Ulrike Wegst wrote:
>
>
> To me a good (engineering) design is one that performs its function
> well and with ease.
More on this later.
>
> > I expect current practice would make it too labor
> > intensive and therefore not economically feasible at the moment.
> > But that doesn't mean that it would be impractical under all conditions,
> > or for all times. Had the Goose come along about 3 years earlier, it
> > would have been quite feasible and most useful,
More on this later, too.
> At the same time, why should we build an aircraft of wood if other
> materials lend themselves to this application at least as well and for
> a smaller cost?
And this.
> >
> Wasn´t the larger wingspan and wing area necessary due the lower speed
> (about a third of that of a 747) of the spruce goose,
Partly.
> so that it had better "gliding" performance?
Wing area isn't particularly related to gliding performance.
> > P.S. Feel free to consider me prejudiced regarding Howard Robards
> > Hughes' abilities as an engineer. :-)
> >
> I would not dare to judge Howard Hughes´ ability as an engineer.
I would. Even though he is distantly related to me.
>
> Do you know, why was the funding for the spruce goose was cut after
> its first flight?
Yes, I do. Funding was cut before the first flight, because the war
ended, and the plane was no longer needed. Hughes completed the
prototype aircraft after the war using his own money as a matter of
personal pride. The Goose was intended for use as a troop transport
across the oceans. The choice of wood for the structure was because
aluminum was needed more urgently for building bombers and fighters.
Wood was all that was available at the time of the Goose's design and
construction. To me a good (engineering) design is one that serves its
intended function as well as possible using the materials available to
the designers at the time. The Goose in final form would have done
that, had the war gone on a bit longer (thank goodness it didn't).
|