Hughes H-1 Racer

[KJ_Lesnick]

If I recall, Hughes proposed the design to the USAAF and the guy just flew the plane over did a few passes and then flew away without landing (not sure why the hell he did that).

I'm curious though how that design could have been adopted into a combat plane with any of the following modifications

• Machine gun armament fitted
  
• Bigger radial engine (with larger propeller arc if necessary)
  
• Radial substituted with inline engine (V-1710), with enlarged propeller arc if needed
  
• Canopy raised a bit
  

The idea would be a 1938 era fighter-design with a long-range and at least the same top-speed.

[wuzak]

If I recall, Hughes proposed the design to the USAAF and the guy just flew the plane over did a few passes and then flew away without landing (not sure why the hell he did that).

It was Howard Hughes. He was "eccentric".

I'm curious though how that design could have been adopted into a combat plane with any of the following modifications

• Machine gun armament fitted
  
• Bigger radial engine (with larger propeller arc if necessary)
  
• Radial substituted with inline engine (V-1710), with enlarged propeller arc if needed
  
• Canopy raised a bit
  

The idea would be a 1938 era fighter-design with a long-range and at least the same top-speed.

The top speed of the Hughes H-1 was done with the shorter span wings and probably not with much fuel aboard.

To make it into a military plane you would need to add a lot of equipment other than just the guns. The fuel tanks would need to be self sealing, adding weight and reducing capacity (possibly later than 1938).

Bigger, more powerful engines mean the airframe has to redesigned and re-stressed. It will get heavier. The larger radials will have a larger diameter causing more drag.

Basically you would need to redesigne the whole aircraft.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

It was Howard Hughes. He was "eccentric".

Retarded move...

The top speed of the Hughes H-1 was done with the shorter span wings and probably not with much fuel aboard.

1. They had two different wing-spans?

2. What was the critical altitude of the engine?

To make it into a military plane you would need to add a lot of equipment other than just the guns.

Yes, of course.  As I see it, you'd need the following

• Guns & Ammunition Bays
  
• Radios (assuming it didn't have that)
  
• Armor & Self-Sealing tanks
  
• Possibly a raised canopy
  
• Bullet proof glass in front of the pilot
  
• Possibly some shackles for a few bombs
  

The aircraft would not necessarily be as flush and clean-lined in combat service, and the self-sealing tanks would cut down on fuel capacity: The fuel-fraction was so high, that wouldn't be a major problem in itself, though the ammo bays might cut into fuel storage admittedly.

It will get heavier.

Yes, that's definitely true...

Basically you would need to redesigne the whole aircraft.

Even if it served as the basis for a new design, it does provide a number of useful baseline traits

• Good cowling design
  
• Clean overall lines
  
• High fuel-fraction
  

Which if applied to a new fighter, would be highly useful.

Also consider that the Seversky P-35 set the stage for the P-47; the P-36 laid the work for the P-40

[sandiego89]

They had two different wing-spans?

The fuel-fraction was so high, that wouldn't be a major problem in itself, though the ammo bays might cut into fuel storage admittedly.

Even if it served as the basis for a new design, it does provide a number of useful baseline traits

• Good cowling design
  
• Clean overall lines
  
• High fuel-fraction
  

Which if applied to a new fighter, would be highly useful.

Yes, two sets of wings: short (painted red) wings for high speed records.  Long span (blue, as displayed today at NASM) for long range flights.  Same fuselage.  So which wings for your "fighter"?   Long wings you loose your speed.  Short wings you loose your load carrying.... More compromises....

Remember high fuel loads are great for long distance flight, but not needed in every pursuit or fighter mission.  It comes at a cost.

Strength, maneuverability and serviceability needs to be considered as well. I imagine the aircraft was quite nimble, but I have no idea if it was strong enough enough for combat operations.  All the gear you listed to make it a fighter would call for increased structure to hold it.  The tires are small and the gear elegant, but perhaps not designed for your 100 hour pilot on rough strips- would likely need bigger tires, and more robust gear, etc.  It would need access panels etc for work. All this cuts into what was a an elegant, clever aircraft.  The US seemed to be moving away from wood and fabric wings around that time.

Yes it is a neat design, and had some great streamlining, and perhaps could have been a genesis for an interesting warbird.  Fun to ponder, but as mentioned it would have taken quite a bit to get it to what the Army wanted at the time.  A sleek "race" plane looks great- but is still a race plane.

Perhaps high speed photo recon would have been a better application.....(which the US did not seem too value much at the time....)