Howard Hughes - More Irony
Discussion
I am watching a history program on the enigmatic Hughes. Besides setting a world air-speed record, bringing us satellites for world-wide TV broadcast, and endless other things we take for granted today, there is one little known fact. His H-1 monoplane design inspired such aircraft as the Mitusubishi "Zero" used so effectively by the Japanese in WWII, as well as some American and German planes. The "Zero", there is one that got away
"So important is the H-1 in the history of flight technology that it is now enshrined at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., where a plaque reads: "The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone on the road to such radial-engine powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-Wulf 190. The H-1 demonstrated that properly designed radial engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs."
www.airracinghistory.freeola.com/aircraft/HUGHES%20H-1.htm
"So important is the H-1 in the history of flight technology that it is now enshrined at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., where a plaque reads: "The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone on the road to such radial-engine powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-Wulf 190. The H-1 demonstrated that properly designed radial engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs."
www.airracinghistory.freeola.com/aircraft/HUGHES%20H-1.htm
not THE bra, just A bra...designed on cantilever principles apparentlyI think the H-1 was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. However, I would take issue with the Smithsonian's claim that it influenced the design of the Zero and the FW-190 - or even the Grumman naval fighters of WW2. Most of those aircraft were already in the design stage even as the H-1 was making its first flight.
The Zero evolved from Mitsubishi's earlier A5M Claude. The Claude was also a radial engined, stressed skin monocoque deisgn. It's main distinguishing features compared to the Zero were its fixed spatted undercarriage and open cockpit. By the mid 1930s, virtually all new fighter projects featured retractable undercarriages.
Grumman were designing the F4F Wildcat in the mid 30s as a stressed monocoque monoplane too - and that design was an evolution of Grumman's earlier F3F biplane figher which, although a biplane, was also a stressed monocoque design.
What the Smithsonian seems to be trying to emphasise is the fact that the H-1 showed that an air cooled radial engined fighter could be as fast as a liquid cooled inline engined fighter. Both the Japanese Navy and the US Navy favoured air cooled radials over liquid cooled inline engines anyway as they were rugged and reliable and less prone to enemy inflicted damage.
Seversky/Republic were already flying the aircraft that would later evolve into the Thunderbolt - the Seversky P-35.
I think the most influential designer of the mid 1930s was Jack Northrop.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 6th December 08:32
The Zero evolved from Mitsubishi's earlier A5M Claude. The Claude was also a radial engined, stressed skin monocoque deisgn. It's main distinguishing features compared to the Zero were its fixed spatted undercarriage and open cockpit. By the mid 1930s, virtually all new fighter projects featured retractable undercarriages.
Grumman were designing the F4F Wildcat in the mid 30s as a stressed monocoque monoplane too - and that design was an evolution of Grumman's earlier F3F biplane figher which, although a biplane, was also a stressed monocoque design.
What the Smithsonian seems to be trying to emphasise is the fact that the H-1 showed that an air cooled radial engined fighter could be as fast as a liquid cooled inline engined fighter. Both the Japanese Navy and the US Navy favoured air cooled radials over liquid cooled inline engines anyway as they were rugged and reliable and less prone to enemy inflicted damage.
Seversky/Republic were already flying the aircraft that would later evolve into the Thunderbolt - the Seversky P-35.
I think the most influential designer of the mid 1930s was Jack Northrop.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 6th December 08:32
jimbeaux said:
Hughes. bringing us satellites for world-wide TV broadcast,
Don't think so Jimbeaux, IIRC it was the scifi chappie who wrote 2001, a Brit who now lives in Ceylon....now a Sir... damn can't think of the name...... certainly NOT Howard Hughes!! Hughes did Spruce Goose and many other things but not satellites......IMHO of course!
Quick google did it....Arthur C Clarke!!!!
edited to add what my aging braincells couldn't remember.....
>> Edited by JMGS4 on Tuesday 6th December 08:41
Depends how you look at it - Clarke had the idea, Hughes put the money up and got the technologists working to actually make it a reality. To Clarke, that satellite was never going to be more than a dream because, at the time he first wrote about that satellite, it would have been a monstrosity. For one thing, it would have required millions of radio tubes. For another, it would have needed hundreds of technicians, up in space, replacing burnt-out tubes, day and night. The satellite would have been bigger than Manhattan Island, and there was no rocket that could put such a pay load in space.
Because of the needs of people like Howard Hughes, however, William Shockley would replace the radio tube with a marvelous new invention, the transistor. Suddenly, in 1963, the engineers at Hughes Electronics were able to build, and launch, Syncom I and then Syncom II. By the mid-1960s, the geo-synchronous satellite was no longer a dream, but a reality.
Stolen shamelessly from here www.webstationone.com/fecha/hughes.htm
Because of the needs of people like Howard Hughes, however, William Shockley would replace the radio tube with a marvelous new invention, the transistor. Suddenly, in 1963, the engineers at Hughes Electronics were able to build, and launch, Syncom I and then Syncom II. By the mid-1960s, the geo-synchronous satellite was no longer a dream, but a reality.
Stolen shamelessly from here www.webstationone.com/fecha/hughes.htm
Just because the Hughes Corporation developed technologies doesn't mean Howard Hughes had a personal say in what was going on. By the early 1960s Hughes (the man) had already seriously lost the plot. I would say he had very little influence on what technologies the company was getting into by that time.
Even Hughes' aircraft were usually "one hit wonders". In his lifetime, virtually none of his designs were ever put into production. To be fair to him, he wasn't that interested in mass producing aeroplanes. He was more interested in showing what could be done with available technology. Ironically, after Howard Hughes himself more or less bowed out of the avaition scene, his company went on to build a long line of successful helicopters - a number of which are still in production today(now under the Boeing and Schweizer names).
Howard Hughes biggest contribution to aviation was in the period when he owned the airline TWA. Because of constant badgering from him, Lockheed developed the Cpnstellation airliner, which was one of the most graceful and impressive airliners of the piston engined era.
As for Arthur C Clarke - he didn't actually "design" any geostationary satellites. He wrote an article in "Wireless World" magazine in 1948 putting forward the idea that unmanned satellites placed in geostationary orbits would be one way of achieving global radio communications. He didn;'t put any timescale onto when he thought that this might be possible. Personally, he says now that at the time he didn't expect that this technology would not be available for at least 50 years. In actual fact, the first geostationary communications satellite was launched in 1967/68. Early communications satellites - such as Echo and Telstar, were not geostationary.
Even Hughes' aircraft were usually "one hit wonders". In his lifetime, virtually none of his designs were ever put into production. To be fair to him, he wasn't that interested in mass producing aeroplanes. He was more interested in showing what could be done with available technology. Ironically, after Howard Hughes himself more or less bowed out of the avaition scene, his company went on to build a long line of successful helicopters - a number of which are still in production today(now under the Boeing and Schweizer names).
Howard Hughes biggest contribution to aviation was in the period when he owned the airline TWA. Because of constant badgering from him, Lockheed developed the Cpnstellation airliner, which was one of the most graceful and impressive airliners of the piston engined era.
As for Arthur C Clarke - he didn't actually "design" any geostationary satellites. He wrote an article in "Wireless World" magazine in 1948 putting forward the idea that unmanned satellites placed in geostationary orbits would be one way of achieving global radio communications. He didn;'t put any timescale onto when he thought that this might be possible. Personally, he says now that at the time he didn't expect that this technology would not be available for at least 50 years. In actual fact, the first geostationary communications satellite was launched in 1967/68. Early communications satellites - such as Echo and Telstar, were not geostationary.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff