Talk:Hughes H-4 Hercules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Designed for Ground Effect?

IMO the Spruce Goose was build to fly at low altitude using ground effect. Ericd 22:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sort of. The Spruce Goose was supposedly designed for flight at 5000 feet[1], which is definitely "low altitude flight", but still waaaay too high for ground effect. -- Kaszeta 14:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've seen some suggestions that extreme-range flying was intended to be in ground effect, but I'm pretty sure it was designed to be capable of flying higher than that.
Hughes' eccentricity and secrecy mean we really don't seem to know much about what made him never fly the plane again yet have it kept in flying condition until the day he died. —Morven 17:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
The Soviet Union designed a number of airplanes to fly strictly in the ground-effect zone. The airplanes all had a number of features in common: stubby wings with surprisingly long chord lengths, fins on the wingtips to prevent the air underneath from spilling out the sides, and engines out in front of the wing that aim the exhaust to pass under the wing. The Spruce Goose has none of these. --Carnildo 23:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the purpose of the plane to avoid submarine attacks and the war conditions made that it was designed to flight most of the time in ground effect, a very interresting choice reguarding fuel consumption that the Russian have since used on Ekranoplans.

While I can't imagine what's in another brain (and especially Hughes' brain)IMO Hughes believed that the Spruce Goose concept could be effective again in war conditions especially with newer engines. But maybe it I'm wrong and it was just sentimental.... Ericd 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please read this http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020726.html Ericd 20:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Engineering innovations

It married a soon-to-be outdated technology—flying boats—to a massive airframe that required some truly ingenious engineering innovations. Does anyone know what some of these innovations were? -Willmcw 19:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no real knowledge of the topic, but I remember hearing that this was the frist aircraft to use hydrolics in the control mechanism. Can anyone confirm this?
82.6.79.160 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another nickname

During the nearly thirty years that Hughes had this airplane maintained in its hangar, very few people were ever allowed to see it. The hangar personnel called the plane the "Jesus Christ", because, on the rare occasions when someone was allowed inside the hangar, he would take about six steps, and the crew could point to the spot where he would stop and say, "Jesus Christ!" It has, after all, one and a half times the wingspan of a Boeing 747. 69.173.113.129 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Is that a real photo, or a screenshot from the movie "Aviator"? Just wondering, because I thought that helicopters (seen on the background) weren't that common in '47. If it's not a real photo, that should be stated in the decsription below the photo.

That's a real photograph. Helicopters weren't common, but they were present for the first flight of the H-4. Willy Logan 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Hughes Helicopters was formed in 1947 and became a major manufacturer of helicopters. -Willmcw 20:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be showing the photo of it mid-air? I mean, it only flew once, so it's not like that was a daily occurrence. Viper007Bond 09:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the article was renamed. --Born2flie 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be 'Hughes H-4 Hercules', being the official name, with 'Spruce Goose' redirecting here? I mean, I guess technically speaking that is the class of plane, but since no others were produced, Hercules would be more accurate. Fëaluinix 11:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost nobody knows of it as the 'Hughes H-4 Hercules'. Everyone knows of it as the 'Spruce Goose'. --Carnildo 06:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
But the official name was the H-4 Hercules. Shouldn't we name the article after the official name of the plane instead of a derisive nickname its own creators detested? Willy Logan 18:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to put it to a vote: Shall we rename this article to "Hughes H-4 Hercules"? While it was not called to a formal vote, above, there were three people above who voiced their opinion. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • No. If I were to ask a hundred people what the "Hughes H-4 Hercules" was, I'd get a hundred blank stares. If I were to ask a hundred people what the "Spruce Goose" was, most of them would mention something about a large airplane. --Carnildo 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the rename because I think that all articles about planes should have the primary title be the planes technical avionics name, with nicknames being redirects and prominantly mentioned in the introduction and throughout the article. --Jeff 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I too support the rename, its not like we want to prevent the Spruce Goose term from getting to this entry, but to emphasize the fact that this name is actually a nickname and not the actual name. The mere fact that the overwhelming majority of people know it only by this name should not dictate the name in an encyclopedia. With the advent of The Aviator I would expect more people to know (or be aware of) the Hercules name. In the end, my inclination is to be consistent with other aircraft, how many aircraft appear in Wikipedia under a derogative nickname? --Mac 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think it should be called its proper name, and redirect from the nickname. Ben W Bell 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also agree, though the standard seems to be rather difficult to maintain, since many aircraft have manufacturer designations, military designations, common names, and nicknames e.g. Grumman Albatross, Goose; OV-10 Bronco; A-10 Warthog. I would use the most common designation, in this case Hughes H-4 Hercules, with a redirect (as has been done here); most articles show the link as Hughes H-4 Hercules ("Spruce Goose") or less formally as Spruce Goose.--Justfred 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Dream Park (Book)

The "Spruce Goose" played an import role in the book "Dream Park".192.88.212.68 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but does "Dream Park" play an important role in the history of the Spruce Goose? --Carnildo 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Edsel of aviation"

I removed this from the lead. Firstly, because it's unsourced. Secondly, it doesn't sound like a very good comparison anyway - the Edsel was a fairly conventional vehicle and sold more units than any airliner ever has, whereas the Goose was very unusual, and was never even offered for sale. Googling "Edsel of aviation" only turns up one non-wiki hit, an article about autogiros. FiggyBee 08:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, that was the first time I had ever read or seen that nickname associated with the Hughes H-4. However, there is an obvious connection in that the popular notion of the Edsel as an automotive failure is well established. Despite every effort, the car was considered a marketing disaster, saddled with a clumsy "horse collar" radiator, dicey electrics (the push button transmission was problematic), lack of performance (heavy, wallowing characteristics) along with a price tag that placed it in the "luxury" class, that eventually doomed the type. FWIW Bzuk 15:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC).
Although the recession that hit the year the Edsel was introduced had as much to do with it as any of those. It was a bad year to be introducing a new semi-luxury brand, well-done or not. One must remember that the same recession killed off Chrysler's semi luxury De Soto brand as well, and that one was well established. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also remove BF 109 from the lead. I have no idea how this could be related to this article and it is unsourced Andries 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a typo. FWIW Bzuk 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Not made of Spruce

Dispite the nickname Spruce Goose the Hughes H-4 Hercules was made of Birch. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 84.92.119.217 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See second paragraph: Bzuk (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Load capacity

The article says the plane could hold 750 fully equipped troops or one Sherman tank. It would seem to me that one Sherman tank (66,000lbs) would be a pretty small load by comparison with the weight of 750 troops and their equipment (say 250lbs x 750= 187,500lbs). Searching the history, that figure was originally quoted at 2 Sherman Tanks. Is the one tank correct or did it get changed by someone and not noticed. I can't find any explanatory note when it got changed? I can find other references online quoting it at 2 tanks. Mfield (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The figure of one Sherman tank was an actual quoted note from a reference source. I agree that the weight-carrying capability of the Hughes H-4 Hercules would far surpass this. Quote: "aircraft designed to carry 120,000 pounds of cargo, 750 combat-equipped troops or a 60-ton Sherman tank." (McDonald, John J. Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose, 1981, p. 41.) (Oderkirk, Glenn E. Spruce Goose, 1982 p. 2 shows a single Sherman being off-loaded in a provisional illustration made during the design phase.) In every other source that I checked, there is only mention of the capability of carrying 750 troops. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
A 60-ton Sherman tank would weigh 120,000 pounds, so the aircraft could only carry one of them. Now, the actual weight of a Sherman according to our article is about 66,000 pounds, so either that's one seriously overweight tank, or someone messed up the conversion between pounds and tons. --Carnildo (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
An M-4 Sherman weighs 33.4 tons according to multiple sources. Mfield (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)