Not quite the same, but similar questions about funding of large
propellor-driven aircraft, can be asked about the Bristol Aeroplane Co's
Brabazon plane of 1946 or thereabouts.

In those days,of course,there were many more independent aeroplane
manufacturers all doing their own thing. At least de Havilland had the wit
to get on with the world's first commercial jet.

Tony

-------------------
> >
> >
> >Was it the design that made it inefficient, or the power/weight ratio
> >(it had the largest engines available to it at the time)?  Keep in mind
> >that Howard Hughes was one of the best aeronautical engineers of his
> >day.
> >
> With design I mean engineering design which includes all aspects of a 
> product, also the appropriate power to weight ratio.
> To me a good (engineering) design is one that performs its function well 
> and with ease.
> 
> >Similarly, a wooden Jumbo could be built, but would it be able to
> >compete with aluminium and composites in this application (cargo volume
> >and weight, range, ease of manufacture, cost, etc.)?  Wouldn´t we have
> >more commercial wooden aircraft, if it could?
> >  
> >
> >
> >Not necessarily.  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, particularly if the big
> >Lycomings had gone into production.
> >
> That is exactly what I mean.  It would be very costly to build a wooden 
> cargo aircraft of Jumbo size and function.  It would also be of rather 
> different construction, if we wanted to take best advantage of  wood as 
> a material, probably largely in the form of wood-based composites.  
> 
> 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?  
> 
> >Spruce Goose vs Jumbo:
> >
> >Wingspan:
> >747 = 320 feet
> >Spruce goose = 212 feet
> >  
> >
> >
> >Don't you have that backwards?
> >
> Apologies! Yes.
> 
> >The Goose has a wingspan of about 319 feet 11 inches.  The Goose wing is
> >11 feet thick from top to bottom at the root and has a root chord of
> >about 50 feet.  From memory, the wing area is somewhat more than eleven
> >thousand sq.ft. (11,430 with the "," being a thousands designator rather
> >than a decimal point).  The wing area of a 747-400 is about 5,600 sq.
> >ft. and the 747 has two different wingspans, dependent upon the model
> >number. Span ranges from approximately 195.66 feet to 211.4 feet.  If my
> >arithmetic is correct, that means the Goose has about 107 feet more
> >wingspan than the big 747 and about 123 feet more than the small 747,
> >and the Goose has a little over twice the wing area of a 747.
> >  
> >
> 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, so that it had 
> better "gliding" performance?
> 
> >>Range:
> >>747 = 7 670 nautical miles (14 205 km)
> >>Spruce goose = 70 feet
> >>    
> >>
> Apologies here too, the spruce goose flew for almost 1 one mile, the 747 
>  covers distances of 7 670 nautical miles.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Do you know, why was the funding for the spruce goose was cut after its 
> first flight?
> 
> 
from Prof Tony Atkins ScD FREng
School of Construction Management and Engineering
Engineering Bldg
University of Reading
READING RG6 6AY
Tel +44 118 931 8562
Fax +44 118 931 3327