What if WWII had not interrupted the development of the flying boats, specifically in the Atlantic?

phantomphan

phantomphan

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
27 July 2020
Messages
66
Reaction score
129
How would flying boats had developed if WW-II had not allowed land-based aircraft to surpass them?
 
phantonphan said:
How would flying boats had developed if WW-II had not allowed land-based aircraft to surpass them?
Click to expand...
Good question. Boeing and Sikorsky would have adapted their Model 326 and S-45 designs respectively for potential use as either troop transports or maritime patrol replacements for the PB2Y. In order words, an S-45 or Model 326 reworked into a troop transport would have carried GIs to Europe faster than troopships crossing the Atlantic. Either one of these designs would have been light-years ahead of the Hughes H-4 Spruce Goose. The Soviet Union likewise would have ordered the Tupolev ANT-44/MTB-2 flying boat into production so that it could be used by Red Navy squadrons in the Baltic Sea to sink German U-boats.
 
Vahe Demirjian said:
phantonphan said:
How would flying boats had developed if WW-II had not allowed land-based aircraft to surpass them?
Click to expand...
Good question. Boeing and Sikorsky would have adapted their Model 326 and S-45 designs respectively for potential use as either troop transports or maritime patrol replacements for the PB2Y. In order words, an S-45 or Model 326 reworked into a troop transport would have carried GIs to Europe faster than troopships crossing the Atlantic. Either one of these designs would have been light-years ahead of the Hughes H-4 Spruce Goose. The Soviet Union likewise would have ordered the Tupolev ANT-44/MTB-2 flying boat into production so that it could be used by Red Navy squadrons in the Baltic Sea to sink German U-boats.
Click to expand...
Yes, they could carry 60-70 soldiers and some stuff. But-the Queen Mary for example could carry 10k troops at once with considerable cargo also.
 
Would trans-Atlantic (and by that I mean Europe-Africa and the Americas) requirements drive aircraft development, or would the Pacific emerge as the more important factor? Off the cuff I would think that the trans-Atlantic need would be for capacity, while trans-Pacific airlines would look at longer range aircraft . . .
 
Surely we are confused here by hindsight? Long range luxury, littoral origin - littoral destination, is of course simply fasterliners, so a wet port. So even bigger Clipper/Empire boats for nearly-London-NY. Long range/loiter MR, so Martin Mars, Shorts/Saro Shetland. But...

The same techno that gives big structure, Hyper-, reliable power, gives...DC-6, Britannia, Armagnac, Breda-Zappata BZ.308; P2V Neptune. Landplanes will always be more economical as they carry no dragmaster hull. So the only place for those hulls is a destination that has no concrete runway: so Aquila A/W was able to operate to 1959, Southampton Water - Capri, Nice/Monaco, Madeira...which had no short haul, local air service, so each one pushed a mountain into the sea to create a runway on stilts, to attract more than the occasional Queen. As soon as Nice invested in such a runway for Nice-Paris, it was merely a modest pour to accommodate TWA 747SP from NY.

It was not WW2-transports (C-54, C-69), nor military Engineers launching land-based Heavies that dished boats: it was boats'-funding for the techno of long, strong spars, Hyper power that enabled reliable, economical big landplanes. This myth, of no concrete, long lingered - it was used as an excuse for paying V-A to produce VC10, belatedly to compete with 707/DC-8 on...Entebbe. That destination wanted more Air Service than twice a week many-interim stops from London, so...poured concrete.
 
Shorter hops between nearby cities (e.g. Seattle to Vancouver) would be served by more floatplanes.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom