I am skeptical. Major wars tend to temporarily put a stop to basic research/science, but increase spending on developing existing technology.
Some existing technologies, and the basic research/science stuff includes transistors and nuclear science.
I have a hard time believing airplane technology actually improves without all that government money developing airpower. I think the opposite would be true - without all that government money, aircraft development and production are less because there are far fewer manufacturers with far lower budgets and far less demonstrable achievements.
Okay, some of this is right, but much is wrong. For one thing, instead of warplanes you have airliners, the first being Igor Sikorsky's
Ilya Muromets's in 1913/14, but given the era, I can see other nations following soon after (national prestige, no-one wants to have to buy other nations' airliners if they can make their own). As for fewer manufacturers, not really, you simply retain the older companies rather than replacing them with newer ones (Sopwith crashed and was replaced by Hawker, similar with Airco and De Havilland). Sure you don't see the meteoric rise of the big names, but then you don't see the post-war slump either, which knocked things back. And even if there were fewer aircraft, given the gradual amalgamations post-WW2, I don't see that such a thing is actually so bad.
The major benefit of avoiding WWI is that the European economy is much stronger and commercialization of existing technology (not development of new technology) would be stronger. But that is hard to see how we gain a whole thirty years even with plugging in the Depression and WWII as a result. We aren't going to reach 1950 technologies by 1920 or 1925 if we begin at 1910 and avoid WWI. I'd say maybe 10 years gain tops, and that is being very generous with the butterflies.
And what inventions were sidelined as a result of war, bankruptcy, etc? Colour TV was certainly possible in the 40s, video-tapes too, radio control, etc.
What is needed to gain an accelerated technological advance is to significantly boost worldwide R&D in business and academia by a huge magnitude and keep it sustained for several decades, buying one or two years advance every one decade. I have trouble seeing an obvious way to do that.
No WW1. Without WW1 you probably avoid or significantly soften the collapses of the Russian, Austria-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires, the Spanish Influenza Pandemic, the Second World War, the Great Depression, etc. That's depending on how you want to count it, 135-200+ million lives saved (and many millions more
not ruined by debilitating injuries). Further, there much less economic devastation, and you still maintain the international rivalries that are in fact the best driver of technological development.