Timeline for How to Justify Less Developed Air Power Despite Modern Tech?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2020 at 0:19 | comment | added | Slarty | @Gibdos yes the idea does not seem popular here because people are too wedded to our current time line and make too many assumptions about how things have to be. In a different world things could have been different. We don't use ballistic missiles to deliver anything other than (potentially) nuclear warheads despite the fact that this would be much faster means of transport because of the cost. There are balances between economy and speed that are not cast in stone. | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 20:41 | comment | added | jdunlop | Plus, the OP already posted that wars are happening frequently among the nations of their world - having something that can (literally) fly rings around the opponent's airships and doesn't have a huge, vulnerable envelope would be an enormous tactical advantage. | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 20:37 | comment | added | AlexP | Crossing the Atlantic in hours rather than days won't be perceived as an advantage? As for airships not requiring airports, this must be some sort of irony. Airships required vastly more space and vastly more manpower than aircraft. They need humongous airfields, because they cannot really choose from which direction they approach the mooring masts; they cannot change altitude that quickly, and must approach cautiously into the wind; they need gigantic hangars; to land a large airship you need literally hundreds of people. | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 19:59 | comment | added | Gibdos | Ahh, I hadn't considered this. Do you think these advantages would be enough to stall the development of high speed flight for, say, decades or would it be more along the lines of the greater expense disincentivizing the manufacturing of planes? | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 19:50 | history | answered | Slarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |