How did De Havilland financially survive the Comet 1 disasters ?
Thread Starter
How did De Havilland financially survive the Comet 1 disasters ?
Recent issues with the Boeing 787 sometimes leads to a discussion of the financial impact on the business.
Makes you wonder how De Havilland managed to survive financially the Comet issues. Were the purchasers compensated in any way or was it just too bad ? What about all the costs associated with the production of the part-built Comet 2 and 3s that you can see pictures of in the assembly plants, which were later scrapped. The loss of years of revenues for all the forthcoming orders. The costs of all the Farnborough tests which must have consumed huge amounts of De Havilland staff time. The low numbers of Comet 4 orders must mean it did little more than cover its own costs.
I've also sometimes wondered why they just carried on with the same name into the Comet 4 production. Given the huge bad publicity (for what was essentially an aircraft designer's fault), why they didn't go for a different name.
Makes you wonder how De Havilland managed to survive financially the Comet issues. Were the purchasers compensated in any way or was it just too bad ? What about all the costs associated with the production of the part-built Comet 2 and 3s that you can see pictures of in the assembly plants, which were later scrapped. The loss of years of revenues for all the forthcoming orders. The costs of all the Farnborough tests which must have consumed huge amounts of De Havilland staff time. The low numbers of Comet 4 orders must mean it did little more than cover its own costs.
I've also sometimes wondered why they just carried on with the same name into the Comet 4 production. Given the huge bad publicity (for what was essentially an aircraft designer's fault), why they didn't go for a different name.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cape Town / UK / Europe
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt someone with greater knowledge than I will supply better answers, but I would say that there are several reasons :
In those days there was more trust and confidence and less litigation.
Margins were not as tight as they are now.
There were fewer aircraft manufacturers so less choice.
I believe DH laso made military aircraft and munitions - perhpas that helped too.
In those days there was more trust and confidence and less litigation.
Margins were not as tight as they are now.
There were fewer aircraft manufacturers so less choice.
I believe DH laso made military aircraft and munitions - perhpas that helped too.
Last edited by Tableview; 4th Feb 2013 at 10:09.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside, I was at the Science Museum on Saturday and the failed section of Yoke Peter is on display in the Alan Turing exhibition (his computers have assisted with aircraft crash investigation) It's a very sobering thing to see....
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVM Sir Ralph Sorley became MD, DH Propellers, in 1952 and took the firm into IR AAMs. On 1/3/54 US fired a lightweight nuke around which MX could be designed (to be Atlas ICBM). RAE had persevered with ballistics, despite Ministers abandoning V2 interest by 1948. They extracted research funds for ROF Woolwich "sounding rocket" (to be) Skylark, 5/54, and initiated dribble funds for ballistic vehicle study at EE and DH Props.
Comet 1 was grounded 4/54. Precisely in parallel with Justice Cohen's investigation (Report, 2/55) Churchill was persuaded by Air Marshals to Approve, 1/3/55 (to be) Avro 730 supersonic bomber, Blue Streak IRBM, Blue Steel ASM and Yellow Sun H-Bomb. (To be) Firestreak had been confirmed for Javelins and (to be) Lightning F.1 and Lostock Factory re-tooled for it. On 30/7/54 US agreed to licence Intellectual Property (guidance and propulsion) and make a $-contribution to UK's IRBM, which was assigned to DH Props. by default, as EE chose not to be involved ("risk of Nationalisation").
So, the DH Enterprise must be sustained. 19 Comet 4s were ordered for BOAC, 17/3/55; £10Mn. Study was provided by MoS to scheme Comet 5/D.H.118 (which BOAC encouraged until they bought 15 707-400, 10/56, then discarded DH 2/57). Incomplete Comet 2 airframes were turned into RAF transports. None of that would have happened if DH Props had not moved into GW.
(Main source: R.Twigge,Early Devt. of GW in UK, Harwood, 1993. As TV says, the world was less litigious in 1955 and I know of no vast cash sums flowing to thwarted Comet 1 operators).
Comet 1 was grounded 4/54. Precisely in parallel with Justice Cohen's investigation (Report, 2/55) Churchill was persuaded by Air Marshals to Approve, 1/3/55 (to be) Avro 730 supersonic bomber, Blue Streak IRBM, Blue Steel ASM and Yellow Sun H-Bomb. (To be) Firestreak had been confirmed for Javelins and (to be) Lightning F.1 and Lostock Factory re-tooled for it. On 30/7/54 US agreed to licence Intellectual Property (guidance and propulsion) and make a $-contribution to UK's IRBM, which was assigned to DH Props. by default, as EE chose not to be involved ("risk of Nationalisation").
So, the DH Enterprise must be sustained. 19 Comet 4s were ordered for BOAC, 17/3/55; £10Mn. Study was provided by MoS to scheme Comet 5/D.H.118 (which BOAC encouraged until they bought 15 707-400, 10/56, then discarded DH 2/57). Incomplete Comet 2 airframes were turned into RAF transports. None of that would have happened if DH Props had not moved into GW.
(Main source: R.Twigge,Early Devt. of GW in UK, Harwood, 1993. As TV says, the world was less litigious in 1955 and I know of no vast cash sums flowing to thwarted Comet 1 operators).
When did de Havilland become a company within the Hawker Siddley Group?
I know AVRO were a Hawker Siddley company from the time A V Roe sold out in the early 1930s but the title was only applied to AVRO designs in the mid 1960's.
Should the question be "How did Hawker Siddley financially survive the Comet 1" ?
I know AVRO were a Hawker Siddley company from the time A V Roe sold out in the early 1930s but the title was only applied to AVRO designs in the mid 1960's.
Should the question be "How did Hawker Siddley financially survive the Comet 1" ?
When did de Havilland become a company within the Hawker Siddley Group?
How did De Havilland financially survive the Comet 1 disasters ?
As an example, between 1948 and 1959 the DH Broughton factory produced over 3,500 aircraft, including 1,236 Vampires, 889 Chipmunks, 834 Venoms, 209 Doves, 149 Hornets, 129 Herons and 65 Mosquitos.
Last edited by spekesoftly; 4th Feb 2013 at 13:17.
I imagine that Boeing's defence work will protect it from any damage the 787 will have on its finances and therefore its future. However, the 787 which on paper looks like a great project may be just like the Comet; a leap too far for the aviation industry to fully exploit. Too much fancy technology for the modern "outsource everything" style of operation.
In time question might become "did the 787 debacle make the A350 a better aeroplane, like the Comet did the Boeing 707?" And in doing so signal the start of Boeing's retreat from developing commercial airliners.
In time question might become "did the 787 debacle make the A350 a better aeroplane, like the Comet did the Boeing 707?" And in doing so signal the start of Boeing's retreat from developing commercial airliners.
Paxing All Over The World
Interesting question but it might be said that, whilst deH survived the initial crisis, within six years it was gone (in all but name) and that indicates that it did not survive. Had the Comet have suceeded, we might have expected deH to have taken HS under it's wing, not the other way around. Boeing gained immeasurably by Comet and Vickers were, I suggest, unfairly tainted by association.
However, I'll stick my neck out and say "Boeing is too big to be allowed to fail" Given that Boeing is the majority of the US aircraft industry - they will continue. By hook or by crook!
However, I'll stick my neck out and say "Boeing is too big to be allowed to fail" Given that Boeing is the majority of the US aircraft industry - they will continue. By hook or by crook!
Thread Starter
I suspect that De Havilland selling out was due to two separate things. Firstly Geoffrey De Havilland himself was at retirement age (in fact beyond), it was his own and effectively a one-man business and there was no obvious heir (bearing in mind that his two sons were both killed in flying accidents).
Secondly it was government policy to merge up the myriad UK aviation manufacturers, hence we ended up with Hawker Siddeley's aircraft side and BAC. The government in those days use to have this approach in various industries, it was a classic civil service meddling to "organise the structure" without putting much money in; the French aircraft industry suffered exactly the same from their government as well. Quite why it was felt necessary when you look at the production volumes De H managed, that Spekesoftly refers to above, at their SECONDARY factory alone, let alone designing the world's first jetliner plus the pioneer jet engines to go with it, goodness knows.
Secondly it was government policy to merge up the myriad UK aviation manufacturers, hence we ended up with Hawker Siddeley's aircraft side and BAC. The government in those days use to have this approach in various industries, it was a classic civil service meddling to "organise the structure" without putting much money in; the French aircraft industry suffered exactly the same from their government as well. Quite why it was felt necessary when you look at the production volumes De H managed, that Spekesoftly refers to above, at their SECONDARY factory alone, let alone designing the world's first jetliner plus the pioneer jet engines to go with it, goodness knows.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I'll stick my neck out and say "Boeing is too big to be allowed to fail" Given that Boeing is the majority of the US aircraft industry - they will continue. By hook or by crook!
If, and I readily admit it is a rather big IF, Boeing should go under, the end result would be liken to reinventing the wheel. Instead of one giant, meets all needs company, such as Boeing is today, we would see a spin off and creation of three or four new aviation/aircraft manufactures. Some perhaps under their old names, such as Douglas, etc.
Just as it was 20-30 years ago.
But I'm sure, if Boeing ran into extreme financial problems, the government would bail them out. However, the last time Boeing was is deep trouble, when the US SST program was canceled, Boeing almost went under and the government did nothing. I just wish I had bought a pot full of Boeing stock back then. Hell, I'd of owned that Falcon 900EX I used to fly.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial Airplane Division is not the financial base of the Corporation. 787 will not bring the firm down. The issue will be fixed. We have been here before - JT9D/747, early days.
Thread Starter
Yes, there were some airframes parked up, without engines. But it was for a couple of months, not multiple years. The 747 was never grounded, and, despite the JT9D issues, Boeing delivered a large number of 747s in 1970-71 (in fact way more than 787s have actually been handed over since deliveries started - 170 frames within the first two years), and got the cash for them. They had also managed to sell the early 747s into a sellers market at pretty much full list price, compared to the minimalist pricing of the early 787s.
Paxing All Over The World
The differences in the world from 1970 to now are myriad - and fascinating. Essentially no comparison. For example, when the US SST was canx, Boeing was not the only game in the USA.
I am happy to accept
and I agree that no company should be too big to fail - but they are not going to let Boeing go down as they now have most of the eggs in one basket.
I am happy to accept
Commercial Airplane Division is not the financial base of the Corporation.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that when Boeing made the decision to go ahead with the 747 they effectively put the company on the table.
See: The Sporty Game: The High-Risk Competitive Business of Making and Selling Commercial Airliners (John Newhouse, 1982, Alfred A. Knopf)
DH Comet TV Programme
A Great British Air Disaster - Channel 4 Sunday 24th February 2013, 20:00 - 21:00 GMT
Not marked as a repeat, but CH4 did something similar a few years ago.
Not marked as a repeat, but CH4 did something similar a few years ago.
On 13 June 2002 Channel 4 broadcast a highly biased and inaccurate hatchet job on de Havilland and the Comet
A detailed complaint was made by a number of ex-de Havilland staff, some of whom had been interviewed, and their words were so edited as to completely change their meaning. Other unfounded allegations that knowledge of metal fatigue had been deliberately and culpably ignored by the company and its staff for commercial gain were also made.
The then extant Broadcasting Standards Commission found against Channel 4 and detailed apologies had to be broadcast and also printed in newspapers. A summary is on page 4 of this:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...bulletin70.pdf
If this year's version repeats the same matter I for one will not be in the least surprised.
A detailed complaint was made by a number of ex-de Havilland staff, some of whom had been interviewed, and their words were so edited as to completely change their meaning. Other unfounded allegations that knowledge of metal fatigue had been deliberately and culpably ignored by the company and its staff for commercial gain were also made.
The then extant Broadcasting Standards Commission found against Channel 4 and detailed apologies had to be broadcast and also printed in newspapers. A summary is on page 4 of this:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...bulletin70.pdf
If this year's version repeats the same matter I for one will not be in the least surprised.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DH and the Comet Program
Is it correct to say that the fatigue cracks came from narrow radius corners on the ADF 'window' cut-outs in the skin? and that the failures from the 'square' passsenger windows were secondary (and that changing to circular or elliptical passenger windows was not essential but a belt and braces fix and a wise publicity move).
What is the correct story re replacement of Redux bonding of a component near the ADF cut-out with a rivet joint for production convenience?
Was it an appreciated factor that fatigue cracks from holes punched out (by press tools?) in pressure cabin sheet components were more likely than from drilled holes?
Whilst fatigue in pressure vessels was a recognized possible failure mode (hence Vickers selection of oval windows in the contemporary Viscount) was there any knowledge back around 1947-1949 of fail-safe crack tolerant structural designs or was that the main lesson and area of advancement after the Comet 1 disasters?
What is the correct story re replacement of Redux bonding of a component near the ADF cut-out with a rivet joint for production convenience?
Was it an appreciated factor that fatigue cracks from holes punched out (by press tools?) in pressure cabin sheet components were more likely than from drilled holes?
Whilst fatigue in pressure vessels was a recognized possible failure mode (hence Vickers selection of oval windows in the contemporary Viscount) was there any knowledge back around 1947-1949 of fail-safe crack tolerant structural designs or was that the main lesson and area of advancement after the Comet 1 disasters?
Last edited by A30yoyo; 21st Feb 2013 at 17:25.