Author Topic: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules  (Read 18076 times)

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:20:25 AM »
The Hughes HK-1 / H-4 has always fascinated me in that something as big as a 747 could be built way back in the 1940's.  I've built a 1/200 model of it and I'm buying a 1/72 scale kit too, but just recently I had the oppotunity to go see the real thing in McMinville, Oregon.  Even though I have a good idea of it's size in my head, it just doesn't prepare yourself when you do see it.  It is absolutely huge ----

Here's a pic of it lurking behind the front glass wall of the museum as you approach the entrance to the museum



Here is what you see almost right after you get in the doors ---




Here's a pic standing under the port wing


Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2012, 12:25:42 AM »
The aircraft just fills the museum hall, you have a very hard time trying to take a complete photo of it from inside, you just can't step back far enough to get it all in one shot.

Some more pics





Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2012, 12:33:21 AM »
You're able to view the inside of the aircraft but for the most part it's from an area just inside the doorway which has been cut into the side of the fuselage. 



For an extra US$25 on top of the entrance fee you can get a guided tour of the cockpit and see how the upper deck was laid out, only there has to be a certain numbe rof people going all at one time.  We were a bit pushed for time because out travel plans had changed so much the two days before that we skipped this tour but it's something I intend to do sometime in the future when I go back down there and have a good look around.

In this pic you can see windows have been installed in the fuselage side so light can get into the cockpit.


Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2012, 01:49:10 AM »
Isn't that an incredible machine?


A patient of mine used to own that J-3.

Too bad you couldn't have been there in later September.   My modeling buddies are having their show there.   
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2012, 02:32:49 AM »
Ok - definitely going there next time I am over there ...and have time. :-\
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2012, 03:35:04 AM »
As you can see the building is like a very large tent with glass walls either end and the photos show the aero side (I'll post more later).  Well there's two buildings like this, the other is for space exhibits which we just didn't have time to go in.  The entry price covers both buildings (US$20 each) though.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2012, 03:53:00 AM »
I had a very lengthy and informative talk with one of the many helpers/guides, mainly I was after some info on whether it was to have a beaching cradle for hauling it out of the water and also what serial numbers service aircraft would have got.  I had assumed the USN would have operated it but not according to the fellow I was talking to.  He said the Navy had no interest in it at all so that would mean to me the USAAF would have operated it. That's changed my plan on a 'what-if' camo scheme for my 1/72 model.

Now what camo would it have had then ? anyone with a suggestion ?

On another thread here I made a comment that I thought the aircraft was grossly underpowered, even with 8 of the most powereful engines the USA had (which I thought were 4000 hp R-4360's).  It turns out the engines were barely putting out 3000 hp when it was flown, the guide said had it gone into production it was to be re-engined with the new Lycoming XR-7750 water-cooled radial of 5000 hp.  Even then I don't think that was enough power considering what is needed to move a 747 along at 600 mph.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2012, 05:13:30 AM »
Now what camo would it have had then ? anyone with a suggestion ?

On another thread here I made a comment that I thought the aircraft was grossly underpowered, even with 8 of the most powereful engines the USA had (which I thought were 4000 hp R-4360's).  It turns out the engines were barely putting out 3000 hp when it was flown, the guide said had it gone into production it was to be re-engined with the new Lycoming XR-7750 water-cooled radial of 5000 hp.  Even then I don't think that was enough power considering what is needed to move a 747 along at 600 mph.

At the time, probably no camo.  As the USAAF was basically NMF-only by 1944, any service aircraft would probably have a simple, one-color paint job.  Either white or the silver/aluminum dope, most likely.  My vote is on the dope, boring though it may be.  The biggest difference between any service aircraft and the real thing, aside from simple markings, is the ubiquitous anti-glare matte black that would be in front of the cockpit.

As for underpowered, I don't know.  The Martin Mars gets by just fine with less than half the power, nearly half the gross weight, and I'm sure more than half the drag.  Comparing it to the 747 seems totally unfair and a bit apples to oranges.  Similarly, the XC-99 did alright with about 3/4 the weight, and 3/4 the horsepower.  Same with the Saro Princess.  Compared to its contemporaries, it seems to have about the same hp/weight ratio.  I don't think it was grossly underpowered.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2012, 05:17:48 AM »
Ok - definitely going there next time I am over there ...and have time. :-\

Road Trip!  :)

Now what camo would it have had then ? anyone with a suggestion ?

Maybe the Atlantic ASW scheme worn by some USAAF bombers performing the land based ASW before the mission was transferred to the Navy?  It is going to be a what if no matter what you do so you could put the thing into U.S. Navy markings or RAF Transport Command markings for any time during or after the war.  Though it might be smart to think about that huge expanse of wing and fuselage soaking up sunshine and paint it a nice light reflecting color. 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 05:26:29 AM by Jeffry Fontaine »
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2012, 05:35:41 AM »
Now what camo would it have had then ? anyone with a suggestion ?

Maybe the Atlantic ASW scheme worn by some USAAF bombers performing the land based ASW before the mission was transferred to the Navy?  It is going to be a what if no matter what you do so you could put the thing into U.S. Navy markings or RAF Transport Command markings for any time during or after the war.  Though it might be smart to think about that huge expanse of wing and fuselage soaking up sunshine and paint it a nice light reflecting color.


Maybe also look to USAAF OA-10A Catalinas.  Overall gloss white seems to be the most popular, but the standard medium blue uppers and white lowers (as seen at the USAF Museum) was also common.

http://kevsaviationpics.blogspot.com/2012/03/consolidated-oa-10-catalina.html



I love the drop tanks here.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2012, 06:12:59 AM »
How about having it operated by Pan Am on behalf of the US Merchant Marine?
Kaiser was king of the Liberty Ships and the Hercules was conceived as a flying
Liberty Ship.

Using a 747 as a baseline for power comparisons is misleading, as the 747-400 empty weight
is about the same as the loaded weight of the Hercules. However there is a massive difference
in aerodynamics, for one the wing-loading of the HFB-1 is about one quarter the loading of a
747-400. This makes a huge difference in how much power is needed to achieve and sustain
flight.

Perception, is a funny thing, as by the time I was first able to see the Hercules at McMinville
I had been working for Boeing for a few years, and was used to being around 747s on a regular
basis. Including doing design work on the 986K and 1 Million MTOW versions.
So the Hercules didn't actually appear all that large, greater wingspan to be sure, but overall
interesting but not particularly awe-inspiring.
 ;D  :icon_fsm:
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2012, 07:21:08 AM »
I wasn't trying to compare the 747 to the HK-1 power wise, I was just pointing out that to move a 747 you have about 200,000 lbs of thrust (early ones) and if the Rolls Royce books are to beleived when they say a pound of thrust is about 1 hp, then even using 8 Lycomings with a total hp of 40,000 hp seems a bit under powered to me.  Maybe if each engine was in the 10,000 hp range it might be better off. 

Anyway it's a bit of a moot point though because when I was talking to the guide, he said during the first (and only) flight, the tail assembly almost broke away.  Apparently there was an engineer back in the tail section observing the severe oscillations that he told Hughes to get the plane down on the water right away and that ended the flight when it did.  The oscillations were put down to engine vibrations and they tried to fix the problem by attaching a large number of 'fish-plates around the tail/fuselage joint which looks like this now




The guide went on to say that after they put all the effort into fixing that problem, it was determined that all they had done was moved the problem further forward. Hughes was told the fuselage would probable break off at the rear of the wing if it was flown again and what with the prospect of having to totally redesign the aircraft for production standard, Hughes grounded the plane forever. 

I made the suggestion that what the plane really needed was some big turbo-props, the guide said jet engines more like ---

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2012, 07:32:21 AM »
so ..... designations ?  who would swallow up Hughes Aircraft in the 60's - Boeing, Douglas ?  In service from late '44 to 1965 ??  Korean War colour schemes ??  Fire-bomber schemes ??  Pan Am is a natural for civil use, maybe Qantas ??

Engines -- mixed power then  B-52 engine pods ??  Turbo-props sound good but would the type have remained in service long enough to get them ?

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2012, 08:27:57 AM »
Hughes Aircraft has a complicated history, but in simple terms it led to Hughes Helicopter, Inc
which was purchased by McDonnell Douglas in 1983. The end result of course being that Boeing
now owns it all.
 ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Aircraft

I'm not surprised that the Duramold structure wasn't strong enough, perhaps Hughes should have
stuck with Kaiser's original span-loader concept.
 ;D

“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2012, 08:59:12 AM »
How would mating a 1/72nd B-52 wing to a Academy Hughes HK-1 go ? -- I'm sure someone has tried.
Why were the engines so far in front of the leading-edge ?
 
The aircraft would go better with a squared-off fin & T-tail too ... they always do :-*

After the Balboas, I'm sure Al Italia would buy a few for their Sth Americas run ?

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2012, 11:45:58 AM »
I can't see using B-52 engine nacelles, that puts the engines too near the water.  Now, a B-52 wing with four engines per side, installed as on the P6M, might could work.  You definitely want to keep turbine engines out of the spray.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2012, 08:38:38 PM »
Why were the engines so far in front of the leading-edge ?

I suspect it was something to do with the engines that would have been used if it had gone into production.  The HK-1 we see at the museum, the guides were very specific that all it was is a prototype, a production version would have been a bit different.

The prototype ran with R-4360's but they were early versions of the engine.  Wikipedia has the version that powered the B-50 as a R-4360-51VDT which was a turbo-compound supercharger version and it weighed 3870 lbs so the HK-1 ones were probably lighter than that, the Lycoming R-7755 which the guide told me would have probably powered a production HK-1 weighs 6050 lbs plus you need to add all the radiator weight too. The Lycoming was also 60" in diameter.

I would say (and Evan could probably guess-timate better than me) the production Hughes with Lycomings would have had the engines much closer to the wing, with the rear of the engine probably at the leading edge of the wing.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2012, 08:53:27 PM by kitnut617 »

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2012, 05:40:20 AM »
Well Wiki has it wrong, the B-50s were powered by R-4360-35 engines, only the YB-50C was to use
the -43 VDT as a test for the B-54, and it was cancelled while under construction.

The overall length of the -4 (3390 lbs) used on the Hughes is the same as the -35 (3490 lbs) used on
the B-50, 96.75".
The -43 VDT (3720 lbs) engine had a length of 103.5", however, those are engine only figures without
the VDT setup.

Interestingly several sources reference the -51VDT, yet the P&W R4360 list shows that dash number
as being assigned to the tractor engine B-36 study, with the note: Similar -43 except remotely
mounted reduction gear. None produced.

As to the distance the engines were mounted forward of wing, perhaps keeping the hot, nasty
potentially explosive round engine bits away from an all-wood structure was a design concern?

 ;)
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2012, 07:31:33 AM »
Jon to the rescue  ----  :)  that's why I referenced wiki, you never know if you're going to get correct info -----

But even with Jon's corrected weights  the R-4360 a quite a bit lighter than the Lycoming, it sort of reminds me how turbo-prop conversions of piston engined aircraft end up, with the turbo-props way out in front of the wing ---

Mind you the guide did originally say that the engines were way out in front like they are because of the fire hazard, until we got talking about the Lycomings that is ---
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 07:33:17 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2012, 03:24:27 AM »
I've been thinking about what would an appropriate engine have been for the H-4, I'm thinking some sort of early turbo-prop.  The engines that powered the Tradewind could have been used but their power wasn't much more than 5000 shp.  I thought I might copy the engines from the 1/72 An-22 I have, as these were about 15,000 shp.  Checking the 'Max' Take Off of an An-22, wiki says it's about 551,000 lbs and the Max Take Off for the H-4 was supposed to be 400,000 lbs.  It seems then,  that 8 Allison T-40's might have been adequate but I think 6 Kuznetsov NK-12MA would be way better.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 04:32:48 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2012, 03:53:07 AM »
RR Tyne?
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2012, 04:49:00 AM »
I was thinking about those too Jeff, it first flew in 1956.
What other American turbo-prop engines were around then other than the T-40 ? T-34 seems to be in the right time frame, I could copy the engines of the C-133 I've got.  And then there was the T-56.

All these engines though are post 1950, so would the Hughes still have been around then ?

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2012, 05:39:09 AM »
According to the XT-37 Turbodyne section of Northrop: An Aeronautical History,
Northrop-Hendy approached Howard in 1949 with a proposal to install Turbodynes on
the Hercules.

One of the Turbodyne test articles demonstrated the full design horsepower of 10,000 shp, and a
continuous output of 7,500 shp, in preflight qualification tests that took place in 1947 - 49. Photos
of the Turbodyne on the test rig show it with both the 18' diameter 8-bladed contra-prop for the
B-35 and the 6-bladed contra-prop for the EB-35B installation.

The XT-37 was also the approved alternate to the Wright T-35 in the original B-52 competition.

http://www.enginehistory.org/GasTurbines/Wright/T35/WrightT35.shtml
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 05:43:18 AM by jcf »
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2012, 06:51:08 AM »
Just what I was looking for Jon, thanks very much --  :)

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Hughes HK-1 / H-4 Hercules
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2012, 07:14:40 AM »
OK, doing some quick calculations, a 1/48 scale Wyvern prop measures out to 18'-9" and the 18'-0" prop blades in Jon's link looks a lot like a Wyvern prop blades. So can anyone tell me if the Trumpeter 1/48 Wyvern has separate prop blades to the spinners ?