The Interwar Boeing Company

In the early 20th century, William E. Boeing, a thriving entrepreneur in the north-western United States, found prosperity in the timber industry. His extensive forestry holdings in the Seattle area catered to the prevalent use of wood in construction for both homes and commerce. Despite his success in timber, Boeing's true passion lay in sailing, prompting him to acquire a small yacht-building shipyard on the Duwamish River, south of the city.

​

As the allure of powered flight captured the imagination of affluent individuals, Boeing, too, became intrigued. In 1914, he took to the skies as a passenger, an experience that fueled his enthusiasm for aviation. Subsequently, Boeing embarked on pilot training and acquired an early Martin seaplane. However, his foray into aviation was more than a wealthy man's pastime. Teaming up with Navy friend Commander Conrad Westervelt, Boeing envisioned designing and constructing seaplanes in Seattle. A dedicated facility was established on Union Lake offshore from the city.

​

Although Westervelt's naval duties relocated him to the Atlantic seaboard before the first flight, Boeing pressed on with the venture, formalizing it as a company. Like many emerging aircraft manufacturers, Boeing's company transformed from what skeptics viewed as a whimsical venture into a robust manufacturing entity with a burgeoning order book, courtesy of the United States' entry into World War I.

 

In April 1917, a mere twenty days after the U.S. declared war, Boeing restructured the enterprise into the Boeing Airplane Company, a name that would eventually become synonymous with the world's most renowned aircraft manufacturer and aircraft.

​

Boeing, beyond crafting its own floatplane designs utilized by the US Navy for training, demonstrated shrewd business acumen by seeking external opportunities. He swiftly secured a government contract to license-build Curtiss flying boats. However, the confines of the Union Lake premises proved insufficient for this expansion. Consequently, aircraft production shifted to the yacht yard on the Duwamish River, where additional assembly shops were erected.

​

The post-war era ushered in a reversal of fortunes. Manufacturing contracts were canceled, and interest in the company's original designs waned, both for military and civilian applications. This downturn was primarily attributed to the surplus of wartime aircraft flooding the market at remarkably low prices. To sustain the factory, Boeing had to redirect the workforce to furniture and boat production, or any venture where spruce wood could be lucratively employed.

​

For the company to live up to its name in the future, securing federal contracts for Army and Navy needs was imperative. Yet, in the early post-war days, such contracts were scarce and fiercely contested by industry peers when specifications were put out to tender. The path forward was laden with challenges, demanding strategic maneuvering and resilience.

​

With the design rights secured for the aircraft models it acquired, the U.S. government wasn't obligated to stick with the original manufacturer; typically, the contract went to the lowest bidder, especially in those financially strained days of military appropriations. Despite the company's somewhat remote location in the north-western corner of the country, which posed challenges for freight travel to obtain manufacturing supplies from distant industrial areas, Boeing's assertive bidding approach proved fruitful. The company successfully secured contracts for the modification and upgrading of 300 De Havilland DH4s, the most prevalent Army type at the end of the First World War. Additionally, another contract was secured to build 200 Thomas-Morse fighters, then referred to as 'pursuits.' Boeing also secured smaller contracts for aircraft repair and modification.

​

By engaging in competitive tendering and upholding excellent workmanship, the Boeing Airplane Company managed to maintain a reasonably profitable business while cultivating its own design and engineering expertise. While 'Bill' Boeing's involvement in aircraft manufacturing may have been influenced by his timber holdings, the company recognized that the future lay in the realm of light metals. Throughout the 1920s, the company progressively enhanced its capabilities in this domain. It began with tubular steel frame fuselages for the renovated DH4s and then expanded into tubular-truss wing spars and the utilization of aluminum alloys. This commitment to innovation and the mastery of new materials marked a significant chapter in Boeing's journey.

​

While the primary revenue stream for the company stemmed from contracts with the Army and Navy aviation, an emerging market in commercial airlines was gaining momentum. The expansive distances between major U.S. cities were fostering increased interest in air travel for both passengers and light cargo. The competition among manufacturers in this realm was fierce. In a strategic move in 1927, Boeing capitalized on this trend by creating its own customer, Boeing Air Transport. This venture carved a niche in the multi-engine air transport market, introducing the Boeing Model 80 trimotor biplane for a Chicago-San Francisco route.

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boeing Model 80 trimotor

​

Despite the adversity brought by the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent economic depression, which led to the financial distress of many industrial companies, Boeing Airplane Company displayed resilience. Notably, the firm's design and engineering staff continued to enhance their expertise in metal construction. In the face of economic turmoil, Boeing's commitment to innovation and adaptability stood as a testament to its enduring spirit.

​

A standout achievement emerged in the form of the 1932 Model 247. This twin-engine, ten-seat, all-metal, low-wing monoplane, equipped with retractable main wheels, represented a significant leap forward from the biplane transports dominating airline services at the time. Boeing gained a strategic edge through an alliance with an affiliated customer—Boeing Air Transport's reorganization as a principal entity within United Airlines. United Airlines promptly placed an order for 60 Model 247s, marking a substantial collaboration.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boeing Model 247

​

This partnership led to the consolidation of several companies under the umbrella of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation (UATC), incorporating major players like Pratt & Whitney and Hamilton propellers. At the helm of UATC was William E. Boeing himself. However, the burgeoning corporation soon faced scrutiny from the government, perceived as a cartel. The enactment of anti-trust laws in 1934 rendered it illegal for an aircraft manufacturer to have ownership or financial ties with an airline. Consequently, the holding organization underwent dissolution, prompting William E. Boeing to allow the Boeing Airplane Company to chart its own course. He resigned from the Board, leaving Claire Egtvedt as Vice-President and General Manager. This pivotal moment marked a shift in the company's trajectory, navigating its path independently.

​

Undergoing a transformation into the Boeing Aircraft Company, the Seattle manufacturing plant found itself standing at the crossroads, its fate uncertain unless new military contracts materialized. The once-reliable Model 247 airliner now faced fierce competition from superior Douglas designs, leaving Boeing without a compelling successor. In the ever-competitive landscape, government contracts held the key to the aviation industry's survival, with the competition heating up as the national economy gradually emerged from the grips of the Depression. The challenge was clear – secure contracts or face an uncertain future. The stakes were high, and Boeing's destiny hung in the balance.

​

The acquisition process remained relatively unchanged. When the Army or Navy identified a service need and had the funds available, a general specification was issued to the industry, triggering a competition for the best design at the best price. While the U.S. Army maintained its focus on aircraft to support ground forces, there was a growing interest in expanding the range of reconnaissance and bombing types. Within the Air Force, a faction advocated for the idea of air power as an independent force, similar to Britain's Royal Air Force, emphasizing the strategic role of bomber aircraft in bringing destruction to an enemy's homeland.

​

However, this vision faced resistance from the traditionalist Army hierarchy throughout much of the inter-war period. Despite limited production orders, funds were allocated for aeronautical research and experimentation, supporting the development of aircraft that could potentially fulfill this strategic role. The struggle for recognition of the bomber as a powerful strategic weapon persisted, with the essence of air power remaining a point of contention within the military establishment.

​

Recognizing the advancements in large multi-engine aircraft in Europe, Wright Field in Ohio, the Army Air Corps' test and experimental center, was spurred to develop its own. In April 1934, the commissioning agency issued a requirement for a 'long-range airplane suitable for military purposes,' with Boeing and Martin responding to the call. Boeing's design stood out, leading to a contract awarded in June for mock-up, design data, and wind-tunnel tests. A year later, a single experimental prototype, the Model 294, was ordered, marking the construction of the largest and heaviest military aircraft in America at that time.

​

The Model 294 boasted four 2,000hp Allison liquid-cooled engines, a wing span of 149 feet, and a gross weight of 70,000 pounds. Beyond its technical specifications, acquiring this giant, designated XBLR-1 (Experimental Bomber Long Range), carried a significant element of service prestige for the Army. This ambitious endeavor reflected the pursuit of excellence and the commitment to pushing the boundaries of aviation technology in the name of military progress.

​

While components for the Model 294 were crafted at Boeing's existing plant on the Duwamish River, a separate location was needed for assembly. The logical choice was the King County Airport in Seattle, operational since 1928 and increasingly utilized by the company for flight operations. Despite being two miles from the existing factory, a sizable new building was erected on the west side of the airfield in 1936.

This new facility, named Plant No. 2, spanned 60,000 square feet and played a pivotal role in the aircraft's development. Designed for efficiency, it featured a vast 200ft by 300ft assembly area with unobstructed space, complemented by overhead monorails for engine and sub-assembly installations. The plan was to transport completed sections of the bomber, later renamed XB-15 in the summer of that year, by barge up

the river for final assembly.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Boeing XB-15

 

Plant No. 2 was more than just a manufacturing space; it embodied Boeing's commitment to innovation. The layout included channels beneath the flooring for electricity and compressed air lines, facilitating the use of power-operated tools. By 1937, with the two plants combined, Boeing boasted an expansive 400,000 square feet of factory floor, underscoring the company's dedication to cutting-edge technology and production capabilities.

​

In sync with the advancements in military aircraft development by European powers, the Model 294, shrouded in secrecy under the codename Project A at the Boeing factory, began its journey. Early on, challenges arose when the initially planned 24-cylinder Allison engines proved unavailable, leading to the substitution of reliable yet less powerful Pratt & Whitney radials. As Project A progressed, design and engineering hurdles signaled an extended development period before the prototype could take flight.

​

Initially viewed as an experimental endeavor, Project A took on new significance as the Army Air Corps, foreseeing the need to replace the twin-engine Martin B-10 in its bomber squadrons, initiated a design competition six weeks after signing the Project A contract. On August 8, 1934, the Army circulated a document calling for a multi-engine aircraft with a 1,200-mile range under normal loads. Boeing's response to this competition was the Model 299, the inaugural member of the B-17 Flying Fortress family. Running parallel to the XB-15, the Model 299 would take to the skies over two years before its experimental counterpart, marking the genesis of an iconic aircraft lineage.

​

The strides in aircraft design and construction ushered in a new era of sophistication and complexity, demanding substantial financial investments. Despite its well-earned expertise, the Boeing Aircraft Company found itself delicately balanced on the profit-and-loss scale throughout the 1930s. In 1936, the company's profit reached 7.3 percent of sales, only to plummet to a deficit of 27.7 percent two years later. Despite these fluctuations, the overall profit showed a steady increase from 1935 to 1941, interspersed with critical financial periods necessitating layoffs.

​

It wasn't until 1940, marked by a significant order for B-17s and a contract from the French to manufacture Douglas DB-7 light bombers, that Boeing's standing as a major aircraft manufacturer was firmly established. The lessons learned from the XB-15 and B-17 paved the way for the B-29 Superfortress, and its transport variant, the C-97, later transformed into the post-war civilian version known as the Stratocruiser. The journey, marked by financial challenges and triumphs, ultimately solidified Boeing's position in the aviation industry.

​

In the interwar period, Boeing's workforce experienced dramatic shifts, dwindling to just over 700 in 1933, surging to surpass 3,000 by 1939, and reaching a pinnacle of nearly 45,000 during the height of employment in 1944. The expansion of the Seattle facility in 1940, the establishment of a subsidiary in Vancouver, Canada, and the initiation of government-funded plants in Wichita, Kansas, and Renton, Washington, positioned Boeing to manufacture an impressive 18,519 military and naval aircraft during the Second World War. Beyond its own production, other manufacturers contributed 6,917 aircraft based on Boeing's designs, including the iconic B-17s and B-29s. This period stands as a testament to Boeing's significant impact on wartime aviation production.