Aircraft Industry Without World War I

kernals12

Banned
—————— If the USA allows sale of helium more freely, especially to Germany, then HTA/airships will get a big boost. ......... if no "WWII" then ...... airships will dominate long distance/transoceanic travel for a longer period of time.—————————————————————————————-
Helium has always been a “strategic” gas only available in small quantities. The first commercially viable helium reserves were only discovered in 1903, in natural gas wells in the USA. Even today, the USA still produces about 75 percent of this planet’s helium. Some of experts predict that we only have 50 years’ worth of helium remaining.
Once we get superconductors that can be cooled by liquid nitrogen, helium supply ceases to be an issue.
 
———- Flying boats aren't very helpful for those who want to travel to Berlin or Paris. Given how obsessive airlines are about fuel economy, I think we'd have diesel powered aircraft, at least for regional routes that are currently serviced by turboprops, if they could work.[/QUOTE]
————————————————————————
Berlin does have several lakes. During the Berlin Airlift, Sunderland flying boats delivered thousands of tons of salt and coal to those lakes.
Seaplanes chief advantage is the reallllly long runways available before much concrete was poured. After takeoff, they can fly in ground effect - for an hour or three - until they were light enough to climb.
Seaplane operations are pretty much restricted to sheltered harbours and lakes.
Season planes’ biggest disadvantage is their empty weight ..... often double that of landplanes carrying the same payload.
 
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.

—————————————————————————————-
Agreed!
Humans always tinker with new ways to make things cheaper, faster, more efficient, simpler to operate, etc.
But development/perfection and production lag until the inventor gets a big order from an airline or Air Force.
Because humans only progress on the downslope when fires, riots, mudslides, wars, famines or climate change jolts them out of their comfortable ruts. Traditionalists die out. Some progressives die out because they buy the wrong new tools. Only the brightest and luckiest survive because they bought the correct new tools.
 
By extrapolating world air speed records from 1909-1914 out to 1920 you get an additional 80kmh (339kmh vs 262kmh IRL) for the pre-war trend and over 700kmh by 1930, not reached till 1934. Perhaps war retarded airspeed progress by 3-4 years.

Looking at RollsRoyce. They got into the aero engine at request of the Navy but only as liquid cooled engines not air cooled as Navy wanted. HP went from 250hp in 1915 to 300hp in 1917 for the Eagle series. Similar for the Falcon but the Condor was about 675hp in 1918. This was for a bomber to reach Berlin but could also be any large commercial aircraft to carry a large payload a long distance.
 
The role of air racing and record setting in the pre-WW1, and interwar periods has largely been ignored (except by Dorknought). The Schneider Trophy events took speed from around 100 MPH to over 440MPH between 1912 and 1934 for seaplanes and the Pulitzer, Thompson Trophy, Coup Deutch (not checking spelling today) and Bendix all played a role in advancing aircraft and engine technology which could not help but improve the performance of commercial aircraft. Record setting was a major interwar effort, and could be expected to be even more involved as a means of manufacturing prestige had no world wars taken place.

IN the absence of major wars, lots of military aircraft were utilized in South America, by Chinese warlords and in enough skirmishes to to keep American, British, Italian and German manufacturers in business producing and selling warplanes.

Dynasoar
 
Air racing, including the Schneider Cup and others did help advance aero engines in particular. The problem is that the iricraft built for these races were pretty much one-offs or very small numbers of any model, handbuilt. They were also optimized for running as fast as possible over a limited course, and were flown by expert experienced pilots. An example of a fast racer series with no potential for military use were the GeeBee racers.

For commercial use you need aircraft that can be built in numbers, not hand made - the difference between a Rolls-Royce and a Ford. For military aircraft you need robust structures, not ones made as light as possible for speed. For both commercial and military aircraft you need something that does not require a maximally skilled pilot to fly, skilled but not the most expert. The minor players who want aviation units, like the South Americans, the Chinese etc will buy whatever is out there. This will push development a little, but the reality is that the numbers wanted by these folks and the price they can pay won't be enough to make major advances. If all that is available in the 1930s are military aircraft of roughly 1920-25 design, that's what they will buy. After all, this is state of the art ITTL.
 

Driftless

Donor
There was also a parallel to the Cold War era's "Space Race" with several of the international racing series. It became a venue for countries to show off their respective technological superiority. Similarly, the MacRobertson Air Race from London to Melbourne was conceived as a PR gimmick and flown in part by a mix of regular production, short-production-run aircraft, and one off's; but it demonstrated that airplanes had a real future in commercial long-haul runs.
 
Engines are key to developing both civilian travel and military aircraft. War *redistributed* a lot of wealth but did not destroy so much of it. Liberty or comparable engines at weight/hp ratios >.5 are a major hurdle but air mail, cargo, and travel will still propel things forward in aeronautics, not to mention racing aircraft or crop dusting/advertising. Zeppelins might also retard development long enough for fire-retardant polymers to postpone or prevent a Hindenburg equivalent in this TL.
 
There is an example of the difference between wartime development of aviation and peacetime. In 1914 American and European aircraft were roughly comparable. In April 1917 apart from Curtis Flying boats that were being sold to the Entente their were no American aircraft fit for use at the front. Even 19 months later when the war ended there were no US designed aircraft able to survive frontline service. The only US aircraft I can think of that was equal to, or possibly better than its European counterparts was the Curtis JN4 trainer.
 
Apologies to sloreck for not mentioning that record setting aircraft were not built in quantity. Neither were wind tunnel models, but as I indicated their use was to explore, at relatively low cost, advances in aviation technology that would later be available to commercial manufacturers, since war was not present to serve as a spur. Retractable landing gear, a wide range of high speed wing sections, several low drag engine cooling systems, variable pitch propellers, landing flaps to lower approach speed and even water-methanol detonation suppression all emerged from peace time record setting and air racing backgrounds and spread broadly into commercial aviation.

Dynasoar
 
There is an example of the difference between wartime development of aviation and peacetime. In 1914 American and European aircraft were roughly comparable. In April 1917 apart from Curtis Flying boats that were being sold to the Entente their were no American aircraft fit for use at the front. Even 19 months later when the war ended there were no US designed aircraft able to survive frontline service. The only US aircraft I can think of that was equal to, or possibly better than its European counterparts was the Curtis JN4 trainer.

This is a very good point. Perhaps the things we should consider are that prior to the war the US was spending 1.5% of GDP on defense while European powers were spending much more, 3-4%. As the US GDP as double that of European Powers this works out about the same in overall spending. The European powers were in competition with each other and as a market, Europe dwarfed the continental US 4-5 times over. Perhaps, without the war the Europeans would be pulling ahead of the US anyway.

Another thing to consider is that the Military didn't have the fastest aircraft in the world. They were several years behind the bleeding-edge tech. The other thing that the Military needed was aircraft that had a lifecycle of about 5 years. During war, this compressed down to 1 or 2 years. Having said that, the Military strived for aircraft that were maintainable in the field and easy to fly for the vast numbers of pilots. Without the war there would be a smaller number of more highly trained pilots.

Another thing to consider would be as theories around airpower evolve, what would be banned by international agreement. The Hague convention was held every 7 years and due in 1915. There was already a "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons".

Here is a graph showing the numbers of unique designs by year. It shows the rapid growth to 350 different types per year to rapidly drop off as the war started and the ship went to vast numbers of a few types.



Looking at the development of the RFC, at first progress was slow and by 1912 the Air Battalion only had eleven qualified pilots compared to 263 in the French Army Air Service. By May 1915, the Royal Flying Corps had 166 aircraft.

By the time the Battle of the Somme started in July 1916 the RFC had a total strength of twenty-seven squadrons (421 aircraft), with four kite-balloon squadrons and fourteen balloons. The squadrons were organised into four brigades, each of which worked with one of the British armies.

By the end of 1917 the British has established their superiority over the German airforce and by the end of the war the RAF (RFC & RNAS combined) operated 4,000 combat aircraft and employed 114,000 people. The really big increases didn't happen till 1917-18.

For the RNAS, in 1911 the first 4 pilots were trained. By June 1913 44 Officers and 105 other ranks were trained as pilots. In August 1914 the RNAS had 55 seaplanes 38 aircraft, 6 airships, 2 balloons, 727 personnel (217 pilots).

When the RNAS was merged with teh RFC to form the RAF, the RNAS had 55,000 officers and men, 2,949 aircraft, 103 airships and 126 coastal stations.
 
Last edited:
...
Here is a graph showing the numbers of unique designs by year. It shows the rapid growth to 350 different types per year to rapidly drop off as the war started and the ship went to vast numbers of a few types.


...

What is the source of this graph, I'd like to see the context & background. I have a interest in the growth of new technologies and start ups.

The graph seems to show the proliferation of new models peaking or leveling circa 1910, not 1914.
 
The role of air racing and record setting in the pre-WW1, and interwar periods has largely been ignored (except by Dorknought). The Schneider Trophy events took speed from around 100 MPH to over 440MPH between 1912 and 1934 for seaplanes and the Pulitzer, Thompson Trophy, Coup Deutch (not checking spelling today) and Bendix all played a role in advancing aircraft and engine technology which could not help but improve the performance of commercial aircraft. Record setting was a major interwar effort, and could be expected to be even more involved as a means of manufacturing prestige had no world wars taken place.

IN the absence of major wars, lots of military aircraft were utilized in South America, by Chinese warlords and in enough skirmishes to to keep American, British, Italian and German manufacturers in business producing and selling warplanes.

Dynasoar

Using this, especially the little proxy wars likely, I can argue for a parallel in development to OTL. Admittedly there will be dead ends and bigger gaps, at times designs will go off in strange directions, but I could argue that dive bombing was learned to be of value in the Banana Wars, grasp by the Germans to a keen weapon then overplayed into other aircraft (He177), so it will go, some new criteria will propel things, it will offer progress but unchecked by another experience it might give a false line. In the era from 1910 to 1950 I think aircraft evolve at rapid pace, every 5 years or so the things look different, every 10 they really look different, after that you have the Triplane sitting next to the Me109 next to a Mig15 in a span remarkably short.
 

Driftless

Donor
We've mostly discussed the technological pace of change with no WW1, but what might be some indirect impact on specific countries financial conditions and population? Certainly, there was wholesale destruction of some countries treasuries and large segments of the 18-30 year old male population. Remove those losses, what could happen?
 
We've mostly discussed the technological pace of change with no WW1, but what might be some indirect impact on specific countries financial conditions and population? Certainly, there was wholesale destruction of some countries treasuries and large segments of the 18-30 year old male population. Remove those losses, what could happen?

Its got to be all about Russia the big loser of WW1, the biggest population loser, civil war after, stuck with dysfunctional Stalinism after. Here they are an upcoming super power earlier. They would also be as discussed a big aircraft user, for moving government officials around to far flung places, crop dusting, watching long borders and empty spaces. The biggest challenge with Russia will be as OTL mechanizing their agriculture, then finding useful things to do with all the unused peasantry, and finding a way to have wealth trickle down so the people don't revolt or break away.

Military application of aircraft in general in all countries will be focused on recon work, especially at sea, but that is at least a pretty good cross over to civilian applications.
 
I don't think the Russian Empire can avoid a revolution, probably in the 20's. The Tsar was unwilling to make the constitutional changes necessary to prevent it, and constantly went back on promises he'd made to do so.
 
Yes, WW1 knocked Russia severely. GDP levels didn't return to 1913 levels till 1927. 1913 grain outflows from Ukraine were not reached till 1967. Demographically there should be 80 million more Russians today if not for the 2 wars.

Russia needed peace to reform. Their economy was expanding and improving the lot for the Russian people. This doesn't necessarily make for the conditions to revolt, certainly not revolution on the 1917 scale and there could always be smaller ones put down by the military like Poland in 1907.
 
We've mostly discussed the technological pace of change with no WW1, but what might be some indirect impact on specific countries financial conditions and population? Certainly, there was wholesale destruction of some countries treasuries and large segments of the 18-30 year old male population. Remove those losses, what could happen?
GB went from a government taking 7% of GDP and spending 40% of Government revenue on defence (~3% GDP) and 1% servicing debt in 1913 to a post war world where government took 16% of GDP, spent 7% of revenue on defense and 40% on servicing debt, about £300,000,000 in interest payments per annum - dead money. GB's share of German Reparations were about £60,000,000 per annum - when it came in.

GB's GDP growth was 2.34% by 1914 (1900-1914 averages 2%).

The war cost GB £3.251 Billion. Of the 23 million males, 4 million were mobilised (17% of male pop)
752,000 dead (3% of male pop), 1.6m were wounded.

This article suggests the annual loss of 11% GDP each year from 1914 which is a massive hit, probably doubling the cost of the war by 1930. What could GB do with an extra £6.4 billion over 15 years.
 
It's not just the financial cost that needs to be considered, there's the generation of university students and younger professors who enlisted en-mass. Of the those that survived few if any returned to complete their studies. What could they have gone on to achieve?
 
Top