Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 8th, 2010, 07:52 PM
George Carty George Carty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 474
Civilian Jetliners of Alternate History

In OTL, jet airliners were developed during the US/Soviet Cold War, and Soviet jetliners were noticeably different in design to Western ones:
  • Many airports in the Soviet Union had only dirt strips rather than hard runways. This meant that Soviet airliners often had much bulkier landing gear than their Western counterparts. The Boeing 727 had 6 tyres in total, while the Tupolev Tu-154 (the Soviet equivalent of the 727) had 14 tyres, as many as the far larger Boeing 777.
  • Poor Soviet runways also made rear-engined configurations more attractive, as this made it easier to design powerful high-lift devices for the wings, enabled a shorter (and stronger) landing gear, and reduces the risk to the engines from foreign object damage. However, because Soviet autopilot technology was inferior to the Western technology, the Soviets tended to go for anhedral wings so as to eliminate the need for a yaw damper.
  • The Soviet Union did not develop high-bypass turbofan engines until the 1980s. This is because Soviet engine design was biased towards military aircraft -- where fuel consumption is less of an issue -- and also because the Soviet Union was a big oil producer (like the United States at time) while lacking the US car culture, which made oil far more plentiful there.
  • Due to a lack of radio navigational aids, some older Soviet jet transports (like the Tu-134) had glass noses reminiscent of WWII bombers, for visual navigation.

How would jetliner design differ in a world with considerably different geopolitics to OTL?
  • British designs, including the Comet and the cancelled VC-7 (designated by the RAF as V-1000), often had engines buried in the wings (as did all three of the V-bombers), unlike the American practice of underslung podded engines. Perhaps if Britain was stronger post-WWII, some other countries may adopt this configuration for a while. However, it would clearly be utterly impractical once high-bypass engines come on the scene.
  • A German Empire in the mid-20th century (either Second or Third Reich) would probably be more concerned about fuel economy than either the US or SU OTL, as (unless it conquered the Caucasus) it would have no oil supplies of its own. Could this mean earlier high-bypass turbofans, or even mass adoption of propfans?
  • If China or Japan was a major power in the mid-20th century, perhaps the dense population of those countries would make large/size and or short-field requirements important. Perhaps they may develop a huge turboprop aircraft similar to the OTL Antonov An-22, but for airline use.
  • If there was a Muslim great power at the time when jet airliners were developed, I'd expect their designs to be similar to OTL Soviet ones, as a lot of the requirements would be similar.

Any thoughts?

Last edited by George Carty; October 8th, 2010 at 07:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 8th, 2010, 08:29 PM
jlckansas jlckansas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 440
Also cargo aircraft. Look at the C130 in a civilian airliner mode and used as a cargo hauler for the rough field use in the less developed parts of the world. It would be used in Alaska, Western and Northern Canada, Mexico, and Africa. Using it, or its derivatives in airliner mode, not just cargo handling would improve the rough field capabilities for the west.
__________________
Old age and treachery beat youth and skill any day.
Tracers go both ways.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 9th, 2010, 12:07 PM
docfl docfl is offline
dazed and confused
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 280
The herk was offerd as a civlian model. IRC it was the L1000
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 9th, 2010, 03:05 PM
David S Poepoe David S Poepoe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: El Segundo, California
Posts: 1000 or more
Canada's Avro Jetliner C-102. It could have established Canada as a major producer of passenger jet planes - for a few years.
__________________
Coincidence? We invite you, the reader with no inclination to do his own research, to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 9th, 2010, 03:40 PM
anon_user anon_user is offline
anonymous member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: somewhere
Posts: 1000 or more
Fokker was proposing a jet airliner to enter production as early as 1949; Breda-Zappata developed a four-prop transatlantic airliner in the same period. Have an isolationist US in the postwar era, and you'd get some interesting airliners out there.

If you wipe away the '70s oil shock, or better yet the economic crisis of the '70s itself, the L-1011 probably does reach sufficient sales to be profitable for Lockheed. SST might make it, though I'm not sure supersonics would've really been viable. Lockheed's civil aviation bureau surviving would be interesting - might they have tried to break into the short-haul airliner market at some point?

If you just push the '70s oil shock into the '80s, on the other hand, propfans look even more attractive than they did for that brief window in the late '80s. Look at the MD-94 and the 7J7.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 9th, 2010, 03:42 PM
The Dude The Dude is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Washington, D.C
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to The Dude
Boeing- the best. Sorry to disappoint you all. (My grandfather worked for Boeing.)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 9th, 2010, 05:04 PM
usertron2020 usertron2020 is offline
Tolstoyan
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnmentionableSeaMammal View Post
Boeing- the best. Sorry to disappoint you all. (My grandfather worked for Boeing.)
There is only the one great Boeing. They have already absorbed pretty much all the rest of the world's commercial passenger aviation. The only ones left are the rickety propped up government run Potemkin villages, like AirBus.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 9th, 2010, 05:44 PM
JJDXB JJDXB is offline
Your resident British-Filipino
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 585
I think you missed out France. The Caravelle etc...

Since Britain made the first real passenger jet, if they had enough funds to longer tests and fix the problem with the metal fatigue, then they could have a monopoly for a while.

In any case, a European company and Boeing continue will have a bitter rivalry, be it solely British or in a consortium like Airbus Industrie.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old October 9th, 2010, 05:53 PM
bobinleipsic bobinleipsic is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dover DE
Posts: 126
I just looked at the Breda design: What a pretty aircraft! Too bad it was a failure.

bobinleipsic
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old October 9th, 2010, 06:02 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic States
Posts: 392
There's always the Convair Model 37. It was a prop design, but jet variants were proposed. First class would've consisted of private cabins (like on a train or zeppelin).




Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old October 9th, 2010, 06:12 PM
JJDXB JJDXB is offline
Your resident British-Filipino
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 585
Airbus concepts anyone?











And the Coup de Grace:







The return of embedded engines!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 9th, 2010, 06:26 PM
Alexius Alexius is offline
Airship Janissary General
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the same chemistry lab building as Thande- oh dear...
Posts: 673
Re British jets: The planned but unbuilt Comet 5 did have engines under the wings (I think), despite the fact that low-bypass turbofans such as the Conway did fit in the wings of some aircraft (Victor B2). Later British jetliners had their engines mounted on the tail- I think the BAe 146 was the only British airliner actually built which had jet engines mounted under the wings, and that is a strange aircraft in other ways.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 9th, 2010, 06:36 PM
NothingNow NothingNow is online now
Bringer of Bad Ideas.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Greater Ybor City, FL
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexius View Post
Re British jets: The planned but unbuilt Comet 5 did have engines under the wings (I think), despite the fact that low-bypass turbofans such as the Conway did fit in the wings of some aircraft (Victor B2). Later British jetliners had their engines mounted on the tail- I think the BAe 146 was the only British airliner actually built which had jet engines mounted under the wings, and that is a strange aircraft in other ways.
Not really. It just makes more sense as a Military design than a Civillian one.

the Tu-114's layout would make sense for a commercial competitor to Jet Airliners.
__________________
The Nothing Zone is offline.
The schedule and thread.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 9th, 2010, 07:31 PM
Workable Goblin Workable Goblin is offline
Spacepony
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Low Equestrian Orbit
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carty View Post
[*]If China or Japan was a major power in the mid-20th century, perhaps the dense population of those countries would make large/size and or short-field requirements important. Perhaps they may develop a huge turboprop aircraft similar to the OTL Antonov An-22, but for airline use.
Well, Japan was a major power (of sorts) during the mid-20th century, and what they ended up doing was using 747s as commuter aircraft!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anon_user
If you wipe away the '70s oil shock, or better yet the economic crisis of the '70s itself, the L-1011 probably does reach sufficient sales to be profitable for Lockheed. SST might make it, though I'm not sure supersonics would've really been viable. Lockheed's civil aviation bureau surviving would be interesting - might they have tried to break into the short-haul airliner market at some point?
Ah, so that's why the L-1011 failed--but then, why did the DC-10 succeed? Is there any way to preserve McDonnell Douglas?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlckansas
Also cargo aircraft. Look at the C130 in a civilian airliner mode and used as a cargo hauler for the rough field use in the less developed parts of the world. It would be used in Alaska, Western and Northern Canada, Mexico, and Africa. Using it, or its derivatives in airliner mode, not just cargo handling would improve the rough field capabilities for the west.
The thing is, the West doesn't really need that size of aircraft for rough-field operation (and C-130s were available for civilian use). We just have too good an airport infrastructure where most people live, thanks to WWII.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old October 9th, 2010, 09:15 PM
George Carty George Carty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth is life View Post
Well, Japan was a major power (of sorts) during the mid-20th century, and what they ended up doing was using 747s as commuter aircraft!
By "major power" I mean one significant enough to have indigenous airliner manufacture, such that its aircraft could be specially tailored to its needs. Of course the economies of scale in airliner manufacturing may make this unlikely, as shown in OTL by the failure of the Trident (too specific to BEA) and the current global Boeing/Airbus duopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth is life View Post
Ah, so that's why the L-1011 failed--but then, why did the DC-10 succeed? Is there any way to preserve McDonnell Douglas?
The DC-10 had more sales (although it was still a money loser) because it wasn't clobbered by the terrible technical problems suffered by the RB211 engine during its development (the General Electric CF6 engine used by the DC-10 was too long to fit in the L-1011's tail).

In addition, the DC-10's designers cut a lot of corners -- this affected the aircraft's safety record, but probably made it cheaper than the Lockheed machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth is life View Post
The thing is, the West doesn't really need that size of aircraft for rough-field operation (and C-130s were available for civilian use). We just have too good an airport infrastructure where most people live, thanks to WWII.
Indeed, that's why in the original posting I was thinking in terms of alternate worlds where the geopolitical situation is radically different -- in OTL, only the Soviet Union had conditions different enough to create a design philosophy markedly different from that of the American hegemon.

Last edited by George Carty; October 10th, 2010 at 09:06 PM.. Reason: DC-10 lost money too
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old October 9th, 2010, 11:44 PM
Dunois Dunois is offline
Franco-British Patriot!
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Beckenham
Posts: 1000 or more
I am surprised no one mentionned the BAC 3-11 yet:
__________________
France stays in the war!
The Sword of Freedom, a Franco-British Union TL
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old October 10th, 2010, 12:45 AM
MacCaulay MacCaulay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by David S Poepoe View Post
Canada's Avro Jetliner C-102. It could have established Canada as a major producer of passenger jet planes - for a few years.
I'm with you there. Avro shut down the production line because of the Korean War. If that hadn't happened they could've filled orders from half a dozen airlines.



According to Great Canadian Disasters, it's short field ability exceeded that of the 727 which would come more than half a decade later and the Caravelle was outclassed by it in almost all respects.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old October 10th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Just Leo Just Leo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
East Germany came up with this airliner based on a failed Russian bomber design. Two models were built, but bad economics and defections among the design team forced cancellation.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old October 10th, 2010, 01:03 AM
Cadet 419 Cadet 419 is offline
Baby Seal Killer Extraordinar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 172
Quick question, how much do you think that defence spending contributes to the ability to construct large capacity turbojet passenger planes?

I think it would've taken alot longer for the idea to get off the ground in a world with reduced defence expenditures.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old October 11th, 2010, 01:53 AM
MacCaulay MacCaulay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniform 419 View Post
Quick question, how much do you think that defence spending contributes to the ability to construct large capacity turbojet passenger planes?

I think it would've taken alot longer for the idea to get off the ground in a world with reduced defence expenditures.
Oddly enough, it was defense spending that killed the Canadian one. Or rather defense production capacity: Avro simply couldn't build both the CF-100 Canuck fighter and the Jetliner at once, and with a war on C.D. Howe ordered the company to build fighters.

Consequently that put the company on a track to be completely dependent on government contracts. When the Arrow was cancelled a decade later, it more or less began taking the company down as well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.