Aircraft Industry Without World War I

....... 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]

But they got there quicker. The Concorde was noisy, cramped and served champagne not food, but you arrived sooner. Speed has value, or did, even luxury is losing its value, the market is for business class and tourist (economy/self-loading cargo seating), first class is under pressure in many proposals.
 

kernals12

Banned
——————————————————————————-
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?

But they got there quicker. The Concorde was noisy, cramped and served champagne not food, but you arrived sooner. Speed has value, or did, even luxury is losing its value, the market is for business class and tourist (economy/self-loading cargo seating), first class is under pressure in many proposals.[/QUOTE]
Concorde was praised for being as smooth and quiet as a normal airliner
 
But they got there quicker. The Concorde was noisy, cramped and served champagne not food, but you arrived sooner. Speed has value, or did, even luxury is losing its value, the market is for business class and tourist (economy/self-loading cargo seating), first class is under pressure in many proposals.
Concorde was praised for being as smooth and quiet as a normal airliner[/QUOTE]

I rely upon what a friend of mine who frequented it New York to London observed. It was not luxurious but exclusive, the cache of speed and price.
 
But they got there quicker. The Concorde was noisy, cramped and served champagne not food, but you arrived sooner. Speed has value, or did, even luxury is losing its value, the market is for business class and tourist (economy/self-loading cargo seating), first class is under pressure in many proposals.
Concorde was praised for being as smooth and quiet as a normal airliner[/QUOTE]
From everything I have read in the rear of the plane next to the engines like all rear engine planes was louder.
 
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
That's true to a point. I'd suggest, given Hindenberg doesn't wreck airships, the market for large heavier than air may be pretty small. Even flying boats are up against the lower cost of operating airships. Which makes me wonder what the "floor" for commercial survival is, in that circumstance: it's unlikely OTL's 21 (DC-3) is high enough. Is it 30? 40? More? So is the *DC-3 more like the DC-6 or Connie?

Does it mean a cleavage between airships & aircraft on speed? That is, fast executive aircraft, like DC-8s & (maybe) Cessna 500s, for business travel, & airships for tourists. Could that push as far as successful SSTs?

It's pretty obvious there would be many, many fewer airports with much, much less concrete. Terminals to accommodate many more passengers might be credible.

Consider something else: what does this do to general aviation? Does this mean Piper, Cessna, & others never happen? Does it mean the J-3 Cub & 152, frex, never even fly? Or aren't a big success? Does it mean there are airship equivalents? If it does, any thoughts on who builds them?

It also occurs to me, heavier than air might be much less safe than OTL, with fewer aircraft in the game.

It also seems very probable the competition would be a lot better: a lot more variety of companies trying to get a performance edge. And the variety of designs might be greater, too: a kind of "commercial combat" offering opportunities, where even slight gains make a big difference--for heavier than air, anyhow.

Aeroengine technology is likelty to be better in that environment, too, for both cost of operation & noise reasons. It would have to be.
 
Last edited:
In my drafting the B-29 is likely not happening

But the US will still be interested in Big Bombers
From the wiki
The specification that produced the XB-15 began in mid-1933 as "Project A", USAAC discussions regarding the possibility of flying a very large bomber with a range of 5,000 mi (8,000 km).[2] In April 1934 the USAAC contracted with Boeing and Martin to design a bomber capable of carrying 2,000 lb (910 kg) at 200 mph (320 km/h) over a distance of 5,000 miles.[3] Boeing gave the project the internal name of Model 294, while the USAAC called it the XB-15. Martin's design, the XB-16, was judged inferior by the USAAC before a prototype was built, and was canceled
 
The B-17 started out as a 'coast defense weapon', ie that is how it was sold to Congress. If you say we need it to bomb cities in Europe you wouldn't get past the first hurdle. Japanese long range bombers were for maritime strike and then used for strategic bombing in China. The Japanese built an aerospace industry from nothing in 20 years by having the military offer tougher specifications and pairing companies together to pool resources and grow the sector.

Need to start looking at the 'why' for air-travel. Whats the value proposition? Speed? Comfort? Ego? Airships fill the latter in a national pride sense but at what point is the risk outweighed by the propaganda value.
 
The RNAS/RFC/RAF fighter development over 20 years

BE-2 3500 built
90hp 116kmh
1st Flight (Feb 1912 outmoded 1916) retired 1919 - 4 years

Airco DH2 453 built
100hp 150kmh
1st Flight (Jul 1915), In Service (Feb 1916), retired (Jun 1917) - 2 years

Sopwith Pup 1770 built
80hp 180kmh
1st Flight (Feb 1916), In Service (Oct1916), retired (Dec 1917) - 2 years

SE5 5205 built
200hp 222kmh
1st Flight (Nov 1916), In Service (March 1917) retired (1919) - 3 years

Sopwith Camel 5490 built
130hp 185kmh
1st Flight (Dec 1916), In Service (Jun 1917) retired (Jan 1920) - 3 years

Sopwith Snipe 497 built
230hp 195kmh
1st Flight (Oct 1917), In Service (1918) retired (1926) - 9 years

Bristol Bulldog 443 built
440hp 287 kmh
1st Flight (May 1927), In Service (1929) retired (1937) - 10 years

Hawker Fury 275 built
640hp 360kmh
1st Flight (Mar 1931), In Service (1931) retired (Jan 1939) - 8 years

In combat its 2-3 years life. In funds starved 1920s-30s the life is 9-10 years but speed increases by 80 kmh every 5 years.
 
That's true to a point. I'd suggest, given Hindenberg doesn't wreck airships, the market for large heavier than air may be pretty small. Even flying boats are up against the lower cost of operating airships. Which makes me wonder what the "floor" for commercial survival is, in that circumstance: it's unlikely OTL's 21 (DC-3) is high enough. Is it 30? 40? More? So is the *DC-3 more like the DC-6 or Connie?

Does it mean a cleavage between airships & aircraft on speed? That is, fast executive aircraft, like DC-8s & (maybe) Cessna 500s, for business travel, & airships for tourists. Could that push as far as successful SSTs?

It's pretty obvious there would be many, many fewer airports with much, much less concrete. Terminals to accommodate many more passengers might be credible.

Consider something else: what does this do to general aviation? Does this mean Piper, Cessna, & others never happen? Does it mean the J-3 Cub & 152, frex, never even fly? Or aren't a big success? Does it mean there are airship equivalents? If it does, any thoughts on who builds them?

It also occurs to me, heavier than air might be much less safer than OTL, with fewer aircraft in the game.

It also seems very probable the competition would be a lot better: a lot more variety of companies trying to get a performance edge. And the variety of designs might be greater, too: a kind of "commercial combat" offering opportunities, where even slight gains make a big difference--for heavier than air, anyhow.

Aeroengine technology is likelty to be better in that environment, too, for both cost of operation & noise reasons. It would have to be.

The Airship offers speed over the actual passenger ship but versus the airplane it only offers range and for a time payload. Seaplanes can erode that market because the demand for fast over water travel is low enough, tourists go by boat, so I see speed being how aircraft get an edge and once they can get the range the airship is doomed. Besides the airship is more subject to weather and not as reliable, I doubt the things can truly compete past the 1940s.

I think we see paved runways come, just not as many in more remote areas. Both the USA and Europe can and will build runways to support the domestic industry, but more focused on larger cities and not dispersed to so many towns. Seaplanes will compete on trans-Atlantic and Pacific longer. It is a country like Germany who cannot rely on seaplanes, its "hubs" are Frankfurt or Berlin, the impetus will be to build a land plane to go from there to NYC, something the airships can do. I could see the Germans being early to the 707 after doing better in something like a Constellation.

General aviation may be weaker without the surplus aircraft and higher pilot training of war times, but we might see more aircraft being able to fly the grass fields of local/regional airports longer.

I am trying to think through something more crowded for a market with at least three likely four American players, a pair in Britain, at least two German and likely one French, one or more Russian and one Japanese firm building our DC3, DC4, DC6 and DC7 analogues, plus some sea planes one each per country?
 
But the US will still be interested in Big Bombers
From the wiki
The specification that produced the XB-15 began in mid-1933 as "Project A", USAAC discussions regarding the possibility of flying a very large bomber with a range of 5,000 mi (8,000 km).[2] In April 1934 the USAAC contracted with Boeing and Martin to design a bomber capable of carrying 2,000 lb (910 kg) at 200 mph (320 km/h) over a distance of 5,000 miles.[3] Boeing gave the project the internal name of Model 294, while the USAAC called it the XB-15. Martin's design, the XB-16, was judged inferior by the USAAC before a prototype was built, and was canceled

Dorknought hit the nail on the head. It is mission and Congress, as I unravel the tensions in the East that gave the Army a need for longer range the mission shifts to the Navy or weakens too far. A B17 is logical, the B29 may not be without need to reach so far from land. The Navy will try to steal that mission and maybe logically so. I may have undermined the planning too much to have the B29 as a goal let alone a program. I can see the butterfly on that and how it changes Boeing.
 
The Airship offers speed over the actual passenger ship but versus the airplane it only offers range and for a time payload. Seaplanes can erode that market because the demand for fast over water travel is low enough, tourists go by boat, so I see speed being how aircraft get an edge and once they can get the range the airship is doomed. Besides the airship is more subject to weather and not as reliable, I doubt the things can truly compete past the 1940s.
I'd say airship tech can keep them flying past the '40s. The advantages in safety, cost, & payload (I can easily see airships lifting more than aircraft) seem clear, even allowing for the disadvantages.
I think we see paved runways come
Eventually, sure, just nothing like as fast as OTL. Given airships & flying boats, I'd guess many places don't see the need: NYC, San Francisco, L.A., Toronto, Montreal, Juneau?, Tokyo, so on.
It is a country like Germany who cannot rely on seaplanes, its "hubs" are Frankfurt or Berlin, the impetus will be to build a land plane to go from there to NYC, something the airships can do. I could see the Germans being early to the 707 after doing better in something like a Constellation.
Maybe. I can picture seaplanes landing on rivers. STOL might be more in demand for that. I can see the Germans being first with long-range jet transports, but that might still go to the Brits: Germany first with engines, Britain with more demand. Germany with the *707, Brits with the *Duchess?
General aviation may be weaker without the surplus aircraft and higher pilot training of war times, but we might see more aircraft being able to fly the grass fields of local/regional airports longer.
Yeah, fewer wartime pilots makes for a smaller market. I'm not sure that affects the viability of regional grass fields.
 

Driftless

Donor
Given airships & flying boats, I'd guess many places don't see the need: NYC, San Francisco, L.A., Toronto, Montreal, Juneau?, Tokyo, so on.

Given the high price of urban real estate, an earlier appearance of safe, reliable commercial aviation might get a boost from downtown/harbor seaplane terminals. Easy, quick access for business tycoons - maybe a touch of notoriety too - from proto-paparazzi. Add Havanna, Honolulu, and Bermuda to your list

Of course, as traffic increases, then the push would be for paved fields and damn the cost....
 
General aviation may be weaker without the surplus aircraft and higher pilot training of war times, but we might see more aircraft being able to fly the grass fields of local/regional airports longer.
The WWI surplus market really hurt postwar business.
Why buy a new two seater when you could get a surplus Jenny that the Government bought for $8000 in 1917 for $500, and why rebuild an OX-5 engine for it, when you could buy new crate motors for scrap aluminum price?

Boeing made boats and furniture after the war till that supply started to dry up, and people were looking for faster, longer ranged aircraft.

As far as I can tell, Henry Ford had the first paved runway for his Dearborn airport, after he got bit by the aviation bug in 1924. Other fields soon followed, but at first, generally only were used for takeoffs.
This was due when landing, didn't have all that fuel anymore and were lighter, and until the mid '30s, many aircraft didn't have brakes, and relyied on the friction of grass to slow down.

The other thing was as more aircraft went with retractable gear, it limited the size of the wheel width, and the new narrower tires had to be inflated to higher pressure to take the weight. That higher pressure meant the tires wouldn't deform as much, and were more likely to rut the grass when the ground was wet from rain
 

Driftless

Donor
The biplane format standardized in the teens and twenties with its forest of struts and wires. How much of that was tied to the combination of aerodynamic stress for combat needs and the ensuing familiarity with that format as a production model? IF there's no WW1, would that impact the eventual shift to cantilevered monoplanes in any way?
 
There's one aircraft I could see having a long career in General Aviation without WWI, at least in the British Empire. The much maligned BE2. It's a solid, reliable (for its time), very stable machine, easy to fly and would make an ideal club aircraft or gentleman's tourer throughout the 20's. Possibly even longer as engines were improved. (You just have to look at the stories of them landing themselves with dead crews aboard to see how stable they were.)

Geoffrey De Havilland did a very good job with that machine. It wasn't his fault that what the Army asked for would turn out to be useless in combat. They wanted the crews to be able to sketch what they saw, so it had to be able to be flown hands off.
 
Given the high price of urban real estate, an earlier appearance of safe, reliable commercial aviation might get a boost from downtown/harbor seaplane terminals. Easy, quick access for business tycoons - maybe a touch of notoriety too - from proto-paparazzi. Add Havanna, Honolulu, and Bermuda to your list

Of course, as traffic increases, then the push would be for paved fields and damn the cost....
Agreed. I can picture executive seaplanes being like yachts as status symbols. (Come to think of it, weren't they when Howard Hughes was dating Kate Hepburn anyhow?)

As for Hawaii & elsewhere, for sure; I wasn't offering an exhaustive list, by any means, only suggesting, think of cities with water close: add Vancouver, BC; Winnipeg; Churchill, MB; Boston; Detroit; Chicago; Rio?; Sydney (did I mention it already?); where I live (tho finding a straight-enough stretch between bridges might be a challenge:openedeyewink:); Halifax...

And yes, the straight, wide stretches of rivers in some places might be an issue, but there are plenty of wide rivers with a few thousand feet of straight spots...& if STOL is added in...

Edit:

"Riverports" for seaplanes could be a good thing for some downtowns. They might also encourage development of high-speed boats or even hovercraft as taxis from the "riverport" into downtown.
 
Got to be careful flying from rivers. You don't want Foreign Object Damage to destroy your floats or hull while taking off or landing. It's not good for the health of the crew or passengers.
 
Harbors are replete with all sorts of flotsam, making sure the landing area was clear was mandatory before any of the big flying boats came in. Bush pilots on floats always do a low pass to make sure there is nothing in the way. If the water is too disturbed, landing is unsafe and taking off is worse. Land based aircraft with hard surface runways have a much greater tolerance for bad weather. Don't forget winter - once you begin to get ice, forget seaplanes and in the spring you have to wait until it is all cleared up before you can have operations. Once you build large seaplanes (think the Clippers) you can build large landplanes, and the advantages of all weather surfaces become obvious.
 
The limit for grass fields seems to be about 30,000 pounds (about 15 tons) and this includes most late 30's early 40's medium bombers.

The largest aircraft in 1914 was the Russian Ilya Muromets at 12,000 lbs. The Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI was 26,000 lbs. The Handley-Page Type 0 was 13,300lbs and Vimy 10,884 lbs.

A typical WW2 medium bomber was 26,500lbs (He111), 28,550lbs (Wellington) and G4M 28,000lbs. The Heavy bomber went from 65,000lbs (B17/B24) to 68,000lbs (Lancaster). These required the extensive investment in concrete runways.

In the flyingboat type we have 1914-15 Felixstowe F2 at 10,000lbs to 14,300lbs for the F5. The Short Sunderland was 58,000lbs and the H8K3 71,500lbs. German monster planes like the BV238 was 209,000lbs through to the H-4 Hercules (Spruce Goose) at 400,000lbs but it didn't really fly.

Takeoff weight is not the obstacle for a Flyingboat that it is for a land plane.

In the DC-3 class at 25,200lbs carrying about 25 passengers we have a sweet spot. You may be 2-3 times faster than a train. Is this a threat to rail who in 1914 are the established mass transporter, probably state supported and have political clout? The first all metal stressed skin aircraft were private projects during the war (Junkers). Perhaps we could see a DC-3 type by the early to mid 20's.
 
Top