Civilian Jetliners of Alternate History
- Thread starter George Carty
- Start date
George Carty
Banned
You're possibly right -- was the special nature of Soviet airliner design not just a result of relative infrastructural backwardness compared to Europe and North America (which is also true of Brazil, and would be true of any plausible 20th century Muslim power), but also due to an unwillingness to simply import Western technology for political reasons?
Last edited:
a wealthy tech-obsessed "Caliphate" or other Middle East-centered super-power would want the best and the brightest, the better to highlight Arabian historic achievements in math, science, etc.
I reckon flamboyant, large SST's would be very popular, especially with fuel economy as a less than pressing concern. Lavishly funded Islamic universities and technical institutes would graduate legions of engineers to eagerly design such symbols of know-how and achievement.
I reckon flamboyant, large SST's would be very popular, especially with fuel economy as a less than pressing concern. Lavishly funded Islamic universities and technical institutes would graduate legions of engineers to eagerly design such symbols of know-how and achievement.
With thought of another thread on jet aircraft (Boeing and I think Lockheed switching their respective projects, i.e., Lockheed gets the SST, and, Boeing gets the C-5) I bet an SST could be good for Lockheed (or MD?) surviving intact. I am not sure.
The mid-east Islamic states are wealthy and toy-obsessed in OTL, and they don't build airplanes, they buy them.
What also killed imbedded engines, IIRC, was the necessity for a full wing redesign if you want to put on newer engine models. With external mounts it's as easy as drop-and-replace (ok, way more complicated than JUST that, but you get my drift, I hope).
BTW, since we're on the subject, without WWII we may see the age of flying boats last longer, including the Jet Flying Boat like the Saro Dutchess. http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=18014.0
BTW, since we're on the subject, without WWII we may see the age of flying boats last longer, including the Jet Flying Boat like the Saro Dutchess. http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=18014.0
SST was bad for everyone. It was too expensive - to develop, to build, to buy, to maintain, and to take a flight on. The noise issue is not going to go away, nor is the cost issue. Unless the '70s becomes a period of runaway economic growth (rather than inflation and stagflation), there's no way to possibly recoup the development costs.
Agreed - they probably survive into the '50s, until something like the 707-320 or the VC-10 emerges. Although the Lockheed Constellation and other long-range propliners will certainly be a strong competitor...
With no World War II, incidentally, the DC-3 doesn't become a global phenomenon (since there isn't such a massive stock of war-surplus C-47s).
NothingNow
Banned
I don't really see them going away on some routes though, especially the feeder routes in places like the Lesser Antilles and the Pacific, where using land planes honestly makes no fucking sense what so ever.
That said, the Success of planes like the Connie and 377 are dependent on Infrastructure that might not exist, and that airlines might not be willing to develop.
that's how the United States is going to end up if Boeing goes belly-up. it's sort of how Britain ended up if you don't count its share of Airbus.
I reckon to combine the characteristics demonstrated in otl with the idea of what a "super-power" would have and want to have, certain types of manufacturing would be pursued.
The infrastructure needed for seaplanes isn't as much as for land planes, and was already being done prewar on some Pacific islands. On the other hand, for transcontinental and transoceanic routes, the infrastructure's already in place for (smaller) land planes; it may make more sense to just build the new infrastructure, especially if new, bigger planes seem more competitive.
***
The Saab 90 Scandia may be developed earlier without a World War II to make military (rather than civilian) production more profitable in the early '40s.
NothingNow
Banned
True, but We're comparing a Connie to a Clipper or Wiking. The Connie's only real advantage for a trans-Atlantic trip is speed, and even then that's with a later, and significantly more advanced design.
In the 40's without WW2, it also faces the issue that it's got a significantly smaller passenger load than the 314, Wiking, and especially the Martin Mars.
True. It might face some stiff competition, but probably not as bad as it did IOTL.
I was thinking of 707/VC-10 as the point of comparison, actually.
Weren't seaplanes getting expensive compared to landplanes? You don't want a plane that's too big - at some point, it gets uneconomical.
NothingNow
Banned
Yeah, but at the same time, seaplanes generally had better accommodations and charged massive fares, that honestly made the Tickets on the Concorde look cheap.
And With the Rise of Jets, which would be in the mid sixties at the earliest W/O WW2, you're talking another ball game entirely from the thirties and forties when Seaplanes were utterly dominant.
I think it was brought up in this thread already, but flying boats will always be at a big disadvantage when compared to land based planes since they have to haul a boat hull around with them. And since every pound of hull isn't paying passengers or cargo eventually any large flying boat will be replaced, at least when flying between major population centers. Now for feeder flights the situation is better, at least until the local flight infrastructure improves.
You think that might have been because they had to support numerous bases out on remote Pacific Islands? Even flying boats with longer range that could say fly from LA to Hawaii to Guam to Tokyo would be better.
Edit: You want flying boats to stay, you might want to try ekranoplans, at least for cargo since they fly maybe 100 feet off the water and I kinda doubt the passengers would like that.
Last edited:
Baghdad and the Levant don't get hot? I *know* Baghdad has sandstorms, too...
anon_user said:
However, it wasn't more expensive in one important area--fuel costs. At least, than turbojet-powered narrow-body airliners, which were the competition in 1960 (when most of the SST proposals were, well, proposed). It was the advent of turbofan-powered wide-bodies that doomed them, although you probably can't stop that.
And didn't BA end up making money off the things, after all?
Well, I mean "hot & high" in the sense of airliners and airline operations. Mexico City and Peshawar(?- one of the major Pakistani hubs) for example had conditions which forced some 1st Gen airliners to use JATO cylinders, but I don't think it would come to that in @alt Ottoman Middle East. Baghdad, Beirut, and Jiddah all get hot, but they're all also pretty close to sea level. Ankara and I think....Erbil are pretty high-elevation but I don't think they would develop into major cities with a surviving Ottoman Empire. Sandstorms would be a problem like all inclement weather, but I don't think it would force a change in airliner design doctrine, as western jet liners have all operated there since the OTL 1950's.
What I'm basically trying to say is that I don't think a surviving Ottoman Empire would need to build drastically different long-haul airliners from OTL western airliners. Not to say there wouldn't be a lot of local bush aviation from rugged strips, but like OTL that would probably be the province of the military and oil industry.
Ah. Well, I'm not an aerospace engineer, I just read about 'em. Thanks, and that makes sense. So, more likely they either sprout their own BAC/Aérospatiale/MBB/etc. and then proceed fairly normally (presumably to state subsidization and perhaps a role in *Airbus), or just buy European/American designs.
I am surprised no one mentionned the BAC 3-11 yet:
I was going to but you beat me to it.
The government money that might have supported the 3-11 went to save Rolls-Royce after the company went bust.
However BAC's work was not entirely wasted as some of it, including the wings, fed into Airbus projects.
NothingNow
Banned
That's what the late generations of Flying boats were capable of. The Mars had a range of ~8000km, the twin engined Consolidated Corregidor had a range approaching 6000km, and the Pre-war Clippers (B-314, M-130, and VS-44) all had ranges exceeding 5000km. The one thing that seems to have been done only rarely however, was using the Boat hull for storing Fuel, which could have added another couple thousand km on fairly cheaply and easily.
As for the Feeder flights thing, There are multiple areas of the World, where building an Airport just doesn't make any economic sense, and if they hadn't gotten the Infrastructure build-out they had in WWII, Aircraft like the R3Y and older Flying boats would remain dominant, simply because it's cheaper to absorb the losses from Seaplane service, or charge increased rates (especially if it's in a more Touristy area), then it would be to buy (or make) the land necessary to build the Airfield, which all costs a pretty penny when compared to the extra costs involved with operating older seaplanes. Especially if it ends up that Turboprops are the primary power plant for commuter Aircraft and Seaplanes, instead of the more expensive to operate Turbofans, as IOTL.
For those sorts of things, you might actually see airlines flying both a Regional model for feeder routes and then something in about the same class as a 737 or A320, (so basically carrying about 180 people plus crew over ~2500km, with a cruise speed of ~700km/h, and preferably amphibious) for the high density flights, like in the Caribbean or Polynesia.
Outside of Ferry and Military roles, Ekranoplans are surprisingly useless. They fly too low and Slow for an Airliner, are far more vulnerable to Storms, and other hazards inherent in flying at low altitudes.
As a Really Fast passenger ferry, or a FAC they're great, as anything else, they absolutely suck.