Hughes H1 The best pre-WWII plane that the US Army rejected.

[=BLW=Pablo]

Hello everyone!
I believe that other people also like this plane, but not everyone knows that it could have been a US Army fighter.

 

 

 

 

The Hughes H1 Racer was developed by business magnate Howard Hughes in 1935, while the American Air Force was still using the Grumman F2F biplane as its main fighter, which could barely reach 231 mph, while his H1 Racer reached 352 mph. The magnate insisted on selling this plane as a fighter to the American Air Force, and in an interview he said that there would be nothing faster than this plane in the next 2 years. And he was right, because neither the Curtiss P-36 nor the Grumman F4F could match its speed. Unfortunately, his plane was not adopted by the American Air Force, but the Japanese spies who were following everything closely disguised as journalists took all the information they could so that the legendary A6M Zero could be created.

 

[AndyJWest]

There is absolutely no way the H-1 could have been 'adapted as a fighter' without a complete redesign. It achieved 352 mph, certainly - by carrying next to no fuel. And quite obviously, it was unarmed, and had none of the other equipment necessary for a fighter.

 

In any case, by the time the H-1 flew, there was already a cantilever-wing retractable undercarriage fighter entering service..

[=BLW=Pablo]

I think you're reading this plane wrong.

The Curtiss P-36 flew unarmed in April 1936 (a year after the H-1) and only achieved 285 mph using a three-blade propeller.

If the H-1 had been improved in its design by having a larger engine and a three-blade propeller, it could have easily compensated for the extra weight of two .30 and two .50 machine guns (which was the standard armament in 1940).

[AndyJWest]

I'm not reading anything wrong. A hand-built one-off prototype racing machine is not a production combat aircraft. The design requirements are entirely different. And there was nothing particularly revolutionary in the H-1 design. In addition to The I-16, the Bf 109 and the Hawker Hurricane were in the prototype-construction stage, along with many other monoplane fighter designs emerging on designers drawing boards over the next few years.

 

It should be noted that far all Howard Hughes claims, he failed to come up with a single production aircraft by the end of WW2, and cost the US a great deal of money in the process.

 

To add to the above, it should probably be noted that though the H-1 achieved a landplane speed record, at 354 mph, the absolute record at the time was held by the Macchi M.C.72 seaplane, at 440 mph.

Edited September 16, 2024 by AndyJWest

[Sgt_Joch]

 
H-1 test scene from “The Aviator”. Great movie on an aviation pioneer if you have not seen it.

 

Howard Hughes is now remembered as a crazy old man, but he was the Elon Musk of his generation.

Edited September 16, 2024 by Sgt_Joch

[=BLW=Pablo]

On 9/16/2024 at 1:46 AM, AndyJWest said:

To add to the above, it should probably be noted that though the H-1 achieved a landplane speed record, at 354 mph, the absolute record at the time was held by the Macchi M.C.72 seaplane, at 440 mph.

I'm a fan of the Machi 72, but it was a twin engine.

 

Yes, the Fiat AS6 was the union of two Fiat AS5s.

 

That produced 3000 HP for only a short period of time, and with an absurdly high fuel consumption.
While the H1 crossed the United States from coast to coast, breaking the record at the time with an engine that originally produced 900 HP, reworked to use 100 octane fuel and yielding 1000 HP.
The Machi 72 killed two pilots before reaching its speed record. And its speed record was also its VNE. A speed never to be exceeded.
The H1 recorded 900 KM/h in a dive.
I sincerely do not understand all this objection to a project that YES, had everything to be the best American fighter at the beginning of the war, and it was only not for political reasons.

Comparing the H1 to the I16 seems like a joke to me.

Edited September 17, 2024 by =BLW=Pablo

[AndyJWest]

Regarding this purported 'project', I have never seen any evidence that it amounted to anything more than a vague claim from Hughes that he could build something - in a factory he didn't have. If you have evidence to the contrary: i.e. a specific design specification, submitted to the USAAC, providing figures like anticipated speed, range, rate of climb, service ceiling, armament, all-up weight etc, show it.

 

Anyone can build imaginary aircraft in their head. 

[Avimimus]

I'm curious what would have made the Hughes H-1 superior? Actual fighter aircraft have to be fast, manoeuvrable (over a broad speed range), have good rearward and downward visibility, be easy to maintain under field conditions, and be relatively easy to fly and take-off/land (especially in WWII, when many pilots had accelerated training).

 

They also have to be durable and carry a full suite of military equipment (including weapons and the structural strengthening to support those weapons, radios, fuel etc.)

  

On 9/16/2024 at 2:54 AM, =BLW=Pablo said:

[...] but the Japanese spies who were following everything closely disguised as journalists took all the information they could so that the legendary A6M Zero could be created.

 

Exactly what features were copied from the H-1 that weren't already used in Japanese fighter design (or other countries' fighter designs)?

 

Do tell.

 

18 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Howard Hughes is now remembered as a crazy old man, but he was the Elon Musk of his generation.

 

So you are saying Hughes was good at self-promotion and obtaining money from investors using a cult of personality?

 

[=BLW=Pablo]

I think you're taking this too personally.
It doesn't matter that this plane was designed by Howard Hughes' team.
It doesn't matter that the Zero was inspired by him.
What matters is that with a few changes it could have been a great fighter.

What matters is that he had potential.

[AndyJWest]

What matters is evidence to back up your claims.

[=BLW=Pablo]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

What matters is evidence to back up your claims.

I'm trying to be polite but you're not helping.

The debate should be about the plane, not me.

 

 

How can this plane, which was the evolution of a biplane, be compared to this?

 

 

Which was designed to be a monoplane, with hours of testing in the wind tunnel?

 

[AndyJWest]

Without evidence to back up the claims you have made regarding the aircraft, there is nothing to debate.

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Fastest single purpose skinny race plane does not nearly equate to best(est) fighter plane. What evidence do you have to support any of your thesis? You are making claims amongst a very knowledgeable group here.

[=BLW=Pablo]

10 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Fastest single purpose skinny race plane does not nearly equate to best(est) fighter plane. What evidence do you have to support any of your thesis? You are making claims amongst a very knowledgeable group here.

How can I prove with evidence something that is only in the realm of supposition?

Unfortunately, this plane never received weapons.

Armor

Radio

Self-sealing tanks

A three-blade propeller

A larger radial engine

My God, I'm just an aviation enthusiast who sees potential in this project.

[=BLW=Pablo]

I spent a few hours researching and found some interesting information.

 

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+visionary+ahead+of+his+time%3A+Howard+Hughes+and+the+U.S.+Air...-a0168510661

 

Quote

Part 1: The Air Corps Design Competitions

Howard Hughes involvement with the Air Force began in the spring of 1935 when he decided to enter the design competition for an experimental single-seat fighter. In January of that year, the Material Division of the Army Air Corps (predecessor to the U.S. Air Force), circulated proposals inviting the aviation industry to submit designs for one and two-place pursuit planes having an all-metal monocoque fuselage with cantilever monoplane wings. (1) The submittals were divided into two categories: a design competition to produce a concept aircraft that would form the basis for a long term development project, and a production contract competition to provide a sample aircraft that would become the prototype for the production of new Air Corps fighter. Entrants in the design competition did not have to build an aircraft. They only had to submit engineering data and preliminary drawings based on a comprehensive set of the specifications established by the Material Division for each type. Bids for the design portion of the competition were to be opened on May 6, 1935.

The design submitted by the Hughes team was a variation on the H-1 racer then under construction by another team of Hughes engineers working out of a leased warehouse building across the street from the Grand Central Airport in Glendale, California. (2) The idea for the H-1 was conceived while Hughes was attending the All-American Air Races in Miami, Florida, in mid January 1934. James R. Wedell, holder of the world's land plane speed record of 305 mph was there too. On January 12th, Wedell gave an exhibition flight in his record setting airplane, the Wedell-Williams 44, that involved three circuits of the event's 5-mile pylon racecourse. (3) Hughes was scheduled to fly the course himself in a few days and it is inconceivable that he would not have wanted to be present for the exhibition. Howard Hughes had an insatiable interest in the latest advances in aviation and would not have passed up an opportunity to observe Wedell's demonstration flight and examine the Model 44 up close. As will shortly become evident, Hughes was not impressed.

Two days after Wedell's flying exhibition, Hughes flew his highly modified Boeing 100A in the Sportsman Pilot Free-For-All race. Hughes won handily, nearly lapping his nearest competitor averaging 187.5 miles per hour over the 20-mile triangular course. (4)

Glenn Odekirk, Hughes' mechanic, was on hand to congratulate him. It was the first aviation prize to be won by Hughes.

"Hell Glenn, there isn't a decent plane in the lot," Hughes was purported to have said after the meet. (5)

"Howard," Odekirk responded, "you won't be satisfied until you build your own plane ..."

In the months that followed, Hughes studied the technical data flowing out of the aviation industry on proposed inventions and designs for increased speed. As Paul Matt, the noted aviation historian explained in his classic article on Howard Hughes and his racer, these "were busy months, with visits to Hartford to see what Pratt & Whitney had in the latest engines and a similar assessment at the Wright Aeronautical plant in Patterson, New Jersey." (6) While still in the East, Hughes sent a telegram to Dick Palmer in California asking the 30-year old engineer if he was willing to take on the task of designing the "fastest plane in the world."

Palmer, known for his advanced theories in aeronautical engineering, had further streamlined Hughes Boeing 100A after the Douglas Aircraft Company had finished modifying the plane to Hughes' specifications in 1931. Unhappy with Douglas's work, Hughes had taken it to the Lockheed Aircraft Company where Palmer was assigned the task of "cleaning it up." Palmer, who was now working for the Aircraft Development Corporation, agreed to take on the project on a part-time basis working in the evenings and during weekends. As the project progressed and the amount of work increased, Palmer chose to leave the Airplane Development Corporation in order to devote his full attention to the Hughes project.

In the early part of February, Palmer hired a small team of airplane designers and engineers to begin work on the wind tunnel models that he would use to validate the design for Hughes' Racer. Palmer had already discussed the choice of power plants with Hughes. Both men had agreed to use the new twin-row, 14-cylinder R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior engine developed by Pratt & Whitney. The engine, rated at 750-hp, had a relatively small frontal area that would significantly reduce the amount of drag produced by the engine.

In mid-April, Palmer and his six-man team were ready to begin testing the wind tunnel models that now included two different set of wings, two aft fuselage sections and tail surfaces, four mid-ship fuselage sections and five engine cowls. Palmer loaded the models in his old Ford and drove over to his alma mater, the California Institute of Technology, for testing in the Institute's 10-foot wind tunnel. The tests, which began on April 20, 1934, were conduced under the title of Palmer Racing Plane, assigned to the Hughes Development Company of Glendale, California, and continued until July 31, 1934. The results were checked by Dr. Theodore Von Karman, head of the Caltech Guggenheim's Aeronautical Laboratory and one the leading aerodynamicists in the world. (7)

By then Palmer's design team had moved into a warehouse building leased from aircraft dealer Charles Babb by the Hughes Aircraft Company. Hughes Aircraft had been formed in 1932 to provide a convenient means of funding the expenses associated with Hughes' personal aircraft and his interest in flying. (8) The company was a division of Hughes Tool Company, the cash cow that permitted Hughes to indulge in his various aviation endeavors and owned all of his aircraft. Hughes assigned Glenn Odekirk as shop superintendent and, in keeping with his well known penchant for secrecy, had a temporary plywood wall constructed around the work area and saw to it that an armed guard protected the building at night. (9)

The H-1 racer was still under construction when the Material Division released its circular letter of January 15, 1935, announcing the pursuit plane design competition. Without notifying Dick Palmer or his team, Hughes quietly gathered another small group of aviation experts to draw up a proposal for a military version of the H-1. By the end of April, Hughes' second team had prepared the preliminary drawings and a detailed set of specifications. It was similar to the H-1, except it was of all metal construction and had a higher aspect ratio, longer span, elliptical shaped wing. (10) The new design was designated the Hughes XP-2 for experimental pursuit, model 2. It had provisions for two machine guns in each of the wing fillets, which were larger than those on the H-1, and conformed to the military equipment requirements listed in Army Specification No. X-603 (Table I). (11)

When the bids were opened on May 16, 1934, the Hughes proposal (submitted under the Hughes Tool Company name) was one of sixteen designs offered to the Material Division by various firms. During the next five months several evaluating boards were convened at Wright Field to assess the merits of each design. The outcome remained in doubt until October 1, 1935, when the Wedell-Williams company was declared the winner of the design competition and awarded a study contract for a 4,350 pound fighter powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1535 engine capable of 286 mph at 10,000 ft. (12)

The design submitted by the Wedell-Williams Air Service Corporation was based on the Model 45 racer, which had been enthusiastically endorsed by Capt. Claire L. Chennault, then an instructor at the Air Corps Tactical School. Chennault inspected the new plane in February. He was impressed by "its extraordinary speed" and by the fact that it appeared to be readily adaptable as an interceptor. (13) No details of the Wedell-Williams design have survived and no records of the evaluations conducted by the Material Division been found, making it impossible to determine why the Wedell-Williams design--with a minimum speed contract requirement of 286 mph--was selected over the XP-2.

In all likelihood, the Material Division felt that the Wedell-Williams company was a more qualified airframe manufacturer. It had already built several successful racers and had been exchanging technical data with the engineers at Wright Field, whereas the Hughes Tool Company (at the time the evaluation was conducted) had never constructed a single airplane. In short, the Air Corps' engineers may have concluded that the Wedell-Williams design was more attainable. Ironically, the XP-34 never came to fruition, whereas the H-1, upon which the XP-2 was based, set new speed records under Hughes airmanship. (14)

While the Material Division was deciding against the XP-2, Hughes' team of engineers was secretly putting the finishing touches on the H-1 racer. On Friday, September the thirteenth-Hughes wasn't superstitious--Hughes piloted the H-1 to a new landplane speed record of 352 miles per hour. He made seven passes through the timing gates of the three-kilometer timing course that had been set up alongside the Eddie Martin Flying Field near Santa Ana, California, before his engine cut out for lack of gas. Hughes make a wheels up, dead stick landing in a nearby beet field that the official observers deemed sufficiently controlled for the record to stand.

The similarity between the XP-2 and the H-1 has never been fully understood, nor the reasons why the Army rejected the Hughes' design. Some writers have suggested that the H-1, like other racers of the era, where not designed for the high stress maneuvers required of Army fighters and "couldn't carry the weight of a combat type." (15) But the H-1 was "stressed for pursuit work," and was reported to be able to take 9 Gs in a dive. (16) It is true that R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior had been specially tuned to burn 100 octane gasoline boosting the engine's horsepower to between 900-1,000 horsepower, but engine technology was advancing rapidly and there is no reason why a military version of the H-1 built to the XP-2 design could not have been powered by the same R-1830 that was subsequently selected for the XP-34. (17)

One can only speculate as to the possible outcome had Hughes been selected in the design competition and then given the go ahead to develop a military version of the H-1 using the more powerful R-1830 engine. The design would have been finished well before the end of fiscal year 1936, giving the Material Division sufficient time to award Hughes a construction contract for an experimental model (XP) or service test model (YP) based on the XP-2 design. Had this aircraft proved successful, which is highly likely given quality of Hughes design team and the proven performance of the H-1, the Air Corps would have had its first 300 mph fighter a year earlier (Table II).

Having accomplished his goal of building the fastest airplane in the world, Hughes now set out to break Roscoe Turner's transcontinental speed record using a redesigned version of the H-1 modified with larger wings and a greater fuel capacity. (18) It would take several months, however, before the H-1 could be fitted out with the new wing. In the interim Hughes decided to attempt the record using Jackie Cochran's Northrop Gamma, leased at a price that Cochran could not to refuse.

The Gamma was taken over by Hughes in November and trundled into the "secret" hangar that housed the H-1. There, Palmer's crew went to work installing new gas tanks and a new 850-hp Wright R-1820-G5 Cyclone engine with a three-bladed constant speed propeller. The R-1820-G5 engine, which had a special high altitude supercharger under development for the Army, had not been released to the public and Hughes had to get special permission to use it. (19)

Hughes began the record-breaking transcontinental flight at 12:15 p.m. on January 13, 1936, when he took off from Burbank airport. Nine hours and 15 minutes later, he landed the Gamma at Newark Airport breaking Roscoe Tanner's transcontinental mark by 47 minutes. When interviewed by the press, Hughes, who was very modest about his flying achievements, refused to talk about himself referring only to the equipment he used and the results obtained.

He continuously gave credit to the United States Army Air Corps for permitting him to use the 1,000 hp Wright Cyclone engine, which was then on the restricted list, and insisted that the credit for the successful flight was due to his chief engineer, Richard Palmer, his factory superintendent, G. E. Odekirk, his meteorologist, W. C. Rockefeller, and his other employees. (20)

Hughes sought the Air Corps' help again in July when Albert Lodwick, Hughes' flight manager, requested the services of Lt. Thomas Thurlow to serve as the navigator on a flight that Hughes planned to make from Shanghai to New York in the DC-1 that he had recently purchased from Transcontinental and Western Air. (21) Thurlow, an expert in celestial navigation had just reported to Wright Field for assignment to the Instrument and Navigation Unit and could not be spared. (22)

On August 9 Hughes sent a wire to Brig. Gen. Austin W. Robbins, chief of the Material Division asking permission to land the next day at Wright Field so that he could stop and see him. (23) Hughes landed the DC-1, dubbed the "flying laboratory," at Wright Field at 5:44 p.m. on August 10 accompanied by a five man team that included Harry Conner, navigator: Richard Stoddard, radio operator: Harry Lund, flight engineer: W. C. Rockefeller, meteorologist: Al Lodwick, flight manager. (24) Hughes meet with General Robbins the next day to talk about the equipment that Hughes wanted for the long distance flight. (25) We don't know the details of their discussions, but it seems likely that Hughes requested Thurlow's assistance along with the use of the latest radio and navigation aids being developed by the Air Corps. The flight from Shanghai never took place, but Thurlow, with the Air Corps' permission, was part of the crew that participated in Hughes' record-breaking around-the-world flight of 1938. Hughes must have had very good relations with the folks at Wright Field, because they let him take along the Fairchild Maxon Line of Position Computer; the first time this confidential device had been permitted for civilian use. (26)

The August meeting with General Robbins is significant because it illustrates the close relationships that existed between Army aviators and their civilian brethren. There were relatively few people in aviation at this time and "direct communications and mutual trust were normal and instinctive." (27) As Brig. Gen. Benjamin S. Kelsey pointed out in his book The Dragon s Teeth, patriotism and integrity were the guiding principles behind the cooperation between the military and the civilian sectors. (28)

Although Hughes was busy preparing for both another transcontinental record and a future flight of long duration, he had not given up on getting the Army to accept a militarized version of the H-1. He justly claimed that it was the most aerodynamically efficient airplane ever built. "It has the lowest 'drag' any ship in the air," he explained to the press, adding that they were making changes to the H-1 that would make it more suitable for military use. (29)

Hughes had not given up on the aircraft business. He had assigned the task of managing Hughes Aircraft to J. B. Alexander. Alexander had given Hughes some of his first flight lessons before managing the air force that Hughes assembled to make Hells Angels. At the end of March 1936, Alexander wrote to Wright Field requesting "recent design studies of pursuit types ... in connection with investigations which we are making, particularly any multi-engined studies that might be available." (30) Lt. Col. Oliver P. Echols, chief of the Engineering Section responded on April 22, 1936, forwarding Alexander a series of Army design studies "selected because they indicate the trend in present day thought." (31)
 

 

 

 

https://wingsofintent.blogspot.com/2023/07/hughes-h-1-racer-short-and-long-wing.html

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by =BLW=Pablo

[AndyJWest]

Evidently then, the H-2 was substantially different from the H-1, and only ever existed as a proposal before being rejected by the Army Air Corps.

 

 

[=BLW=Pablo]

29 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Evidently then, the H-2 was substantially different from the H-1, and only ever existed as a proposal before being rejected by the Army Air Corps.

 

 

I don't know what you call the H-2
I only know of the short-winged H-1, which set the speed record in 1935.
And the longer-winged H-1, which flew coast-to-coast across the United States in 1937 and was donated to the Smithsonian Museum in 1975.

 

And there's one more detail I'd like to add.
Let's do a mental exercise.
You're in 1935 (and you don't know the future)
So you see all these airplane options 

 

You have a P-36 flying at 281 Mp/h

 

You have P-35 at 289 Mp/h

 

You have Hurricane at 315 Mp/h

 

And 109 at 292 Mp/h

 

 

In 1935 it was the fastest design, and was far ahead of its time.

[Aapje]

9 hours ago, =BLW=Pablo said:

How can I prove with evidence something that is only in the realm of supposition?

 

If you can't prove something, then you should not claim it to be true.

 

9 hours ago, =BLW=Pablo said:

My God, I'm just an aviation enthusiast who sees potential in this project.

 

Presumably, you are not actually qualified to judge this and neither am I. Having the evaluation reports would be interesting, as military evaluators are generally quite good at pointing out the weaknesses in designs and actual vehicles. But your article notes that the reports are not available.

 

What I do know, is that any military plane has a large list of mandatory requirements, as well as different ways in which it can do better or worse. The airplane speed is merely one such factor. You can't just claim that a plane is the best because it excels in one way.

[AndyJWest]

7 hours ago, =BLW=Pablo said:

I don't know what you call the H-2

Apologies, I meant XP-2: Hughes' 'pursuit' design, with the all-metal elliptical wing, and (presumably) a proper set of military equipment. I'm fairly sure I've seen it referred to as the H-2 somewhere.

 

This aircraft was never built. It never flew. Regarding performance, nothing exists except claims. And yet you persist in treating these claims as fact. If you knew anything about 1930s aircraft design (or at more or less any other period for that matter), you would be well aware that even established aircraft manufacturers routinely had their designs come into service overweight, overdue, and underperforming. Hughes had no aircraft production experience to speak of. If the USAAC had backed the design, would it have come to anything? There's clearly no way to be sure, but I can fully understand their reluctance to take a bet on such long odds.

 

 

 

 

[=BLW=Pablo]

If it was possible to transform a T-6 into a fighter

 

 

It would be fully possible to transform a Racer into a Fighter.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by =BLW=Pablo

[LukeFF]

Sorry, but thirteen planes that were used as unarmed trainers and in the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941 don't exactly make it a successful fighter design.

[AndyJWest]

An interesting discussion regarding claims that the A6M was a copy of something-or-other, together with the broader background - the failure of western intelligence services, and the broader western public, to understand that the Japanese had been systematically working towards developing an indigenous aircraft industry since the 1920s.

 

The 'H-1 copy' claim is discussed briefly, and dismissed as the nonsense it clearly is. 

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The most impressive thing is the doubling (trip/quad/quint) down when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[=BLW=Pablo]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Sorry, but thirteen planes that were used as unarmed trainers and in the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941 don't exactly make it a successful fighter design.

It wasn't just 13 planes, Thailand also bought this plane.
But the American government decided to cancel the sale, and these planes were in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attack happened.

 

 

But that's a topic for another thread.
And the issue of being successful wasn't my point, what I meant was that it can be done.

[AndyJWest]

Presumably the USAAC chose not to adopt the XP-2 proposal because they didn't think it would be successful.

 

 

[=BLW=Pablo]

17 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Presumably the USAAC chose not to adopt the XP-2 proposal because they didn't think it would be successful.

 

 

It (P-64) was intended to be a low-cost fighter for underdeveloped countries.
It was never intended for the USAAC.

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, =BLW=Pablo said:

It (P-64) was intended to be a low-cost fighter for underdeveloped countries.
It was never intended for the USAAC.

 

Please read what I have written before replying. I clearly wrote 'XP-2'.

[Avimimus]

17 hours ago, =BLW=Pablo said:

In 1935 it was the fastest design, and was far ahead of its time.

 

In what specific ways was it far ahead of its time? Other than the flush rivets?

 

I understand you are a fan - but so far you've only really quoted an interview with a businessman from 90 years ago... without explaining what features made the aircraft ahead of its time. Looking at most of the engineering it seems like a perfectly 1935 design... using the state of the art of 1935, but nothing more advanced than that.

 

 

6 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

An interesting discussion regarding claims that the A6M was a copy of something-or-other, together with the broader background - the failure of western intelligence services, and the broader western public, to understand that the Japanese had been systematically working towards developing an indigenous aircraft industry since the 1920s.

 

The 'H-1 copy' claim is discussed briefly, and dismissed as the nonsense it clearly is. 

 

Yes - and anyone who looks at Japanese fighter design leading up to the Zero should be able to see that it is a design which evolved from existing Japanese projects (and ones that existed before 1935)!

 

Honestly, it is a bit sad to see the 'long lance effect' still at play... after 85 years people are still seemingly just as ready to believe the idea that the Japanese couldn't design their own equipment... an idea that, frankly speaking, was based in racism and cost a lot of American (and other Allied) lives.

[Avimimus]

 

  

9 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Apologies, I meant XP-2: Hughes' 'pursuit' design, with the all-metal elliptical wing, and (presumably) a proper set of military equipment. I'm fairly sure I've seen it referred to as the H-2 somewhere.

 

This aircraft was never built. It never flew. Regarding performance, nothing exists except claims.

 

Assuming we could trust Hughes to not exaggerate performance (intentionally or unintentionally - the techniques to predict an aircraft's performance based on a paper design study was still being developed in the 1930s)... we actually have estimates for the militarised XP-2 performance.

 

According to Hughes it would have actually been slower and lower flying than the contemporary Spitfire, although it would have a considerably more useful range:

pgs01-03.qxp (afhistory.org)

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Assuming we could trust Hughes to not exaggerate performance (intentionally or unintentionally - the techniques to predict an aircraft's performance based on a paper design study was still being developed in the 1930s)... we actually have estimates for the militarised XP-2 performance.

 

According to Hughes it would have actually been slower and lower flying than the contemporary Spitfire, although it would have a considerably more useful range:

pgs01-03.qxp (afhistory.org)

 

There are factors beyond possible exaggeration that might make Hughes' estimates debatable though, at least if one assumes that the proposed XP-2 actually resembled the H-1 to any real extent. The H-1 was clearly built for speed, and as has been noted already, it made sacrifices to achieve it - most obviously externally in regard to visibility from the cockpit.

 

It's probably worth looking at the Vultee P-66 Vanguard, which Richard Palmer went on to design later - which in some ways resembles the H-1. As an aircraft it certainly wasn't anything special, though to be fair, by the time it was developed, the Twin Wasp was hardly as cutting edge as it had been in 1935. More to the point though, it gives an indication of what a more realistic cockpit for a fighter should look like. Less aerodynamic, but a hell of a lot more practical.

 

The comparison with the Spitfire is interesting too. Like Palmer, R. J. Mitchell clearly went to some efforts to reduce parasitic drag - though only to the extent that it made economic sense: I've told the tale of the bag of split peas before, so I won't recount again (see here). Mitchell had considerable experience in aircraft design by then, and he must have realised that he was pushing the limits of what the RAF would be prepared to pay for, in terms of squeezing a few more MPH out of the Spit. I've got to wonder whether the USAAC likewise had doubts as to how much Hughes' proposal was going to cost. Compound curves and flush rivets equal expense.

Edited September 19, 2024 by AndyJWest

[JG1_Vonrd]

Regardless of the issue about the H-1s relation to a production (or possible) combat aircraft it was, indeed a remarkable aircraft and Hughes was somewhat fanatical about drag reduction. One of the reasons for the wood wings was to allow for specific shaping to reduce drag and flutter at high speed - all tested in the wind tunnel at Caltech.

He decreed that all slotted screws have the slot aligned with the airflow (any mechanic will tell you what a PITA that is). It's common belief that this was the first use of flush rivets but...

The history of flush rivets in aircraft includes: 

• Charles Ward Hall of Hall-Aluminum Aircraft Corporation submitted a patent proposal for a flush rivet in 1926. 
• Vladimir Pavlecka and his team at Douglas Aircraft invented flush rivets in the 1930s. 
• Howard Hughes used flush rivets in the design and production of his H-1 Racer, which first flew in 1935 (which may have been the first use in a flying aircraft. I'm not sure about this). What Hughes improved upon was developing a method to machine the rivet heads absolutely flush, what is now referred to as "rivet shaving" and every A&P mechanic has experienced this as part of their training.

In my opinion (as well as the Smithsonian's which has it in their collection) a remarkable, ground breaking and historically significant aircraft. Sadly, Hughes' company didn't contribute any significant aircraft to America's military but there are a couple of significant and well known helicopters and pretty much every AAM Missile as well as the principle anti-armor Maverick.