angle seems all wrong for anything other than hitting the bridge there...
Looks that way, seems to be in the landing configuration countering a cross wind; landing gear shopped out and the aircraft placed 'under' the bridge.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Try doing some research (you know, about how aircraft actually fly maybe? 1/2 Rho V Squared S (and all that?) before you show yourself to be a total idiot about flying.
Right, I have taken my brave pill.Ginetta, I thought that Bernoulli (whose equation you quote)is no longer the accepted theory as to 'how aircraft fly' (although it was in my How and Why Book of Flight)... nowadays aerodynamicists lean towards Newton - the wing pushes air down, so the wing pushes up... Bernoulli cannot explain how an aircraft can fly upside down after all. And of course, everyone knows that bumblebees can't fly at all!
Ayahuasca said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Try doing some research (you know, about how aircraft actually fly maybe? 1/2 Rho V Squared S (and all that?) before you show yourself to be a total idiot about flying.
Right, I have taken my brave pill.Ginetta, I thought that Bernoulli (whose equation you quote)is no longer the accepted theory as to 'how aircraft fly' (although it was in my How and Why Book of Flight)... nowadays aerodynamicists lean towards Newton - the wing pushes air down, so the wing pushes up... Bernoulli cannot explain how an aircraft can fly upside down after all. And of course, everyone knows that bumblebees can't fly at all!
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Try doing some research (you know, about how aircraft actually fly maybe? 1/2 Rho V Squared S (and all that?) before you show yourself to be a total idiot about flying.
Gosh, yes I don't think I could ever bring myself to post here again if my idle speculation was shown to be wrong!You are almost as eccentric as a certain Mr Hughes. I'm having (well was having!) an idle chat and enjoying a bit of speculation, exchanging thoughts about an interesting aeroplane. One that is both new and interesting to me. My post was clearly written along those lines, so no worries about looking like an idiot from me.
Anyway, one interesting point I read was that Hughes said he did not take the flight further because a ship was entering the harbour and he was not sure he could gain height to clear it in time. Of course he might have just been saying that to protect his reputation, but I would be guessing if I said that. Just like you were guessing when you said he refused to let go of a flawed idea.
Regarding the maths, a quick google brings up this example physics paper from University of Leicester.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/people/m...
I don't understand the calculations myself, so I must brazenly and a little tentatively ask you (this must be what poking a scorpion feels like) if it is nonsense or not, because....(I copy and paste from the abstract and conclusion):
"The H-4 Hercules was a prototype aircraft built in 1947 which was never properly flight tested. This report explores a theory that the aircraft would never have been able to fly more than a few feet above the ground and in 1947 it only flew due to the ground effect. This will enable us to determine if the plane was suitable for transporting heavy military equipment. By exploring the pressure difference over the wing surfaces, the aircraft is shown to be able to reach a maximum altitude of 7,128 m and to require a minimum take off speed of 259.9 km/h. It is therefore shown that the aircraft would have been able to take off fully loaded at maximum speed, although this could have put dangerous strain on the engines."
"In conclusion it has been shown that the H-4 Hercules would have been able to successfully reach the takeoff speed of 259.9 km/h when fully loaded. It could have flown at a height of about 7km, however this was at maximum speed which could have put a lot of strain on the engines."
Edited by AlexC1981 on Wednesday 21st October 23:04
AlexC1981 said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Try doing some research (you know, about how aircraft actually fly maybe? 1/2 Rho V Squared S (and all that?) before you show yourself to be a total idiot about flying.
Gosh, yes I don't think I could ever bring myself to post here again if my idle speculation was shown to be wrong!You are almost as eccentric as a certain Mr Hughes. I'm having (well was having!) an idle chat and enjoying a bit of speculation, exchanging thoughts about an interesting aeroplane. One that is both new and interesting to me. My post was clearly written along those lines, so no worries about looking like an idiot from me.
Anyway, one interesting point I read was that Hughes said he did not take the flight further because a ship was entering the harbour and he was not sure he could gain height to clear it in time. Of course he might have just been saying that to protect his reputation, but I would be guessing if I said that. Just like you were guessing when you said he refused to let go of a flawed idea.
Regarding the maths, a quick google brings up this example physics paper from University of Leicester.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/people/m...
I don't understand the calculations myself, so I must brazenly and a little tentatively ask you (this must be what poking a scorpion feels like) if it is nonsense or not, because....(I copy and paste from the abstract and conclusion):
"The H-4 Hercules was a prototype aircraft built in 1947 which was never properly flight tested. This report explores a theory that the aircraft would never have been able to fly more than a few feet above the ground and in 1947 it only flew due to the ground effect. This will enable us to determine if the plane was suitable for transporting heavy military equipment. By exploring the pressure difference over the wing surfaces, the aircraft is shown to be able to reach a maximum altitude of 7,128 m and to require a minimum take off speed of 259.9 km/h. It is therefore shown that the aircraft would have been able to take off fully loaded at maximum speed, although this could have put dangerous strain on the engines."
"In conclusion it has been shown that the H-4 Hercules would have been able to successfully reach the takeoff speed of 259.9 km/h when fully loaded. It could have flown at a height of about 7km, however this was at maximum speed which could have put a lot of strain on the engines."
Edited by AlexC1981 on Wednesday 21st October 23:04
"In 1947 it flew at 217 km/h: lower than the take off speed, and so only the ground effect was responsible for its flight."
No doubt the flight was in ground effect. Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff