DBWI: Airplaines used in civilian travel?

So I just arrived at London via Big Ben's docking bay. And as I sat listening to Nirvana on Briton Zeppelins Flight 342, I got to thinking...how would it be different on an airplane?

For one, if airplanes were used every day, they'd be a lot faster. Travel from New York to London would probably take about 16 hours instead of two days. On the other hand, it would probably be a lot less luxurious, and a lot less fuel efficient...

I know "Airplanes From Another World" is a cliche, but what if it held true? How would the world be different if we used airplanes every day instead of zeppelins? Who would we idolize as the "Founder of Air Flight" instead of Ferdinand von Zeppelin?

-AYC

It's an interesting idea, but there are problems with it. For one thing, aeroplanes only really make sense for military purposes - the time taken to mobilise and deploy troops is critical, and conscripts can't complain about being stuffed into a metal cylinder for a few hours (have you seen what troopships used to be like? And that was for days at a time!).

But for civilian purposes, the difference between 16 hours and two days to cross the Atlantic is neither here nor there. It reduces the amount of time required by 32 hours... so what? You still have to save up for 32 weeks to afford a ticket. No-one who can afford air travel will tolerate being treated like a herring simply to arrive a few hours faster.
For freight, the situation is even more ludicrous. The world economy depends on the efficient and continuous flow of cargo, true, but that means it has be on reliable timetables and - most importantly - be cost effective. I've heard that military aircraft cost thousands of pounds per ton of cargo they carry, and there are very few cargoes that would make such an exorbitant shipping fee viable. Those that do can safely wait a few days.

However, I can see a case for aeroplanes being used to move important people in time of crisis. Diplomats being rushed to conferences, for example, or doctors to a patient in another city. Perhaps even engineers in case of another disaster, like the Forth Bridge incident.
But as widespread as convenient as rail or zeppelin? No, I think not.

Also, having planes restricted to military use is probably a good thing. If you had large number of civilian flivvers going about their business, all you need is to slap guns and a bomb-bay on them and hey presto, you have a bomber fleet. Now, airplanes are largely military, so we won't have problems with a nation building up a bomber fleet in the guise of its airline.

I'll go a step further and say that the number of airplanes should be controlled by international regulation. The Strategic Aircraft Limitation Talks 1 (SALT 1) were a good start, you should look them up someday.

Also there is a Safety Issue, since the Zeppelins float on Helium, if there is a problems, the Zeppelins still slowly descents from the sky. There enough time to alert ships at sea or authority on Land and quickly get help to the Passengers, when a Zeppelins had had a emergency.

With a Airplane, if it loses a wing, it can drop from the sky and crash. For Military use that acceptable but there no reason that a passenger should take that risk.

Gunnarnz said:

It's an interesting idea, but there are problems with it. For one thing, aeroplanes only really make sense for military purposes - the time taken to mobilise and deploy troops is critical, and conscripts can't complain about being stuffed into a metal cylinder for a few hours (have you seen what troopships used to be like? And that was for days at a time!).

Click to expand...

This, IMHO, is rather subjective. Properly designed, you could make them rather more comfortable. Though there lays the problem. Design.

But for civilian purposes, the difference between 16 hours and two days to cross the Atlantic is neither here nor there. It reduces the amount of time required by 32 hours... so what? You still have to save up for 32 weeks to afford a ticket. No-one who can afford air travel will tolerate being treated like a herring simply to arrive a few hours faster.

Click to expand...

The Airships cost less simply because there are so many of them. Economies of Scale is the correct term I believe. But having enough in the air at once to get the per-ticket cost down? While almost certainly using a Hydrocarbon - as opposed to Biofuel/Solar of the latest gen. airships - Fuel of some sort? Who knows the potential impact of such an event.

For freight, the situation is even more ludicrous. The world economy depends on the efficient and continuous flow of cargo, true, but that means it has be on reliable timetables and - most importantly - be cost effective. I've heard that military aircraft cost thousands of pounds per ton of cargo they carry, and there are very few cargoes that would make such an exorbitant shipping fee viable. Those that do can safely wait a few days.

Click to expand...

Though in very rare cases, the rapid transport is vital. But that's why most military forces always keep some in reserve.

However, I can see a case for aeroplanes being used to move important people in time of crisis. Diplomats being rushed to conferences, for example, or doctors to a patient in another city. Perhaps even engineers in case of another disaster, like the Forth Bridge incident.
But as widespread as convenient as rail or zeppelin? No, I think not.

Click to expand...

Isn't this already the case?

In any case, the quiet, relaxing drifting through the skies in an Airship is something I've long since come to enjoy. Something I severely doubt a powered airplane could ever hope to accomplish.

I can actually see it, what you need is to simultaneously give airplanes a major boost in numerical production and wreck the zeppelin industry

This would have to be before 1920, by that point the Zeppelin was already established in Britain, France, the US and Japan in addition to Germany, but say around 1915 you get an economic crisis or some other event which dries up capital in Germany, preventing the industry from expanding and benefiting from economics of scale

Now if this event does not effect America, Britain or France, who lacked Germany's early experience with Zeppelins, the capital they spent building Zeppelins from 1915-1920 could instead be spent on say airplanes, which have less upfront costs and still fly, at that point the zeppelin was primarily military and a gimmick at that so the drawbacks of airplanes are less apparent

Now instead of Zeppelins benefiting from hundreds built, you have hundreds of airplanes being built instead, driving down cost and making the airplane better faster due to economics of scale

Now have a very large war, not one of the colonial brushfire affairs but an all out war like the Napoleonic wars but bigger occur, say over the collapse of the Dual Monarchy, instead of a few hundred bombers built over a few decades have thousands if not tens thousands would be built in a few years

Once the war is over, well you have lots of surplus airplanes and airplane factories, why spend money building zeppelins or zeppelin factories when airplane factories and used airplanes already exist

Off course converting a surplus bomber to a passenger liner would be difficult, bombers are inefficient because they carry concentrated heavy weights and need strong skeletons to support those, passenger craft would not need those, but the cost would still be less than building a zeppelin front scratch

If I remember correctly Handley Page did convert a few 0/400 Bombers to passenger aircraft just after WW1 but 1 got lost in fog on the way to Paris and the Government ordered the proposed service canceled. Personally I don't think the idea would have caught on though. Who wants to spend hours confined to a small seat with god knows who next you slogging through bumpy air in a cramped tupe with less room than the 7.15 Undergroud train to central London. It may take longer to get where you're going but at least on an airship you can walk away from the drunks and bores. Not to mention any screaming babies.

Peg Leg Pom said:

If I remember correctly Handley Page did convert a few 0/400 Bombers to passenger aircraft just after WW1 but 1 got lost in fog on the way to Paris and the Government ordered the proposed service canceled. Personally I don't think the idea would have caught on though. Who wants to spend hours confined to a small seat with god knows who next you slogging through bumpy air in a cramped tupe with less room than the 7.15 Undergroud train to central London. It may take longer to get where you're going but at least on an airship you can walk away from the drunks and bores. Not to mention any screaming babies.

Click to expand...

Now if you can build an airplane that can fly above the weather, you may have a shot at a comfortable ride, but as far as I know only exparimental single seaters can do that.

I seem to be with the majority though, why would you want to get in a cramped metal tube? Taking the train across the country is such a great way to travel, and if you have to cross the ocean, an airship or just a ship is great. I took a trip on the White Star Lines Olympic II a few years back, that is a ship. A full four hundred feet longer than her namesake, and just as luxurious. Granted, ship travel is slower than airship, but still.

pieman97405 said:

... if you have to cross the ocean, an airship or just a ship is great.

Click to expand...

There's also a health aspect to think of. Being forced to sit in the same place for 16 hours at a time is likely to have a deleterious effect on one's system. I know many of you feel that you spend a lot of time sitting down anyway, but consider: this is probably at an office, or perhaps in a railway carriage if you're a frequent traveller. Even under those circumstances, however, you have the chance to get up, visit a smoking car, or at least take a short stroll or some other form of exercise to prevent the loss of circulation from setting in.
This is less of a problem for the military. Those souls being carried by air are usually young fit men, well able to withstand some hard living, and the requirements for the pilots of such craft are well known. But it would be impossible to give every passenger a medical examination to ensure they could stand the rigours of such a trip, and a certain proportion would inevitably succumb to morbidity of the lower limbs under such circumstances.

How could they not be? Zeppelins are inefficient for long-distance travel.

OOC: I like zeppelins, but this is borderline ASB.....

Why would anyone want to travel on a plane if they could possibly avoid it? Not only are they cramped and uncomfortable, but they are very loud and very shaky. How is the kitchen staff is not going to be able to prepare the meals and the bar (would there even be one?) would have no end of difficulty pouring the drinks. Besides, once you got a drink it would probably spill the moment time some turbulence hit the plane.

I'll take comfort over speed, thank you very much.

Believe it or not, there are passenger and cargo aeroplanes in use, and there have been for decades. They're called bush planes.

None of them carry more than about 14 passengers or 5,000lbs of freight. They go where it is impractical or pointless for airships, like remote towns in the Canadian Arctic or Siberia. The best examples are the Antonov An-2 Cub and the DeHavilland Canada DHC-4 Twin Otter. And unlike the majority of aeroplanes, these types don't need paved runways as they are float planes that land on water. (Or in the case of the Twin Otter, can be fitted with skis in the winter so as to take off and land on frozen lakes.)

It's a niche role though, and not one that is widely known. (Even my fellow Canadians have trouble believing that I once flew, by aeroplane, from Edmonton AB to a place called Inuvik on the Arctic Coast in one day. And that included two stops for fuel and food (and "relief"*), once in Ft. McMurray and again in Yellowknife. Total travel time: 17hours 35min.) It isn't something likely to take off (pardon the pun) anywhere else, but then again, places like the Australian Outback or the Canadian Arctic lack reasonable alternatives. I'm that all of you would take six hours or so bouncing around in an aeroplane if the alternatives were several days (or longer) of travelling by canoe, dogsled, horseback or on foot.

*Let's just say that it is best to make sure that you "go" before you get in the plane. Otherwise you'll be holding it all the way to wherever you're going...

Ever since the Czech zeppelin lines were opened more than a hundred years ago and then extended to Slowakenland in the 1920s, they've become a grand transport tradition over here, as well as other parts of the United States of Central Europe. I couldn't see planes being used much for passenger flights all that much on our airports. Helicopters and cargo-carrying fixed-wings have taken off quite a bit in recent decades, but the conservative air passenger in our neck of the woods has simply grown to accept zeppelins as the more traditional and glamorous choice. Some of the older frequent passengers even go as far as claiming that aeroplanes and helicopters are "vulgar" and "despite their speed, unfit for the cultured central European". The current governor and minister of transport of our royal bundesland belong to this stubborn minority, so I doubt there will be any substantial pro-aeroplane changes in the future.

Personally speaking, while I don't dislike airships, I think planes deserve more credit than people usualy give them. And I'm hopeful, since even here, attitudes are changing, prejudices weakening : At least even the greatest of our naysayers have admitted that miniblimps aren't ideal for aerial rescues in the Alps and Tatras and have allowed helicopters to take on said role in the last 40 or so years. So much for all those grandiose 1950s development plans for whole fleets of RPLs (Rettungsprallluftschiffen) that cost the taxpayers giant amounts of money. As if that wasn't enough, the project was irreversibly tainted by that big corruption case that happened in '65, with numerous cases of bribing in the procurement stage. Score one for the aeroplane and helicopter supporters (myself included), zero for the airship protectionists.


(OOC: The aforementioned 60s corruption case is inspired by this OTL example. And yes, mountain service rescue blimps in a surviving federal Austria-Hungary are quite a cool idea, though a ridiculous one in terms of practicality. Incidentally, the stuff I mention about Czech airship lines is actually OTL: The first ever commercial flight in the Czech lands occured on the 9th November 1913 via the DELAG company's zeppelin Sachsen. The flight started in Legnica in Polish Silesia and then made stopovers at Liberec and Jablonné v Podještědí, with the final destination being Nový Bor.)

If you come to Shortstown (Cardington), then be careful about discussing aeroplanes in public. They're still very touchy on the subject since the R-1010 crash. True, the R-1009 (designed by Barnes Wallis) reached Canada and safely returned, but it's very success doomed commercial aircraft by forcing a rush into early flight tests.

It wasn't quite the failure some people think - the Beardmore Light Engines are in service today on airships.

It's strange to think that if Lord Thompson hadn't had his near-death experience, the Air Ministry might have been led by someone without an irrational fear of heavier-than-air flight. As it is, Nevil Shute Norway had to move to the United States to set up his light aircraft manufactory.

RCAF Brat said:

Believe it or not, there are passenger and cargo aeroplanes in use, and there have been for decades. They're called bush planes.

None of them carry more than about 14 passengers or 5,000lbs of freight. They go where it is impractical or pointless for airships, like remote towns in the Canadian Arctic or Siberia. The best examples are the Antonov An-2 Cub and the DeHavilland Canada DHC-4 Twin Otter. And unlike the majority of aeroplanes, these types don't need paved runways as they are float planes that land on water. (Or in the case of the Twin Otter, can be fitted with skis in the winter so as to take off and land on frozen lakes.)

It's a niche role though, and not one that is widely known.

Click to expand...

strummist said:

If you come to Shortstown (Cardington), then be careful about discussing aeroplanes in public. They're still very touchy on the subject since the R-1010 crash. True, the R-1009 (designed by Barnes Wallis) reached Canada and safely returned, but it's very success doomed commercial aircraft by forcing a rush into early flight tests.

It wasn't quite the failure some people think - the Beardmore Light Engines are in service today on airships.

It's strange to think that if Lord Thompson hadn't had his near-death experience, the Air Ministry might have been led by someone without an irrational fear of heavier-than-air flight. As it is, Nevil Shute Norway had to move to the United States to set up his light aircraft manufactory.

Click to expand...

While it is true that these planes can be useful for the desired niche role(s), let's not forget that there aren't any facilities to build passenger planes of sufficient size and comfort to fulfil the role currently offered by the Large Passenger Airship..........yet.

I suppose one way to get the plane to take favour over the airship would be to delay the introduction of Helium Airships by a sufficient time, while butterflying away Lord Thompson's "experience". Since a Hydrogen Airship would be far more prone to burning - for obvious reasons - this would induce a PR blow to the Airship, and give the plane a means of punching through.

But I have to agree with RCAF on one thing though. Being able to use the Men's Room in-flight is a luxury I can't to without.

A large aeroplane would need a much larger landing area than an airship of equivalent capacity. I can't think of anywhere near London with enough open space, unless Thames Water could be persuaded to give up part of Stanwell/Hatton Cross. I suppose some could land on the plains north of Brighton.

There was a poem:
Oh,I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings.

Humbug! I hate dancing.

the PoD where heavier than air overtook the airship would have to be something that stopped the move to helium filled envelopes, if we'd been forced to stick to hydrogen filled envelopes then I suppose there would eventually have been an explosive hull loss with the death of all aboard ... the longer before that happened and the greater use of airships that happened would make it seem all the more of a big issue especially as the pro heavier than air types would point out that while they might be able to 'fall out of the sky' at least you aren't strapped to a big bomb (hydrogen filled envelope)

As others have said you'd need huge landing fields for big aeroplanes becasue even these little bush planes RCAF talks about and the military planes need several hundreds to thousands of feet of runway rather than the space (a circle as little as twice the overall length if you use a traditional luffing mooring - even less if you used a 'hot loading ' mooring where you don;t swing round to head to wind ) it takes for an airship to moor - who'd be able to afford 10s of square miles of land in a big city for that rather than the space needed to moor an airship or to build a railway coach or road coach stop ... ( also i doubt you could build under or over a heavier than air landing field like you can with a airship mooring ( even if it is just the car parks and bus stops like that Greek chap with the orange airships does rather than leaving the moorings as open space like the traditional operators ) or the railways - well like everyone does where it works out to be finanacially worth it ...

Given the latest in 'hot moorings' is a computer controlled ground winch mooring which no longer requires a pair of pilot and the engineer in the control cabin of the airship and the engines can be switched off, ( just a mooring technician with the remote controls for the ground winches) 'hot mooring' suddenly got a lot more cost effective -

Instant tripling or more of the capacity of the moorings ( although you'd need to change the pylons substantially to work with three or four or more fixed sets of sky bridges rather than the one luffing one you have on a luffing mooring pylon - but you'd also have a lot fewer flexible connections needed at the pylon end of the sky bridge ( as it;s now only going to move up and down to accommodate different models of airship rather than having to luff as the wind changes ... )

The fact is that it would be exorbitantly expensive considering the amount of petrol they would have to consume, after all it's not like you can put a nuclear reactor on a plane! At that rate, you'd just have the same system you have now except with aeroplanes instead of zeppelins, that is, largely confined to the wealthy and official business. For most of us ships or rails would have to suffice, and with high-speed rail reaching up to 400 km/h in the States and Japan, airplanes would have a difficult time competing much as blimps do now.

But I don't ride on a zeppelin often to be honest, mainly transcontinental business trips for work- Westinghouse can afford to do so. I must say it's odd when people from somewhat worse off countries- say, Ceylon or South Italy-do travel by ship and inevitably run into some kind of delay. It's good to have that kind of reliability a zeppelin provides, but I couldn't afford to use one every time I travelled.

Last year we went on vacation in Catalonia, and we went on the CGT's Clemenceau which is a behemoth, but very nice- certainly more comfortable than a zeppelin. But the overland journey was a nightmare- I suppose things still are frosty between Falangist Spain and its northern breakaways. We ended up taking a ferry to Algiers and then on to Le Havre on the return, it's much easier doing such things when staying domestic.

One of my major gripes with the lines is the way they try to pack you in these days, especially the American ones. I suppose they've reasoned that if they're not going to get the high end market they might as well drop standards across the board.

But I've read of conceptual projects underway that might allow the amount of passengers carried by zeppelins to increase dramatically. I believe it's called an aeroscraft, and the way it works is that you add several turbines to a zeppelin while increasing the size, but instead of adding more space for the helium you could insert passenger areas into the actual structure. The turbines provide the requisite lift. That sorta answers the PoD.



Petike, of course Central Europeans think that way. Bunch of conservative Habsburgs. They can change the name, but you can't change the people.

OOC: Yes, merchant marine ships have nuclear reactors.

OOC: How many PoDs are there here? No civilian airliners is crap, the Farman F.60 was produced in 1919, and continued to fly until 1931 in some cases. Contrawise, without helium zepplins are death-traps, and helium is expensive (and often unavailable). Aircraft by comparison are quite small, fairly cheap, reasonably fast (The Farman F.60 was faster than the USS Akron), and don't need a-mile-and-a-half to land in.