DH Comet model
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that 60+ years after the Comet I disasters there is still confusion over what happened? I was under the impression that the failures initiated from an ADF window (NOT initially the passenger windows) on the front of the aircraft roof and that rivetting had been used in production without design study and authority. The switch to round passenger windows was just a symbol and not copied by Boeing or Douglas. Shoot me down if I'm wrong
The switch to round passenger windows was just a symbol and not copied by Boeing or Douglas.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too understand that the problems had initiated in the roof ADF window, but assumed they had gone through the same design and revision process as the cabin windows, ie originally spec'd for Redux then revised to redux + rivets, is that correct, or were were they just riveted without Redux?
Seeing as Caravelle and L1011 managed well enough with "cornered" windows suggests to me that de H wanted to put visible distance between early and later models so that everyone could see that "the problem had been fixed" even if many then and now do not fully understand the exact cause.
Whenever I hear people blaming the window shape alone as the cause I refer to Caravelle and L1011 windows to show that things are not always as simple as they seem!
Seeing as Caravelle and L1011 managed well enough with "cornered" windows suggests to me that de H wanted to put visible distance between early and later models so that everyone could see that "the problem had been fixed" even if many then and now do not fully understand the exact cause.
Whenever I hear people blaming the window shape alone as the cause I refer to Caravelle and L1011 windows to show that things are not always as simple as they seem!
The irony in referring to the Caravelle is that its whole nose section, including the ADF aperture, was designed for Sud by De Havilland, based on the Comet itself (look and compare), and the first couple of Caravelle noses were actually manufactured for them at Hatfield.
Among the more extreme designs that followed was the Handley Page Herald, which had circular/oval apertures throughout, including where the flight deck is fixed into the front upper fuselage.
I never understood why De Havilland came back with the substantially redesigned Comet 4 but with the same name, instead of choosing a different model name for it.
Among the more extreme designs that followed was the Handley Page Herald, which had circular/oval apertures throughout, including where the flight deck is fixed into the front upper fuselage.
I never understood why De Havilland came back with the substantially redesigned Comet 4 but with the same name, instead of choosing a different model name for it.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always felt that keeping the Comet name was a big mistake. The later ones were virtually different machines, but never shook off that name's reputation. Even now when I tell people that one of my earliest memories is flying in a Comet the vast majority show an instant expression of concern and alarm and say things like "You're lucky to be alive".
Perhaps when they were operational more airlines might have bought them but thought they would loose passengers with a plane whose name STILL seems almost as cursed as Titanic. Shame.
Perhaps when they were operational more airlines might have bought them but thought they would loose passengers with a plane whose name STILL seems almost as cursed as Titanic. Shame.
I think it a pity that threads like this are always hijacked by people who feel the need to express views on matters that they had no part in and which took place when ideas, methods, knowledge and people were very different from anything they can have experienced.
I have no need to join in so will just say that, had DH not called the Comet 4 a Comet, we would have been accused of trying to hide the fact that it was one.
I have no need to join in so will just say that, had DH not called the Comet 4 a Comet, we would have been accused of trying to hide the fact that it was one.
I think it a pity that threads like this are always hijacked by people who feel the need to express views on matters that they had no part in and which took place when ideas, methods, knowledge and people were very different from anything they can have experienced.
On that basis we would have a very limited view of history. As an example, no one alive fought at the battle of Waterloo but it is possible to research it and then have an opinion about it.
In the case of more modern history we do still have some of the participants with us so they can give their perspective on the event. Others who were not closely involved can still have very valid opinions and it is often interesting to hear them, in this case: the development of the Comet.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like to discuss things with an open mind, stating what I believe to be true but happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable. Interesting to hear Alan Lupton's view about changing the name also being taken as an attempt to hide the fact. Good and valid point! Sometimes whatever decision you take might lead to repercussions and/or debate.
Nothing will ever persuade me that the Comet was anything less than one of the most beautiful planes ever made, a marvel of its age, a glimpse of the future and a stunning trail-blazer which left the rest of the world a decade behind, and all that from a shattered and bankrupt country, I LOVE it!
Nothing will ever persuade me that the Comet was anything less than one of the most beautiful planes ever made, a marvel of its age, a glimpse of the future and a stunning trail-blazer which left the rest of the world a decade behind, and all that from a shattered and bankrupt country, I LOVE it!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the OP It's hard to tell from just a photo but the colour and the mention of how light it is makes me suspect it's MAZAK which is great for casting but an absolute nightmare to do any thing else with. It was much beloved by Uncle Joe Lucas Prince of Darkness. As mentioned it may be a promotional item but it has the look of a work shop retirement piece. Helped to make a few myself as an apprentice, slate mounts and machined etched brass faces for clocks, that kind of thing. Not really done nowadays but used to be common when we still had workshops where people served for many years.
DeHavilland built beautiful airliners pre-war. To my knowledge, only the Flamingo was all-metal. They certainly had no experience in pressurized metal structures. Boeing had its Stratoliner, B-29 and Stratocruisers, Lockheed itsL949 Aand Later Connirs and Douglas the DC-6.
De Havilland had to cope with metal, pressurization and very high altitudes (compared with pistons) so the learning curve for them was much steeper. Perhaps it is not so surprising they stumbled in the structural area.
They were gutsy to leap ahead of everyone..A beautiful machine with deep flaws.
De Havilland had to cope with metal, pressurization and very high altitudes (compared with pistons) so the learning curve for them was much steeper. Perhaps it is not so surprising they stumbled in the structural area.
They were gutsy to leap ahead of everyone..A beautiful machine with deep flaws.
