4 ms·

Mass aviation could not have happened without the turbine. The big propliners of the 50s were notorious for having engines fail in flight and had insufficient

Mass aviation could not have happened without the turbine. The big propliners of the 50s were notorious for having engines fail in flight and had insufficient power reserves to do anything but struggle to the crash site, even with the tiny payloads they carried. 64 years ago today a KLM Constellation crashed at Shannon in Ireland, it was carrying 56 people. That's miniscule and was only sustainable with fares that the 1%ers of the era could afford. A Norwegian 737Max on a thin Atlantic route today carries 186 and that is considered borderline small. Incidentally the Constellation did have a turboprop variant but Lockheed and GE had a disagreement and it went ahead with pistons instead as the Starliner. Few people even remember that aircraft now because of the 707.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I disagree. The desire for aviation came in thanks in part to the war, and was there with or without jets in amongst post-war growth. Jets certainly helped the growth in size, and grew the market faster than it could have without. The market was already there and growing. Prop aircraft would have grown too had there been no jet engines, though I doubt we'd have got to 300+ capacity - but who knows? On seating. The DH Comet had a smaller passenger capacity than the Super Constellation, which was upto 110 depending on seating configuration, though usually a bit less. The 707 had 140 when first introduced. For the 1.5% - 2%ers then? A turboprop constellation variant was prototyped but never produced commercially. The were none in service. I think the US Navy might have ended up with a couple for trials too.
- Gravityloss 8y ago
  Even the 707 didn't really make it cheap yet. At least over here, the last significant price drop was after 2000 or so with Ryanair etc. with 737:s and A320:s. Probably a new business model in other ways as well. Single aisle, two reliable high bypass engines. There were still DC-9 derivatives flying around but no more really. I bet you could calculate maintenance man hour per kilowatt hour for all sorts of engines. Even the old manual flight control operations without computers meant the amount of work hours per flight was big - meaning for an ordinary worker it would not be possible.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

I disagree. The desire for aviation came in thanks in part to the war, and was there with or without jets in amongst post-war growth. Jets certainly helped the growth in size, and grew the market faster than it could have without. The market was already there and growing. Prop aircraft would have grown too had there been no jet engines, though I doubt we'd have got to 300+ capacity - but who knows? On seating. The DH Comet had a smaller passenger capacity than the Super Constellation, which was upto 110 depending on seating configuration, though usually a bit less. The 707 had 140 when first introduced. For the 1.5% - 2%ers then? A turboprop constellation variant was prototyped but never produced commercially. The were none in service. I think the US Navy might have ended up with a couple for trials too.

Gravityloss 8y ago
Even the 707 didn't really make it cheap yet. At least over here, the last significant price drop was after 2000 or so with Ryanair etc. with 737:s and A320:s. Probably a new business model in other ways as well. Single aisle, two reliable high bypass engines. There were still DC-9 derivatives flying around but no more really. I bet you could calculate maintenance man hour per kilowatt hour for all sorts of engines. Even the old manual flight control operations without computers meant the amount of work hours per flight was big - meaning for an ordinary worker it would not be possible.