Aircraft Industry Without World War I

kernals12

Banned
The airline industry is infamously dismal, where many once illustrious names such as Pan Am, Eastern, and TWA have gone to die. But it seems that the business of building airplanes is even more dismal. Right now, the market is only able to sustain two long distance passenger aircraft companies: Boeing and Airbus. And both of them get a large share of their revenue from defense contracts. The fact is that the aircraft industry is one whose prosperity fluctuates with world tensions. Companies such as Northrop and Lockheed have tried, and failed, to enter the passenger aircraft business, and chose instead to stick with military aircraft. If World War I didn't happen, it means no World War II and no Cold War and therefore much lower defense spending. So how does this change the aircraft industry?
 
A larger number of smaller companies will rapidly develop prototypes to accelerate the industry. The problems will be around building concrete run ways to support large aircraft. This will give flying boats the edge. The wars destroyed a lot of wealth - that could be used to buy airline tickets and grow this sector.
 
It's hard to claim that, absent the First World War, there would not be a war similar to the Second. The European continent was an utter clusterfuck of illegitimate 'multinational' empires (in reality a dominant nation and its demi-colonial satellites). At some point one of the old shitpiles would've exploded (A-H, Ottomans, Russia), causing the whole fuckfest of secret treaties (one of the dumbest ideas in diplomatic history) to get activated.
 
Well, Europe had been at peace for 40 years and had managed itself through some crisis points without war. The Balkan wars demonstrated that the Great Powers could still hold things together through direct diplomacy - something that lacked during the July Crisis. If it was inevitable then we should have all died in a nuclear war at some point in the last 50 years. What kept the peace for us was Mutual Assured Destruction. What pre-WW1 societies hoped for was that it was Economic Assured Destruction for a general European war.
 

Driftless

Donor
WWI settled the Wright/Curtiss patent fights, by getting them into a patent pool

What do you see happening without that settlement? The overly broad patent claims the Wrights made had to have retarded some lines of technology development. They certainly didn't stop progress, but added friction into the system.
 
It is difficult for me to see the commercial applications of fighter aircraft that would drive the same innovation we saw during the war. The airplane as we know it could be delayed several decades if WW1 does not happen. At least Airships have an obvious commercial application outside of war. Imagine that, a world where airships are the dominant form of aviation! No wonder alternate history loves them so much.
 

Driftless

Donor
A larger number of smaller companies will rapidly develop prototypes to accelerate the industry. The problems will be around building concrete run ways to support large aircraft. This will give flying boats the edge. The wars destroyed a lot of wealth - that could be used to buy airline tickets and grow this sector.

I agree on flying boats having a leading position for heavier-than-air development from the connection of large size craft and the dearth of long hard surface runways. With a non-war world economy, how big of a role does speed and reliability for business travel become? In part, I'm thinking of the comparative rates of acceptance between lighter vs heavier-than-air machines. The British, French, Americans, and to a lesser extent the Italians, Japanese, and (no WW1) Germans all had far flung colonial empires where business travel by ship took weeks. Early safe and reliable air travel would have been decided competitive advantage.
 
For me aircraft are more like automobiles and I can see almost as robust development from the commercial potential as from the military demand. By way of example, in altering the Great War I can see a retarded development post-war offset by better development absent a Depression, unless you need to drill into the 1920s/1930s the progress roughly ends up the same by the 1940s. What is hard to speculate is the weird dead ends, especially military ones absent combat experience, and logical but wrong paths. But in commercial it is easier to argue that efficiency gets you something looking a lot like the DC3 or the Ju52 or the Constellation. Passengers over distances sets parameters that might be met with different product from different firms but look at how similar a Boeing and Airbus really is.

As others point out I think you have a more robust and pioneering Lighter-than-air evolution and for trans-Atlantic/Pacific you have sea planes dominate, the USA still has trans-continental so should lead in bigger fixed wing aircraft sooner, followed by the UK and Germany reaching out to the Empire(s). I think the European airline system looks more hub and spoke as national airlines reach from capitals to capitals and only really connect the largest cities, leaving the rest to rail and later automobile. Air travel likely serves mail and luxury more niche and the greater reliance upon air travel may be put off far longer.
 
IMHO no doubt that absent WWI you get significantly retarded development of aircraft, especially HTA. The war was a pressure cooker especially for engine development, and the creation of lots of pilots, surplus aircraft for barnstormers and commercial use, and the more general fascination with aviation all helped. If the USA allows sale of helium more freely, especially to Germany, then HTA/airships will get a big boost. Flying boats dominated oceanic travel OTL, so no big changes there until post-1945 - if no "WWII" then flying boats and airships will dominate long distance/transoceanic travel for a longer period of time. Smaller aircraft like the DC-3, Ford trimotor, Ju-52 will arrive, probably later than OTL simply because they fill a niche between airships (not practical for short runs compared to trains), and flying boats (not good for inland flying).

Wartime drives development simply because all of a sudden governments are throwing a lot of money at R&D that is not commercially important. True for aviation like everything else.
 

kernals12

Banned
It is difficult for me to see the commercial applications of fighter aircraft that would drive the same innovation we saw during the war. The airplane as we know it could be delayed several decades if WW1 does not happen. At least Airships have an obvious commercial application outside of war. Imagine that, a world where airships are the dominant form of aviation! No wonder alternate history loves them so much.
Airships are completely impractical. You need a ton of lifting gas to move a small amount of payload. The passengers on the "luxury" Hindenberg had to share 1 bathroom and sleep in bunkbeds in rooms with virtually no furniture.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
The Russians were launching a real airliner -- what became the Ilya Muromets bomber -- so I think you'd still be seeing the beginnings of heavier-than-air airliners, throughout the 1910s and into the 20s.
 
Airships are completely impractical. You need a ton of lifting gas to move a small amount of payload. The passengers on the "luxury" Hindenberg had to share 1 bathroom and sleep in bunkbeds in rooms with virtually no furniture.

But for the interim between say 1912 and 1930/40/50-ish it really is the only practical way to fly over the oceans. Think of the Airship as the Concorde and the Steamship Liner as the 747 of the past, that is how I see it progressing until HTA sea planes erode the Airship niche and open more economic air travel/freight options. For my ATL Great War I have Airships evolve to pioneer trans-Atlantic/Pacific routes later over taken by Sea Planes and then land based as the 1950s arrive. Airships move to such niche routes as Frankfurt to Rio or London to Cape Town but the window is closing for them. As much as I can hold aviation parallel to OTL things break down by the 1950s minus a Second World War, aviation for me looks less robust outside the USA and continental Europe, even there it is more luxury and less common.

And I take BMW on the Rolls-Royce path, more engine maker with a luxury automobile brand (and I have it feel more like Pratt-Whitney), but facing the dominance of Jumo (my German version of GE). Since Zeppelin partners with Goodyear on Airships, the German aviation industry evolves very incestuous with the USA industry, for me creating a weird German-American cartel versus the Anglo-French combine, Russia running around as the odd man and Japan stabbing into various niche markets as it tries to stay competitive.
 
I wonder how Seattle develops since it was basically a company town for Boeing through the 1970s

In my drafting the B-29 is likely not happening, Boeing focuses on commercial Sea Planes and has a strong relationship with Pan American, it looks more like Lockheed, a niche player with more defense business on hand as the Sea Planes fade, similar to how the Constellation became Lockheed's past glory. So Seattle is still relevant but not prominent. I let Lockheed and Douglas be more commercial oriented in the reduced American defense industry. The British do far better but Germany plays a big role as the truly third player edging things towards two.
 
The Russians were launching a real airliner -- what became the Ilya Muromets bomber -- so I think you'd still be seeing the beginnings of heavier-than-air airliners, throughout the 1910s and into the 20s.

Without the war I think Russia has the same market forces as the USA, long distances, scattered urban areas, aviation can eat into long distance rail easily, the Russians should be paralleling the US industry with more HTA land aircraft and even less Sea Plane focus. ITL I would argue Russian aircraft will be as numerous as OTL but better, still oddly robust and rough but very suited to our "third" world markets, making the modern world more obviously a three way divide, Anglo-French, American-German and Russian.
 
....... The passengers on the "luxury" Hindenberg had to share 1 bathroom and sleep in bunkbeds in rooms with virtually no furniture.[/QUOTE]
——————————————————————————-
Meanwhile, passenger trains had only one water-closet at the end of each car. Sleeper cars converted from seats to bunk beds.
What is your point?
 

kernals12

Banned
IMHO no doubt that absent WWI you get significantly retarded development of aircraft, especially HTA. The war was a pressure cooker especially for engine development, and the creation of lots of pilots, surplus aircraft for barnstormers and commercial use, and the more general fascination with aviation all helped. If the USA allows sale of helium more freely, especially to Germany, then HTA/airships will get a big boost. Flying boats dominated oceanic travel OTL, so no big changes there until post-1945 - if no "WWII" then flying boats and airships will dominate long distance/transoceanic travel for a longer period of time. Smaller aircraft like the DC-3, Ford trimotor, Ju-52 will arrive, probably later than OTL simply because they fill a niche between airships (not practical for short runs compared to trains), and flying boats (not good for inland flying).

Wartime drives development simply because all of a sudden governments are throwing a lot of money at R&D that is not commercially important. True for aviation like everything else.
I think the effect of government on technological innovation is overrated. We humans are always searching for ways to do things better than we do them now and we would invest heavily in making better aircraft.
 

kernals12

Banned
....... The passengers on the "luxury" Hindenberg had to share 1 bathroom and sleep in bunkbeds in rooms with virtually no furniture.
——————————————————————————-
Meanwhile, passenger trains had only one water-closet at the end of each car. Sleeper cars converted from seats to bunk beds.
What is your point?[/QUOTE]
That's how desperate they were to reduce weight.
 
Top