That's also why it had a higher loss rate because of a manufacturing error, because no airliner had been so high before, they thought the manufacturing error wouldn't cause any problems. They were wrong though.
@@AureliusR *Stop making lame excuses for de Havilland's incompetence and negligence.* *We know from the official investigation records that de Havilland admitted that they never preformed any stress calculations for the Comet as built.* *They relied on estimates based on a fatally flawed fatigue test of only one section of the fuselage that was already prestressed by an overpressure test and never tested the frame sections that caused the catastrophic in-flight structural failures.* *Had they done the proper calculations they would have known what we know today, that the fuselage would fail prematurely at exactly the same frame location as the aircraft that crashed.* *Boeing had already produced thousands of prior to the Comet Disaster with no incidents of catastrophic in-flight structural failures.* *Both de Havilland and the RAE received technical data on metal fatigue in pressurized cabins from the B-29 program during WW2, but de Havilland was still building aircraft primarily from wood and fabric.* *The Comet Disaster was completely preventable if de Havilland had only followed well-known and understood industry standards for the design and construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys.* *The only lesson learned from the Comet was that aircraft manufacturers could no longer be trusted to conduct their own crash investigations.*
