WI no jetliners?

I like the idea

I like the idea of the big, fuel guzzling jets not making it. So, I'm proposing a reasonable way for them NOT to make it into service.

The DeHaviland Comet was the first jet airliner, and it had multiple crashes, ultimately caused by the shape of the window. Now, suppose that anotehr jetliner design also has an unrelated design flaw that also leads to several crashes. To make matters worse, a celebrity's arrival is being covered live on TV and radio, and we have anotehr "Hindenburg moment." A third type of jet has a nasty crash within days--perhaps not even design related--other things cause crashes, too.

Now, the public is thoroughly convinced that jet travel is unsafe. Congressional comittees are viewing with alarm, Parliament is looking into things, and the airlines put off development of new jets due to the risks seen--the public might not want them.

Now is a good time for varied interests to get involved also. The railroads introduce a faster train--and funnel money to appropriate groups that are spreading fear of jets. We could set back jet airplanes for a generation.

Now the demand for fast, easy travel might get the railroads to develop a fast, reliable Boston-Washington express, and put railroads back in the public eye.
 
I like the idea of the big, fuel guzzling jets not making it. So, I'm proposing a reasonable way for them NOT to make it into service.

The DeHaviland Comet was the first jet airliner, and it had multiple crashes, ultimately caused by the shape of the window. Now, suppose that anotehr jetliner design also has an unrelated design flaw that also leads to several crashes. To make matters worse, a celebrity's arrival is being covered live on TV and radio, and we have anotehr "Hindenburg moment." A third type of jet has a nasty crash within days--perhaps not even design related--other things cause crashes, too.

Now, the public is thoroughly convinced that jet travel is unsafe. Congressional comittees are viewing with alarm, Parliament is looking into things, and the airlines put off development of new jets due to the risks seen--the public might not want them.

Now is a good time for varied interests to get involved also. The railroads introduce a faster train--and funnel money to appropriate groups that are spreading fear of jets. We could set back jet airplanes for a generation.

Now the demand for fast, easy travel might get the railroads to develop a fast, reliable Boston-Washington express, and put railroads back in the public eye.

Unlikely. Airplanes crashed thru out the 1920s and 1930s, and nothing really stopped their development and their use just increased. The same rational could be applied to cars and trains. The analogy with the Hindenburg is different because of a whole host of reasons that are not present with jetliners.
 
What if aluminum remains expensive (it cost more than gold before the Hall/Heroult electrolytic process was discovered) ?

Could you build a jetliner out of plywood, or would it get shredded by a 500 mph airstream?

You probably couldn't pressurize a wooden hull either (bomber jackets and oxygen masks for the passengers?)
 
The De Havilland Albatross was the most modern plywood airliner and the Mosquito PR.XVI was pressurized. It could be done but not very well. Wood would rot and glues would fail in certain climates. However, stainless steel could be a substitute. Slightly heavier than aluminum, it is lighter and cheaper than gold.
 
What if aluminum remains expensive (it cost more than gold before the Hall/Heroult electrolytic process was discovered)?

The idea of electrolysis is much older than jetliner or aircraft in general. No knowledge of electrochemistry by 1945 would transform the world so much that the question of " no jetliner" would become moot.
 
The idea of electrolysis is much older than jetliner or aircraft in general. No knowledge of electrochemistry by 1945 would transform the world so much that the question of " no jetliner" would become moot.

Its not just electrochemistry, its knowing you can dissolve aluminum oxide in molten cryolite and electrolyze it. Hall and Heroult both almost ran out of money for experiments before they figured it out. If necessary, say ASB's mind-erase any humans who discover the process.

Could a plywood craft go supersonic?
 
Like I said before, rocketplanes! No jets, no props, just a rocket motor to throw it like a projectile across oceans! Maybe using kerosene/peroxide fuel?
 
The Brabazon, though, was designed under very different assumptions from late 1950s (and later) airliners... namely, that only the rich would be able to afford -or want - to travel by air. Remember, this was only just after WWII, when air travel was still restricted to the wealthy and politicians heading off for summits. And at that, "Shuttle diplomacy" was a new term.

So, given all that... it was designed to carry only about 100 passengers, each in conditions which today you'd be lucky to find in First Class. As the wiki points out, "The idea that a larger aircraft would make flying less expensive, and thereby open the market to a wider clientele, never appears to have occurred to them."

To be fair, though, the mk.1 was going to have a cruising speed of 250mph. That's a hell of a long flight...

True, a 15 hour flight at 25,000 feet would be a extremely long flight for the time, but compared to a week to ten days on a ocean liner, it might seem a fair "tradeoff" vs cost at the time...
(Incidentally, BOAC, the potential "launch customer" originally wanted a airliner with a maximum passanger capacity of 25 !)
 
I don't foresee a transport problem without jets if the movies are good. Although the Brabazon Commision saw the future of air transport through foggy glasses, any number of viable aircraft were produced. I included the C-124, "Ole Shakey" because it carried so many so far.

airliners.jpg
 
Top