Civilian Jetliners of Alternate History
- Thread starter George Carty
- Start date
NothingNow
Banned
I think it'd be cool to have Delta-winged Trans-sonic airliners and Jet or Turboprop Seaplanes for some of the Routes, especially the Transatlantic ones, which in a TL w/o the massive infrastructure build-up that came w/ WW2, There wouldn't be a lot of quality Air Fields in most places, so instead of The Big Jets like the 707, we get things like the Convair R3Y and Beriev Be-200.
R3Y Tradewind:
Be-200:
R3Y Tradewind:
Be-200:
NothingNow
Banned
After 707-style underwing pods. Which have a huge advantage in terms of maintenance issues and ease of Access.
Actually, I think the wing root engine location increases cabin noise and vibration over that of underwing or rear fuselage podded engines. Maintenance time is increased. The fitment of up-rated engines may be made more difficult. The efficiency of the wing is degraded, and the length of span allowing flaps to be fitted is reduced. Also, in case of catastrophic engine failure, the odds of damage to other critical areas is increased. The airlines have had decades to make their choice of optimum layouts and as a result, airliners look very similar. The only thing the wing-root engne has going for it is that it looks nicer.
NothingNow
Banned
True, just look at the issues the An-72's faced. Considering how it's an excellent STOLiner and an all around good design.
The airline industry is controlled, first and last, by accountants. The number they are looking at is the passenger seat/mile cost. The AN-72 is a niche aircraft which never found it's niche. The layout offered good STOL characteristics at the cost of higher drag, higher fuel cost.
Regarding Cook's "radical" concepts, the Beech Starship was radical, and a failure. The Piaggio Avanti was also radical in the same way and was barely marginally successful while conventional Beech King Airs flourish. The industry is decidedly conservative, and a radical design has to bludgeon the naysayers with value and merit before it becomes, in it's own way, the accepted format. ie: Learjet. Since it costs equivalent to the GNP of a small country to develop a new aircraft design, manufacturers are not eager to delve into unusual concepts without verifiable chances of success. Concorde has been and is now gone. We live in a time when, if you want to identify the aircraft overhead, you have to count the flap actuator fairings.
Regarding Cook's "radical" concepts, the Beech Starship was radical, and a failure. The Piaggio Avanti was also radical in the same way and was barely marginally successful while conventional Beech King Airs flourish. The industry is decidedly conservative, and a radical design has to bludgeon the naysayers with value and merit before it becomes, in it's own way, the accepted format. ie: Learjet. Since it costs equivalent to the GNP of a small country to develop a new aircraft design, manufacturers are not eager to delve into unusual concepts without verifiable chances of success. Concorde has been and is now gone. We live in a time when, if you want to identify the aircraft overhead, you have to count the flap actuator fairings.
You hit the nail right on the head there. One thing the public generally doesn't realize it that airlines have a huge amount of control over cabin layout - don't blame Boeing (or Airbus, etc.) for the fact that only midgets can get comfy in an airline coach seat. Boeing doesn't even make the seats (don't think Airbus does either), we just install them.
Again, very true. Just look at the B787; conventional design at a first glance. But just the fact that it has a carbon-fiber fuselage instead of aluminum has caused ten kinds of drama in development and is a (minor) part of the reason the plane is now several years late.
Also, don't forget that something the manufacturers want to build and the airlines want to buy can still be a non-starter if the regulatory authorities don't like it. The FAA and EASA can kill a new commercial design with the stroke of a pen.
Cook
Banned
If a Muslim great power existed, circumstances in the region would have been very different, at the very least infrastructure would be more substantial, so there is no need for them to resemble Soviet designs.
Weather conditions are also vastly different.
They would, however, have been designed to deal much better with "hot and high" and sandy conditions, for obvious reasons, no matter what, though.
Riain
Banned
I've heard differently, and I think with a more powerful British aircraft industry the question would be put to the test. Do buiried engines in other planes such as V-bombers and all fighters increase vibration and maintenence problems, or have procedures been implemented to reduce these issues?
Having flown in a C-119, one of the shakiest, noisiest, and puke-smellingest aircraft of all history, i do not think they ask a military pilot if he is comfortable, or give him a choice of aircraft types he'd like to fly today. Jet aircraft offer a much more comfortable ride than propellor driven types, so the Comet was a milestone. That milestone has been surpassed. Engine maintenance issues revolve around inspection and replacement. A buried engine has to be disintered, while a podded engine is 360 degrees in your face after a few fasteners. Not all aircraft designers think to hard about maintenance issues, and I have too many stories to tell, but pretend you're the man who has to do the maintenance, and tell me which looks easier.
These are advantages, but the greatest advantage of the 707 layout(actually, it should be the B-47 layout), it's the fact it's the most aerodynamically-efficient layout for the speeds jetliners fly(the Mach .7-.9 range).
NothingNow
Banned
Well, excluding a B-47 style layout with the Engine Pods, but then you've got other issues.
George Carty
Banned
I assumed that a hypothetical 20th century Caliphate would be about the same tech level as OTL USSR. What is your reasoning for suggesting it could be higher than that, and more comparable with the West?
Are there any features of OTL Soviet airliners (at least those which affect the outward appearance) that are specifically about coping with extreme cold?
That's sort of what I was thinking.
The Soviets disliked underslung engines because of the danger of ingesting gravel (from poor runways) or snow and ice. A Muslim power would also dislike underslung engines, this time due to concerns about sand ingestion.
Fuel efficiency concerned the Soviets (oil exporters) less than it concerned the Western powers (oil importers). It would concern a Middle Eastern great power even less.
Last edited:
That would really depend on the Muslim great power, though, wouldn't it?
A surviving Ottoman Empire, say, would need a lot of medium/long haul commuter flights between major cities, and would probably have pretty major Istanbul-Levant (Beirut/Damascus/Jerusalem) and Istanbul-Baghdad routes using whatever the major ATL global airliners were. I don't think any ATL Ottoman Empire would be lacking for developed infrastructure in the major cities of the Empire, and no plausible major Ottoman cities have especially challenging airport environments.
Sand ingestion, hot & high performance, and rugged airstrip capability would all be more "bush aviation" concerns in the secondary regions of the empire (east-central anatolia, kurdistan, arabia) where spoke-and-hub short haul flights to major cities, and support of the oil industry would predominate. There a modest Ottoman aircraft maker could flourish but it would look a lot more like Embraer than Tupolev.