de Havilland DH 106 Comet; the First Jet
08-28-2011, 12:19 AM
#1
Eats shoots and leaves...
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
de Havilland DH 106 Comet; the First Jet
Everything old is new again:
08-29-2011, 04:52 PM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Cessna 210 Turbo
Posts: 50
I take it the Boeing 787 will break up in mid-air? I also do not see the 787's engines buried in the wings either. I don't quite see the resemblance!
Of course, that Comet (IV?) was of later design. Either way, how many did it carry, 80?
How in Heaven's name do you compare a 787 to a Comet?
Also, look at the nose of the Comet. On what part of of another aircraft do you think part of it was based on?
Hint: They sit in museums today. It took just one crash and a poor economy to take them out of service. Y'a never knew that, eh? It's the truth though!
Of course, that Comet (IV?) was of later design. Either way, how many did it carry, 80?
How in Heaven's name do you compare a 787 to a Comet?
Also, look at the nose of the Comet. On what part of of another aircraft do you think part of it was based on?
Hint: They sit in museums today. It took just one crash and a poor economy to take them out of service. Y'a never knew that, eh? It's the truth though!
08-29-2011, 05:54 PM
#4
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Cessna 210 Turbo
Posts: 50
Okay, educate me. How does the Comet have the same nose as a 787, and how does it bear any other resemblance to the 787?
I think I know where you folks are going, but you're just not there. Also, the 787's VS is not straight up enough!
I recall a guy one time trying to tell me that the Comet brought on the "Jet Age" of jet passenger transportation. I told him, "No, the Boeing 707 did that, along with the DC-8. The Comet provided us with the means for modern crash investigation!" Few got off the ships and on to the planes until the 707 hit the skies! The Comet never did that, especially after they started popping like balloons, with loss of all on board. Welcome to the world of pressurization and metal fatigue.
However, the British did serve to teach us modern crash investigation. They put a Comet in a water tank and worked her out until she cracked around the square window frames they had with the first model.
No, not everything old is new again. But, knowing history is not a bad thing either.
I think I know where you folks are going, but you're just not there. Also, the 787's VS is not straight up enough!
I recall a guy one time trying to tell me that the Comet brought on the "Jet Age" of jet passenger transportation. I told him, "No, the Boeing 707 did that, along with the DC-8. The Comet provided us with the means for modern crash investigation!" Few got off the ships and on to the planes until the 707 hit the skies! The Comet never did that, especially after they started popping like balloons, with loss of all on board. Welcome to the world of pressurization and metal fatigue.
However, the British did serve to teach us modern crash investigation. They put a Comet in a water tank and worked her out until she cracked around the square window frames they had with the first model.
No, not everything old is new again. But, knowing history is not a bad thing either.
08-29-2011, 06:21 PM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 73
Okay, educate me. How does the Comet have the same nose as a 787, and how does it bear any other resemblance to the 787?
I think I know where you folks are going, but you're just not there. Also, the 787's VS is not straight up enough!
I recall a guy one time trying to tell me that the Comet brought on the "Jet Age" of jet passenger transportation. I told him, "No, the Boeing 707 did that, along with the DC-8. The Comet provided us with the means for modern crash investigation!" Few got off the ships and on to the planes until the 707 hit the skies! The Comet never did that, especially after they started popping like balloons, with loss of all on board. Welcome to the world of pressurization and metal fatigue.
However, the British did serve to teach us modern crash investigation. They put a Comet in a water tank and worked her out until she cracked around the square window frames they had with the first model.
No, not everything old is new again. But, knowing history is not a bad thing either.
I think I know where you folks are going, but you're just not there. Also, the 787's VS is not straight up enough!
I recall a guy one time trying to tell me that the Comet brought on the "Jet Age" of jet passenger transportation. I told him, "No, the Boeing 707 did that, along with the DC-8. The Comet provided us with the means for modern crash investigation!" Few got off the ships and on to the planes until the 707 hit the skies! The Comet never did that, especially after they started popping like balloons, with loss of all on board. Welcome to the world of pressurization and metal fatigue.
However, the British did serve to teach us modern crash investigation. They put a Comet in a water tank and worked her out until she cracked around the square window frames they had with the first model.
No, not everything old is new again. But, knowing history is not a bad thing either.
08-29-2011, 06:49 PM
#6
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
I take it the Boeing 787 will break up in mid-air? I also do not see the 787's engines buried in the wings either. I don't quite see the resemblance!
Of course, that Comet (IV?) was of later design. Either way, how many did it carry, 80?
How in Heaven's name do you compare a 787 to a Comet?
Also, look at the nose of the Comet. On what part of of another aircraft do you think part of it was based on?
Hint: They sit in museums today. It took just one crash and a poor economy to take them out of service. Y'a never knew that, eh? It's the truth though!
Of course, that Comet (IV?) was of later design. Either way, how many did it carry, 80?
How in Heaven's name do you compare a 787 to a Comet?
Also, look at the nose of the Comet. On what part of of another aircraft do you think part of it was based on?
Hint: They sit in museums today. It took just one crash and a poor economy to take them out of service. Y'a never knew that, eh? It's the truth though!
08-29-2011, 07:17 PM
#7
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
History Channel
de Havilland Comet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
08-29-2011, 09:04 PM
#8
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Okay, educate me. How does the Comet have the same nose as a 787, and how does it bear any other resemblance to the 787?
I think I know where you folks are going, but you're just not there. Also, the 787's VS is not straight up enough!
I recall a guy one time trying to tell me that the Comet brought on the "Jet Age" of jet passenger transportation. I told him, "No, the Boeing 707 did that, along with the DC-8. The Comet provided us with the means for modern crash investigation!" Few got off the ships and on to the planes until the 707 hit the skies! The Comet never did that, especially after they started popping like balloons, with loss of all on board. Welcome to the world of pressurization and metal fatigue.
However, the British did serve to teach us modern crash investigation. They put a Comet in a water tank and worked her out until she cracked around the square window frames they had with the first model.
No, not everything old is new again. But, knowing history is not a bad thing either.
I think I know where you folks are going, but you're just not there. Also, the 787's VS is not straight up enough!
I recall a guy one time trying to tell me that the Comet brought on the "Jet Age" of jet passenger transportation. I told him, "No, the Boeing 707 did that, along with the DC-8. The Comet provided us with the means for modern crash investigation!" Few got off the ships and on to the planes until the 707 hit the skies! The Comet never did that, especially after they started popping like balloons, with loss of all on board. Welcome to the world of pressurization and metal fatigue.
However, the British did serve to teach us modern crash investigation. They put a Comet in a water tank and worked her out until she cracked around the square window frames they had with the first model.
No, not everything old is new again. But, knowing history is not a bad thing either.
It was pretty good. I think they look a lot like especially if you compare either to the Dash 80, 737, 727, 7... same plane... 757, 767, A320, and so on. It's just a comparison. Funny picture. The difference is, again, the E175 is profitable and the Comet actually flew in service.
08-29-2011, 10:47 PM
#9
Eats shoots and leaves...
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
I take it the Boeing 787 will break up in mid-air? I also do not see the 787's engines buried in the wings either. I don't quite see the resemblance!
Of course, that Comet (IV?) was of later design. Either way, how many did it carry, 80?
How in Heaven's name do you compare a 787 to a Comet?
Also, look at the nose of the Comet. On what part of of another aircraft do you think part of it was based on?
Hint: They sit in museums today. It took just one crash and a poor economy to take them out of service. Y'a never knew that, eh? It's the truth though!
Of course, that Comet (IV?) was of later design. Either way, how many did it carry, 80?
How in Heaven's name do you compare a 787 to a Comet?
Also, look at the nose of the Comet. On what part of of another aircraft do you think part of it was based on?
Hint: They sit in museums today. It took just one crash and a poor economy to take them out of service. Y'a never knew that, eh? It's the truth though!
I do know my history, enough to know that there were actually five Comet crashes prior to it's withdraw from service, four of which were fatal: Two runway overruns (Rome & Karachi) due to improper rotation, an in flight breakup due to failure of the horizontal stabilizer in a severe thunderstorm near Calcutta, and of course the two infamous inflight breakups near Rome and Naples due to metal fatigue.
And the Comet did usher in the the age of jet passenger travel, while due to the metal fatigue problem it was surpassed by the larger Boeing and Douglas products (as well as the VC-10), it was years ahead of them and was very popular and successful during it's initial operation. The Comet 4 was in use until the early 1980's, and the RAF version, the Nimrod was only recently retired.
The parallel between the Comet and the Concorde is interesting - they both were cutting edge airliners, both the first of their kind, neither achieved the commercial success their manufacturers would have hoped for, and they were considered the most prestigious way to travel (at least initially for the Comet.
For the record - I'm not really a rabid Comet fan, but I do think it had a very significant role in the development of commercial aviation, both in and of itself and in the accident investigation process. Incidentally, it is reputed that both Boeing and Douglas acknowledged that had the Comet not "paved the way" on the metal fatigue problem, they would likely have had the same issues.
Last edited by bcrosier; 08-29-2011 at 11:20 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
turk
Flight Schools and Training
29
01-13-2012 05:58 AM
