Am I being Unreasonably Irritated?

[Opssys]

I was reading an article on the A400M which I was beginning to find so biased and badly written I was about to give up, when I came across a paragraph which made me irritated:

By contrast, the 707's only serious rival, the British De Havilland Comet 1, crashed three times after it came into commercial use -- in two of the crashes killing everyone on board. Unlike Boeing, with its long-established experience in building jet bombers, the British had never before mastered the problems of safely maintaining fully pressurized aircraft interiors at high altitudes.
I thought de Havilland shared the results of the investigations with Boeing, which assisted them with the design of the Civilian Boeing 707, or am I being ureasonably irritated?
Opssys

[WHBM]

Were Boeing's predecessor bombers (B47 and B52) "fully pressurised" ? I thought only their crew areas were pressurised. It's a bit difficult to have a fully pressurised bomber anyway, if you think about it. A bit like someone once said to me that our skydiving jump ship (Turbolet L410) was obviously OK up to 14,000 feet because it was pressurised .... :)

If you were going to select the "707s only serious rival" I also would have thought the DC8 might get a bit of a look in.

To call the Comet 1 a 707 rival is also a nonsense as it had been marketed, introduced to service, and prematurely withdrawn even before the 707 was first offered for sale. The very first 707 order placed (Pan Am) was in October 1955, 18 months after the Comet 1 was finally withdrawn from service.

[deltayankee]

an article ... so biased and badly written


I think it is fair to be irritated, but the writer perhaps did not know better, was using tainted sources or simply only had time to look at one page of google results.

Setting the record straight will make it more likely that the story will be represented fairly next time otherwise the same story will just be copied from document to document until it becomes unstoppable. There are many ways to do this: add a note to the WIkipedia 707 page, start message threads like this on google-able forums and write to everyone who writes a dodgy account.

[Opssys]

The source was the an Article by Defense Industry Editor for one of the respected Wire Services and was republished (although probably totally automatically) into a respected newsletter that covers this type of Defence news/analysis/opinion and I suspect, but don't actually know, has been republished in various media that don't have any defence, or aerospace editorial staff (i.e. most of them).

As the original Story appeared on the 20th March (I didn't get the email Newsletter until today), it is already unstoppable, To (mis)quote Terry Prattchet 'A lie travels round the world while the truth is still getting its boots on'. Having just gone back over the article, I am even more irritated, but as it isn't History, or Nostalgia, it isn't for this Forum/Thread.

[Kieron Kirk]

To (mis)quote Terry Prattchet 'A lie travels round the world while the truth is still getting its boots on'.

Similar quote can be found from Mark Twain.

Ciarain.

[ATNotts]

I think the (mis)spelling of the word "Defence" speaks volumes.

Written by an American, for an American audience - hence the side-swipe at the non-American Comet.

Don't know, just guessing!

[philbky]

Unfortunately modern technology, understaffing and lack of time, lack of research and a widespread acceptance of the "it'll do" mentality mean that future historians are going to have just as difficult a job to split fact from fiction and half truths from legends as current and previous seekers of facts from the past havc had.

As the technology now exists to permanently and indestructably preserve accurate written and photographic information, it's a pity that even some of the most respected so called "journals of record" have scant regard for accuracy....and then of course, once rubbish is published on the Web it gains the status of "fact" by others who can't be bothered to research and cross reference.

[tornadoken]

Opssys: I don't think you can be seriously irritated, nor, this time, should we all roast the hack. Pan Am's October,1952 order for 3 Comet 3 stirred up Transatlantic politics. Ike told Churchill that $ funding for Avon (shadow production) gave US veto rights on commercial exploitation. He was seriously miffed that the Korean War Super Priority for allocation of scarce materials had been extended by UK beyond military agreed-standard types into Viscount/Britannia/Comet 3, all attracting US orders/Enquiries. WSC dismissed the assertion; Ike in June,1954 terminated UK's share of the Defense Mutual Support Program, which others enjoyed to 1956. Lockheed's selection for US tanker was split into a 2-source buy, funding 717 as KC-135, from which a civil variant, Dash 80, to be 707-100, was derived. That took benefit from RAE/Judge Cohen's report on the Comet 1 fatigue failures causing 2 of the 7 crashes of the 19 delivered Comet 1. Several of UK's Brabazon suite of 1943-48 designs suffered from pressurisation; Boeing enjoyed Garrett AiResearch's products, starting with B-29: UK (Westland) took a licence as NormalAir. Mk.1 is a confusion, but this hack is closer than many in aero stories.
(Source for much: J.A.Engel,The Surly Bonds:American Cold War Constraints on British Aviation,P18,Enterprise& Society,1-1-6-2005,OUP).

[Opssys]

tornadoken.
Thank you for the information, some of which I admit to having not been even vaguely aware of before. Also the reference to the development of the 707
That took benefit from RAE/Judge Cohen's report on the Comet 1 fatigue failures causing 2 of the 7 crashes of the 19 delivered Comet 1answers the data sharing question from my original post,

As for the rest, you have increased my almost infinite to do reading list by:
The Surly Bonds:American Cold War Constraints on British Aviation,
So much to read, so little time.
Opssys

[Groundloop]

Lockheed's selection for US tanker was split into a 2-source buy, funding 717 as KC-135, from which a civil variant, Dash 80, to be 707-100, was derived.

Lockheed!!! Boeing, shurely?

Or is this a deliberate illustration of poor research?:ok:

[tornadoken]

AmericanHeritage.com / Gas Stations in the Sky (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/4/2004_4_10.shtml). Lockheed won with CL-291.
"On August 3, 1954, with the jet-tanker design competition still in progress, the Air Force decided to buy interim tankers. The Air Force Secretary, Harold E. Talbott, announced an order to buy 29 tankers from Boeing. Less than two weeks later the Air Force said it would buy 88 more Boeing tankers. It looked as if Boeing was set to win the competition, but it didn’t. In February 1955 the Air Force announced that Lockheed had won the competition and at least one of its tankers would be funded for construction. In the very same announcement, however, Talbott said the Air Force would buy an additional 169 tankers from Boeing. Eventually it canceled Lockheed’s paper proposal."

[philbky]

Tornadoken has been looking into some very muddy waters - waters which may yet have secrets to give up but which show just how much the UK was under the thumb of the US when it came to aircraft development.

WHBM points out quite rightly the nonsense thrown up by the shoddy way the piece is written.

There has to be a very interesting story - as yet untold as far as I know - behind Boeing's decision to go ahead with the KC135 on what was initially a limited basis and just what went on to ensure the Lockheed "winner" was ditched.

No doubt in 55 or more years time people will be trying to dig out the facts behind the EADS/Northrop v Boeing tanker competition and coming across similar problems.

[Opssys]

philbky wrote:
Tornadoken has been looking into some very muddy waters - waters which may yet have secrets to give Like many muddy waters full of interesting, but potentially 'scary' things

There has to be a very interesting story - as yet untold as far as I know - behind Boeing's decision to go ahead with the KC135 on what was initially a limited basis and just what went on to ensure the Lockheed "winner" was ditched.One of the amazing things about PPRuNe is as threads 'drift' they sometimes become more interesting than the original subject, as in this case!

However to Update the original subject - Despite the useful answers on the specific Paragraph that caused my irritation, I am still very miffed over much of the entire article from whence it came.. However NOT as miffed as those who have made their feelings known in another place, so will NOT be adding my 'two penny worth' as others have reflected my views with more 'force' than I would have done!.
But it is interesting that the Article has NOT appeared in subsequent issues of the Email Newsletter (normally back articles of this nature are retained towards the end of the email for a couple of days).

The days when an article intended for a Specific Domestic Audience only circulated amongst its targeted readership, have with the arrival of worldwide internet usage disappeared. OK this one went worldwide when published, but I suspect it would have 'escaped' eventually and still cause some controversy.

[Rainboe]

Yes, but no, but.... but the article was about the A400! Whatever became of it? Awfully quiet, that one!

[wz662]

Whatever became of the B787? I seem to recall that rolled out a long time before the A400M:rolleyes:

[Opssys]

A search under Google News: Shows quite a lot of A400M and 787 Dreamliner News reports and references this Month.

Neither project has proved easy for the respective manufacturer. I have on ocassion felt sympathy for both the A400M and 787 Project teams (not a natural reaction for me)

Currently there appears to be more light at the end of the tunnel for Boeing, but whether this will be dimmed by Airlines cutting back orders just as the technical side fully resolved, remains to be seen!

As for Airbus, well the fate of the project is ultimately going to be decided by the politicians but as a technical project it has not been something EADS will trumpet as an example of their prowess. Although I wonder if at least some of this was due to at an earlier stage taking their eyes off the A400M ball to sort out the A380.

Both will in a decade be the subject of serious discussion in History and Nostalgia as the then current Gurus of PPRuNe delve into the why's and the wherefores (plus the what ifs and what nows).