Air transportation without WW II

[carmelo]

Hitler is shot in WW-I, Weimer Republic in some way survive and not become neither fascist or communist,Stalin is busy to kill his comrades,Mussolini is satisfied with his little empire,Japan alone not challenge the western powers.
September 1 1939 is a quiet day of summer end in a world after all peaceful.
In this timeline the WW-II never happened.
Without a WW-II how is the air transportation in 40s and early 50s?
We have more flying boats?
We have a possibility for airships?

 

[riggerrob]

Slower development of long-range, 4-engined bombers means fewer long runways, fewer navigators, fewer super-chargers, fewer on-board weather radars, fewer de-icing boots, etc.
Fewer runways mean fewer long-range land-planes = more flying boats.
Only the wealthy can afford to fly.

 

[carmelo]

Slower development of long-range, 4-engined bombers means fewer long runways, fewer navigators, fewer super-chargers, fewer on-board weather radars, fewer de-icing boots, etc.
Fewer runways mean fewer long-range land-planes = more flying boats.
Only the wealthy can afford to fly.

So,on the other hand,in 40s and 50s more rail transport and passenger ships.

 

[royabulgaf]

Riggerrob and Carmelo pretty much have it. However, passenger Zeppelins ended with the Hindenberg. However, there might be some puttering by Goodyear as flying cranes.
The DC-4 and Connie were in the pipeline, so they would proceed. The Boeing 307 would perhaps be the precursor of and spur for, the DC-4, as the 247 was for the DC-3. You might see the Lockheed Excalibur proceed as a bridge between the model 18 and the Connie. Germany would push the FW-200 as a prestige project, and will probably have a more advanced project to keep up with the Yanks. I would see something from Britain along the lines of the Handley Page Hastings andAvro Tudor, probably with Centaurus engines and tricycle gear earlier.
The trans-Pacific runs will probably remain flying boats. The Boeing 314 and Short C class will be replaced by the Shetland and Martin Mars in the mid-40s. Japan will use civil Emilies in the Pacific and a handful of subsidized DC-4E clones on a heavily subsidized Silk Road route between Manchukuo and Europe. In the Europe-Far East routes, the Latecore 621 will be the standard by which all are judged for years. By the late 40s the DC-6 and true Connie will just start in service.
This is what things would be like with engines developed by 9/39 and airframes well into development or production. Piston engines top out at around 5000 hp and 5000ci and for some reason more than 4 engines on an aircraft seem unpopular. With noisy piston engines and at best a 350 mph cruising speed, the cattle car seating arrangement for trans oceanic flights would simply be unacceptable for the price they would have to charge. Coach would be like modern First class with appropriate pricing, roughly what first class on legacy airlines charge now.

 

[Stargazer]

The DC-3, Boeing 247, Junkers Ju 52 and other taildraggers soon become obsolete with the advent of the tricycle gear designs.

The DC-3 does not benefit from the boost of war production. The overflow of surplus DC-3 types experienced after the war doesn't take place, leaving more room for airliners by other manufacturers (Convair, Martin, etc.) to develop.

The DC-4 remains the pre-war type later known as DC-4E and gets produced in quantity, alongside with the Lockheed 44 Excalibur and the Martin 150 Streamliner.

The DC-5 gets a little more attention. The Lockheed 75 Saturn gets produced.
So do the Curtiss-Wright CW-32, Boeing 417 and Convair 107.

In Germany, the Heinkel 111 doesn't get a military career and continues a successful career as a small transport type. The company focuses on air transport and becomes the second major transport produced after Junkers, which leads in Europe.

In France, Marcel Bloch never changes his name to Dassault, and his land airliners become more and more popular, alongside the Bréguet and Wibault types.

Huge flying boat airliners such as the Sikorsky S-45 Trans-Oceanic, the Convair Clipper, the French Latécoères, German Dorniers, Italian Savoia-Marchettis and British Shorts and Saunders-Roe designs enjoy an additional decade of thriving as large landplane airliners are not yet technically possible for lack of appropriate airstrips and airports. The Princess in particular becomes the pinnacle in air transport.

Jet research goes slow as there is no war to boost it. Consequently the prop-powered designs and straight wing designs get a longer lease on life, with a solid two decades of considerable diversity.
The fact that there is no surplus of war aircraft to saturate the civilian market also leads manufacturers to be more inventive in looking for new approaches to flying. Double deckers, canard designs, amphibian airliners see the light of day and a lot more variety exists, a little like what happened in the area of late 1920s private aviation.

 

[riggerrob]

Concerning development of DC-4 like land planes ..... how many inland cities have poor access to large bodies of water (lakes, reservoirs or rivers)?

 

[royabulgaf]

To answer Riggerrob's question, most if not all. Forget the Great Lakes. They do ice up. Any big city on a river will have a lot of bridges, and a lot of river traffic to go with it.

 

[royabulgaf]

Skyblazer, some great ideas especially about the consequences of no airliners at scrap metal prices, and real follow ons to the DC-3. I didn't really know enough about French airline plans during that era to comment. However, I question the Saro Princess as it was turbine powered. I could see something smaller powered by six Centaurus engines.

 

[royabulgaf]

Okay, now let's have a thought experiment on the development of civil turbine engines. In this world there is let's assume no Cold War, but still an arms race. Military jets don't develop into a useful product until the early 50s. Where does that leave civil aviation? Well, post war in the real world the concept of exhaust recovery began. Like a turbocharger it used exhaust gas to add power. However, instead of compressing intake air, the exhaust gas ran a turbine connected to the rear of the crankshaft, adding power there. As this was all behind the engine which made for less complex plumbing and better streamlining. Now, these 3-4000 cubic inch corncobs pump out a lot of waste heat, yet tighter cowls are needed for better streamlining. So, the recovery turbine runs a fan behind the engine to bring more air in the cowling and through the system. Some bright guy gets the idea of increasing the fan ring diameter to provide some thrust. Voila, the turbofan starts. You are looking at around 1960 now, the militaries are introducing second generation jets (MiG 17, Hunter, Sabre) and are puttering around with afterburning and supersonic experimentation. Jets provide a lot of power now, and aren't the gas guzzlers of a decade ago. Waste heat is not an enemy, but an inconvenience. Someone gets the idea to replace the piston engine with a jet, with some of the thrust coming from the enlarged cooling fan. You get the 707, VC-10, and Caravelle about 10 years later than in the real world, with better engines.

 

[carmelo]

Ten year of gap between our timeline and this alternate timeline without WW-II and cold war seems plausible.
However the absence of our cold war could affect the research in some fields.

 

[Stargazer]

However the absence of our cold war could affect the research in some fields.

Merely slow it down. All the great scientific discoveries were/are waiting to be made, it's just a matter of time.
Jet propulsion would have taken another 10 years without World War II, but it would have happened.

The absence of war might also have brought about the use of nuclear propulsion in transportation, which didn't happen in "our" world.
Indeed, the absence of WWII means no Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore no full-size testing of nuclear power. The world would therefore not be ready for the few inevitable accidents of nuclear-powered airliners and transports in the 1960s and 1970s, causing entire areas on every continent to be contaminated and abandoned, with the effect that nuclear power would be distrusted, gradually criticized and all but gone in transportation by the 1980s.

 

[Bill Walker]

To answer Riggerrob's question, most if not all. Forget the Great Lakes. They do ice up. Any big city on a river will have a lot of bridges, and a lot of river traffic to go with it.

This may be all true, but it is interesting to note that the RCAF ferried a few dozen Stranraer flying boats from the east coast to the west coast in early 1942, stopping at places like Otawa, Port Arthur (today part of Thunderbay), Winnipeg, and Revelstoke, in the middle of the Rockies. For smaller aircraft, most decent size Canadian towns and cities had a nearby flying boat facility prior to the War.

 

[riggerrob]

The DC-3, Boeing 247, Junkers Ju 52 and other taildraggers soon become obsolete with the advent of the tricycle gear designs.

The DC-3 does not benefit from the boost of war production. The overflow of surplus DC-3 types ......

......................................................................

Traildraggers are still more durable on rough, grass airfields while the greater weight of nose wheels is only over-come when longer, smooth asphalt runways allow faster touch-down speeds.

Let's extrapolate from Fokker Tri-Motors, to DC-3s to "prestige" 4-engined airliners.
Remember that DC-3 was originally designed to rush passengers from Ndw York to Los Angeles.
Which routes would civilian airliners fly?
How many stops?
What range?
How many passengers?
How much would imperial countries be willing to subsidize flag-carrier airliners to improve thier international image?
What advantage would they gain from hopping across the English Channel?
What advantage from hopping across dangerous territory ..... say Iraq?
How soon before corporate executives start buying personal airplanes?
How long before rum-runners start flying airplanes?
How long before opium smugglers start flying airplanes?

 

[Stargazer]

What advantage from hopping across dangerous territory ..... say Iraq?

Some interesting questions among the lot, but calling Iraq "dangerous territory" before 1991 isn't historically accurate.

Just browse through a collection of National Geographic magazines if you can and you'll find that, not only was it a safe place to travel to, but it was quite a destination of choice for travellers, especially in between the wars and in the 1950s.
Generally speaking, the Middle East was NOT considered a dangerous place to live or travel AT ALL until the creation of the state of Israel and subsequent tensions brought a degree of imbalance to the area. Before that, The Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, especially, were always very popular with travellers.
Even in the 1970s, you could go most anywhere in the Middle East and not get into trouble. Except when Israel was at war with one of its neighbors (and it never lasted for very long) on the whole people could travel safely to Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran or Iraq.
It is the demise of the Iranian Shah and the advent of the fundamentalist ayatollahs' regime that put started an escalade of terror in the region.
The 1980s brought endless war in Lebanon, but also between Iran and Iraq. Still it was safe for a Westerner to go to Iraq until 1990!
The 1990s and 2000s, struck a decisive blow to peace, with most of the region, especially Iraq, becoming a quagmire of tension and conflict. However, countries such as Syria and Jordan were still safe.
The 2010s ensured that almost no country was safe anymore, with Northern Africa, Egypt and the lower part of the Arabian peninsula struck by civil unrest, and especially Syria ravaged by war. As always, the countries with oil are safe from harm... The rest are either at war, under totalitarian religious rule or stirred by civil unrest.

Without World War II (and the events leading up to it, that is the rise of the Third Reich) there would arguably have been no extermination of millions in camps, therefore no push towards the creation of a state of Israel and probably no destabilization of the area as a consequence. Bitter Muslims might not have turned to radicalism and fundamentalism, and the fundamentalists would have continued to be a minority, ridiculed by the vast majority of people, with no social relevance or political power. The Middle East would therefore have continued to be a pleasant tourist destination with its picturesque mosques, its tolerant view on other religions, its mild approach to Islam and oriental philosophy of life. I can imagine these countries becoming richer from tourism, building adequate airports, roads and infrastructures and welcoming long-range airliners from the whole world. riggerrob's idea of "imperial countries be(ing) willing to subsidize flag-carrier airliners to improve thier international image" would have fitted pretty well into that scheme I think.

Finally, despite the fact that communism was alive and kicking in the Soviet Union, with or without World War II, no Second World War means no Yalta, and therefore maybe no Cold War as radical as we knew it, perhaps taking more time to settle in. Perhaps the countries would not have been forced to align on either side so radically, and instead of accepting protection from one of the superpowers and receiving their military technology along with it (aircraft, tanks, missiles, weapons and so forth), might have enjoyed some degree of autonomy for a while longer? Who knows? There might even have been a development of local aviation!

 

[riggerrob]

Skyblazer,
Thanks for the vote of confidence for my "imperial flag bearer" concept.

However, your perception of Middle Eastern politics is far more peaceful than mine. Because all that violence started thousands of years before the (modern) state of Israel emerged.

My reading of the historical record reveals dozens (hundreds?) of genocidal wars over the centuries.
Even the (Jewish) Torah talks about a variety of wars, enslavements, genicides, poisoning wells, salting the earth, etc. along before Jesus Christ was born.
Christians repeated most of those bloody stories in the Old Testament of thier Bible.
Moslems repeated all those Jewish and Christan atrocities in the Koran, plus thier own schism.
One reason Islam was able to expand so rapidly was because the new religion spread into a wasteland ruined by centuries of warfare between the Byzantine (East Roman) and Persian Empires.
A few centuries after that, Frankish (Christian) Crusaders briefly retook the Holy Land from Islam. But Arabs only ruled the Holy Land for a few centuries before they were over-run by Ottoman Turks ............ etc.

Post World War One borders (e.g. straight lines across barren desert) are just the latest excuse for Kurds to ambush Sunnis, who massacre Shias, who persecute Baha'is, etc.

Bottom line: many European and North American tourists still perceive the Middle East as a dangerous place full of pick-pockets, muggers, rapists, looters, rustlers, smugglers, murders, terrorists, religious fanatics, etc.

An imperial flag-carrier - that could safely fly past ambush alleys - would be patronized by wealthy business travellers and tourists.

 

[Apophenia]

For larger British land-based airliners, we might add the Fairey FC1, Short 14/35, or even the Miles X.2 to the list.

However, I'm with Skyblazer on the domination of trans-oceanic passenger flying boats rather than larger land planes. Operation of such 'boats requires a fairly rich clientele ... and that would have made up the bulk of the long-distance flying public in this WW2-less world.

For all its horrors, WW2 represented tremendous fiscal stimulus à la Keynesian economic policies. Without the industrial demands of WW2 - not to mention the educational and training benefits afforded to returning veterans - it is hard to see what would have pulled the Western World out of the Great Depression-era economic malaise.

 

[Anderman]

For all its horrors, WW2 represented tremendous fiscal stimulus à la Keynesian economic policies. Without the industrial demands of WW2 - not to mention the educational and training benefits afforded to returning veterans - it is hard to see what would have pulled the Western World out of the Great Depression-era economic malaise.

Yeah without the stimulus provided by the need to produce this gigantic numbers of airplanes , tanks etc their would be no incentive to invent the assembly line and what would the car industry without it. :

 

[Jemiba]

OT, of course, but with regards to the Middle East. I think, we should be more careful on avoiding the WW II centric view, that
can be found in many public discussions. That point of view is understandable, as for quite a lot of nations it was the time in
history, after that many profound transitions began, but in most cases the actual causes were much earlier.
The official foundation of Israel as an independent state was in 1948, of course, but the first Allija (large-scale immigration)
started in 1882. And it shouldn't be forgotten, that a crucial factor for the problems in that region dates back to break-up
of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW I. And during that time, the formation of the Soviet Union already set the course
for the conflict, that later emerged into the "Cold War", just temporarily interrupted by an enforced partnership. But the
planning of Operation Pike, the airstrike on the Baku oilfields made quite clear, that there wasn't really much confidence
between the SU and the western countries.
If WW II, in the form it happened, could have be avoided, it probably would have arisen in just another form and certainly
demanded very similar technological developments and as mentioned before, there was hardly an idea, that was actually
born during WW II. but there just were ideas, published earlier, that were put to good use then.

 

[riggerrob]

Jemiba made some good "big history" points.

Middle East problems were slowly increasing well before WW1, with the Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire slowly deteriorating. Dozens of local tribes were struggling to throw off imperial yokes.
WW1 is a convenient "landmark" of a catastrophe pushing the Ottoman Emperor and Russian Tzar over the cliff.
They were doomed to fail sometime during the 20th century ..... WW1 merely provided to shock to tip them over the edge.

Similarly, Jew-bashing, pogroms, holocaust, etc. had been fashionable for many centuries in many European countries, but it was only when Hitler industrialized exterminating Jews, that he forced the creation of the modern nation of Israel.

Finally, production lines did not originate during WW2. Instead, the first production line was established in a Swiss clock factory well before WW1. Henry Ford adopted production lines as a way to streamline production and reduce unit cost (of a luxury item) to a price point that American working masses could afford. WW2 was merely an impetus to incorporate production lines in other industries (airplanes, tanks, fire arms, spoons, etc.) to meet wartime demands.

One theory has it that WW2 was won on the farms and factories of North America.
IOW WW2 was a war of logistics with NA out-producing the Axis.
NA consistently produced more food than U-boats could sink.
NA consistently produced more airplanes than the Luftwaffe could shoot down and NA industry produced more tanks than the Whermacht could shoot.
NA production lines produced all those airplanes, tanks, ships, etc.

 

[Apophenia]

Yeah without the stimulus provided by the need to produce this gigantic numbers of airplanes , tanks etc their would be no incentive to invent the assembly line and what would the car industry without it. :

I'm not sure I understand your point. What relevance do automotive assembly lines have to the development and sale of civilian airliners?
Perhaps you are suggesting automotive production as a sign of economic health? If so, I would contrast pre-WW2 and postwar car sales.

In 1935 US car production was 2,335,000 units, by 1939 it had dropped to 2,040,000. After recovering to 2,223,000 in 1946, production had grown half-again to 3,360,000 units in 1947. By 1955, US car production had hit over 7 million. Do you have an explanation for such growth in poswar sales other than the economic stimulus of WW2?

Or have I missed your point altogether?

 

[Hood]

My thought is that air travel would be largely dominated by large state-run airlines (at least in Europe).
After the war there was an explosion of smaller charter companies founded by ex-service pilots and buying up cheap surplus aircraft of all types. This would be lacking and probably there would generally be a smaller pool of trained pilots and navigators and other aircrew.

 

[Anderman]

Yeah without the stimulus provided by the need to produce this gigantic numbers of airplanes , tanks etc their would be no incentive to invent the assembly line and what would the car industry without it. :

I'm not sure I understand your point. What relevance do automotive assembly lines have to the development and sale of civilian airliners?
Perhaps you are suggesting automotive production as a sign of economic health? If so, I would contrast pre-WW2 and postwar car sales.

In 1935 US car production was 2,335,000 units, by 1939 it had dropped to 2,040,000. After recovering to 2,223,000 in 1946, production had grown half-again to 3,360,000 units in 1947. By 1955, US car production had hit over 7 million. Do you have an explanation for such growth in poswar sales other than the economic stimulus of WW2?

Or have I missed your point altogether?

That is my standard rant on keynesian economics and on the idea that war is good for the economy in general.
The reason for the recovery after ww2 shrinking of goverment spendig after the war

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_percent_1946USbt_17bs2n

Remember all the spend on the war the rebuilding of europe, japan etc could not been spend on air travel.

 

[MaxLegroom]

For all its horrors, WW2 represented tremendous fiscal stimulus à la Keynesian economic policies. Without the industrial demands of WW2 - not to mention the educational and training benefits afforded to returning veterans - it is hard to see what would have pulled the Western World out of the Great Depression-era economic malaise.

Yeah without the stimulus provided by the need to produce this gigantic numbers of airplanes , tanks etc their would be no incentive to invent the assembly line and what would the car industry without it. :

Except that you kind of have it backwards. Mass assembly of cars came long before that, let's face it...the Model T was hardly custom built. The years before WW II also spelled the end of the coachbuilt car, where the top luxury cars were actually sold as chassis, with bodies built to order by custom builders such as Murphy, Judkins, Briggs, Derham, and a couple whose names survived on mass built cars, Fleetwood and LeBaron. To a certain point, aircraft manufacturing and even ship manufacturing in the war owed a bit to automotive assembly line practices.

I'll add a couple of theories, and see where you take them. Without WW II, and many veterans taking advantage of the GI Bill, could it be that America would have ended up, as an average, less well educated, and less well off? With this, you'd see fewer people with the money, or even the desire to travel abroad.

In addition, we could discuss how much domestic air travel there might have been with less infrastructure to provide it. As an example, my local airport exists mainly because of WW II. It even bore the name of the Army camp, Camp Patrick Henry, until a political battle gave it its current unfortunate name. The remains of its warehouse buildings existed into the 1980s.

What would American demographics have looked like without WWII?

Also, without WW II, you also don't have the loss of several major ocean liners that were sunk during the war, like the Italian liners Conti di Savoia and Rex, the French Line's Normandie, which we burned trying to convert it to troop service, and a few others. We could debate whether it would have been considered a good idea for the United States Lines to build ships to match the liners flying the British, French, German and Italian flags, as well as how much longer travel by ocean liner would have persisted. It would have been an influence as well, I'd guess. Also, if it took longer for aircraft like the DC-6B and L-1049 to evolve, those ships might have remained viable a bit longer, and the day when the majority of people who traveled across the Atlantic by air might have been more like 1965 rather than 1957. That day when one might take afternoon tea on the Queen Mary in the presence of only the stewards might have come in the early 1970s, rather than the 1960s.

The war itself seems to hardly be the only thing to consider here.

 

[Anderman]

Yeah without the stimulus provided by the need to produce this gigantic numbers of airplanes , tanks etc their would be no incentive to invent the assembly line and what would the car industry without it. :

Except that you kind of have it backwards. Mass assembly of cars came long before that, let's face it...the Model T was hardly custom built. The years before WW II also spelled the end of the coachbuilt car, where the top luxury cars were actually sold as chassis, with bodies built to order by custom builders such as Murphy, Judkins, Briggs, Derham, and a couple whose names survived on mass built cars, Fleetwood and LeBaron. To a certain point, aircraft manufacturing and even ship manufacturing in the war owed a bit to automotive assembly line practices.

Well looks like i realy have to work on my sarcasm. You are absolutley right and of course i know that. I am only using this backwards
argument that some people have their economics backward. The assembly line brings a higher productivity and lower prices which leads to more demand.

I'll add a couple of theories, and see where you take them. Without WW II, and many veterans taking advantage of the GI Bill, could it be that America would have ended up, as an average, less well educated, and less well off? With this, you'd see fewer people with the money, or even the desire to travel abroad.
[\quote]

Depends the GI Bill gave a lot of veterans the possibility to go to college. But what is exactly is your POD no GI Bill or no WW2 ?
If the later we have to asked how many men who went to college died in the war, how many men who overwise would go to college were drafted and died or were crippled in the war? How many people were in college during the war.
If there is a WW2 but no GI Bill what will the industry do ? No grants or scholarships by companies or foundations etc.

In addition, we could discuss how much domestic air travel there might have been with less infrastructure to provide it. As an example, my local airport exists mainly because of WW II. It even bore the name of the Army camp, Camp Patrick Henry, until a political battle gave it its current unfortunate name. The remains of its warehouse buildings existed into the 1980s.

What would American demographics have looked like without WWII?

Also, without WW II, you also don't have the loss of several major ocean liners that were sunk during the war, like the Italian liners Conti di Savoia and Rex, the French Line's Normandie, which we burned trying to convert it to troop service, and a few others. We could debate whether it would have been considered a good idea for the United States Lines to build ships to match the liners flying the British, French, German and Italian flags, as well as how much longer travel by ocean liner would have persisted. It would have been an influence as well, I'd guess. Also, if it took longer for aircraft like the DC-6B and L-1049 to evolve, those ships might have remained viable a bit longer, and the day when the majority of people who traveled across the Atlantic by air might have been more like 1965 rather than 1957. That day when one might take afternoon tea on the Queen Mary in the presence of only the stewards might have come in the early 1970s, rather than the 1960s.

The war itself seems to hardly be the only thing to consider here.

Without WW2 and the airfields for the armed forces airports would be build in different location thats for sure overwise i don´t know.
On the demographics front there will be no baby boom in the size because the men will away for several years.
But you are right the war in not the only thing to consider other things are how will the depression end (we can discuss the causes and what ended it to death) what will happened to taxes and fines etc....

 

[carmelo]

What would American demographics have looked like without WWII?

Many.
For example nothing "baby boom" in 40s.
But the consequences of absence of the cold war woulld have been greater,in technological and social fields.
One of many:without the role of United States as leader of free world,i don't see a quick solution for racial segregation in United States;
is probable that USA in some fields would have been more conservative.
I don't see neither the big corporations of military-industrial complex,and the thousand and thousand of "men in gray flannel".
Suburbs phenomenon is more limited.
Is probable that interstatal higways development is delayed..maybe in 50s would have been modernized railways.
Computers,eletronics,missiles and space researchs,have a more slow development without the pressure of cold war.
Is possible that first artificial satellite is launched by Germany in late 60s.
I see 1970 in this world very similiar to 1960,and in some fields to 1955.
On other hand,British Empire continues,and maybe have the time to transform in a more united Commonwhealth (maybe with a federation between UK and the "white dominions").
Consequences of absence of WW-II are huge for UK.
Many European countries are still fascist or semi fascist in 50s and 60s (Italy,Hungary,Spain,Greece,Jugoslavia,Poland),but without nazism, fascist regimes are only authoritarian governments (like Italy before the approch to Hitler in 1937).
In 50s Italy is very rich thanks to Lybian oils..and this can be influence for aeronautical projects.

 

[uk 75]

Without the Nazis Germany might have been able buy Helium for the Hindenburg.
A resulting airship race between the main nations might have taken air travel in some cool new directions.