Тёмный

JET AGE: Triumphs And Failures. The Early Battle For Air Dominance: Boeing Vs. De Havilland 

DroneScapes
Подписаться 350 тыс.
Просмотров 114 тыс.
50% 1

The early battle for air dominance after WW2. The Jet Age revolution of post WW2.
De Havilland against Boeing, Tupolev, and many other aviation innovators.
The De Havilland Comet became the first passenger jet airliner in the world, initially powered by Frank Whittle's turbojet, the British inventor who, contrary to popular belief, had a working turbojet before Germany in April 1937.
Some initial mistakes are reminiscent of today's issues with companies like Boeing, who also had initial teething problems, just like De Havilland's notorious issue with their Comet.
The de Havilland DH.106 Comet is the world's first commercial jet airliner. Developed and manufactured by de Havilland in the United Kingdom, the Comet 1 prototype first flew in 1949. It features an aerodynamically clean design, four de Havilland Ghost turbojet engines buried in the wing roots, a pressurized cabin, and large windows. It offered a relatively quiet, comfortable passenger cabin for the era and was commercially promising at its debut in 1952.
Within a year of the airliner's entry into service, three Comets were lost in highly publicized accidents after suffering catastrophic mishaps mid-flight. Two of these were found to be caused by structural failure resulting from metal fatigue in the airframe, a phenomenon not fully understood at the time; the other was due to overstressing of the airframe during flight through severe weather. The Comet was withdrawn from service and extensively tested. Design and construction flaws were ultimately identified, including improper riveting and dangerous stress concentrations around square cut-outs for the ADF (automatic direction finder) antennas. As a result, the Comet was extensively redesigned with structural reinforcements and other changes. Rival manufacturers heeded the lessons from the Comet when developing their aircraft.
Although sales never fully recovered, the improved Comet 2 and the prototype Comet 3 culminated in the redesigned Comet 4 series, which debuted in 1958 and remained in commercial service until 1981. The Comet was also adapted for various military roles such as VIP, medical, passenger transport, and surveillance; the last Comet 4, used as a research platform, made its final flight in 1997. The most extensive modification resulted in a specialized maritime patrol derivative, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, which remained in service with the Royal Air Force until 2011, over 60 years after the Comet's first flight.
The Comet was involved in 25 hull-loss accidents, including 13 fatal crashes, which resulted in 492 fatalities.[186] Pilot error was blamed for the type's first fatal accident, which occurred during takeoff at Karachi, Pakistan, on 3 March 1953 and involved a Canadian Pacific Airlines Comet 1A.[82] Three fatal Comet 1 crashes were due to structural problems, specifically British Overseas Airways Corporation flight 783 on 2 May 1953, British Overseas Airways Corporation flight 781 on 10 January 1954, and South African Airways flight 201 on 8 April 1954, led to the grounding of the entire Comet fleet. After design modifications were implemented, Comet services resumed on October 4, 1958, with Comet 4s.
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories and missions ➤ / @dronescapes
To support/join the channel ➤ / @dronescapes
IG ➤ / dronescapesvideos
FB ➤ / dronescapesvideos
X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesv...
#comet #Boeing #aviation

Наука

Опубликовано:

 

12 апр 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 59   
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes Месяц назад
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes To support/join the channel ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos ➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj ➤ THREADS: www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
@u47mkbg
@u47mkbg Месяц назад
first !🏆🎖
@miscbits6399
@miscbits6399 20 дней назад
Shute's autobiogarphy makes it very clear No Highway was about the Comet. He was fired from de Havilland and gagged using the Cfficial Secrets Act after publishing a memo detailing metal fatigue issues, which is why he migrated to Australia He was also heavily involved in R101 and heavily criticised it before its maiden voyage Comet would have been ok if the workforce had been infoermed of the issues. The punch rivets were forced into slightly too small holes (causing microcracking) and overtightened (exacerbating the issue) - window corners was the easy thing to blame but engineers had actually designed to avoid those stresses. They also designed with heavy use of adhesive bonding due to pressurisation issues - de Havilland manglement insisted on rivets because "they knew best" (never having built a pressurised aircraft before) - this was the crux of Shute's criticisms
@martinhumble
@martinhumble Месяц назад
Amazing work. Great documentary, editing, upscaling and - well everything. Hats off!!
@BatGS
@BatGS 3 дня назад
Greetings: I love the old Connie flying on 1 engine. I flew on a few of those. What a dream. Great memories.
@BatGS
@BatGS 3 дня назад
Greetings: How many of us remember flying in these planes? What a time. Things sure have changed. I would rather drive.
@stevenreyes3680
@stevenreyes3680 Месяц назад
I was going to say something… I took a 747 to Hawaii in 1971. I came back 6 months later on a 707. It felt like a race car compared to the family wagon ? More like a Winnebago… PS I didn’t know it started out as a tanker…
@awuma
@awuma Месяц назад
My first flight in a 747 was out of Honolulu circa 1975, sitting at a window at the back on the left, so I could look all the way forward, seeing the long curve of the fuselage inside and the lights of Waikiki on the outside. Unforgettable. Also had many flights in 707s and even a 720, and lots of DC-8s. Even though the 707 and 737-800 carry about the same number of passengers, a recent visit to Dayton and being on board the Presidential 707 at the Air Force museum showed just how much more substantial is the 707 compared with the 737, especially the wing.
@jadall77
@jadall77 22 дня назад
@@awuma I'm younger missed a lot of these airliners in this video but remember my dad telling me I think if I'm on a dc-10 you can really see the fuselage bend and I was sitting in the back of the plane and was like holy fuck! Also I'm pretty sure kc-135s are still in service I used to live in Topeka they still had them there. It is an air refueling unit. I used to see b2's flying low patterns i could see the color of the pilots eyes they were flying so low. guessing they were doing like landing touch and go's or landing training stuff.
@mariano7699
@mariano7699 Месяц назад
Amazing Constalation
@jadall77
@jadall77 22 дня назад
At about 35:00 minutes the guys shutting off all but 1 engine saw a modern clip from a I think p3 orion shutting off all but 1 engine because they have to keep it out on rotation for anti submarine or radar and to conserve fuel they can fly around on 1 of 4 engines. Which is a different model of a 1950's airliner.
@mikecawood
@mikecawood 6 дней назад
The additional fuel tank in the Super VC10 was in the tail fin NOT the fuselage.
@user-kw5qv6zl5e
@user-kw5qv6zl5e Месяц назад
The placement of engines (totally rear or underwiing) is an interesting study. In the end look at if like this...rear engines ...top tail.. thats a lot of stuff to put in a place it "sort of looks like it doesnt balance" You are totally balancing hardware (engines) with consumables (fuel) farther forward. The centre of gravity and the centre of lift are alaays in the move in both cases. So lets say now we have an elevator problem...or an engine out...straight away we see in rear engine ...YAW...big time ..pushed from the back...its better to "tow" a plane from the front (middle) ...think of a shopping trolley...its worse push from the back..drag it from the front ..hard but better...you notice the effort is less. Only until the F16 fighter turned up did we see beautiful "ouf of control " casters"
@falconprout8857
@falconprout8857 Месяц назад
What do you mean by casters?
@user-kw5qv6zl5e
@user-kw5qv6zl5e Месяц назад
@@falconprout8857sorry .. not by me ... autocorrect from this end ... astable control..."casters " is a euphemism for where are we going next ...there are graphs for its performance online.. interesting to see how it matches SU27/35...we already know Ukrainian MIG 29s weren't an easy target even though they are a generation behind.
@williambrasky3891
@williambrasky3891 Месяц назад
What are you on about? In reality, airplanes with the engines, and therefore the center of thrust, closer to the centerline will experience less adverse yaw in the event of an engine failure. This is due to a little slut called Leverage. You see, an airplane is a lot like ur mom, in that any time there’s a change of position she’s gonna move as if she’s balanced on a big pole that runs straight through till it hits her center of gravity. Losing an engine that’s mounted out on/ under the wings is like when you go to spin her around like a top while she sticks both her arms straight out, parallel to the floor, so a buddy can rotate her about her axis by pushing against one of her hands/ forearms. Losing an engine in a plane with engines mounted up against the fuselage is like trying the same move, but this time you have a buddy push against one of her boobies. And I’m not sure who told you that a tractor configuration is always any more or less efficient than an equivalent pusher set up, but they told you wrong. There’s a long answer, but the short answer is, it depends. And I want you to know I’m sorry I had to involve your mom. Truly, I am. It’s just I find it easier making analogies with things that have something in common, and when I imagine planes, I always imagine myself in a cockpit… so….
@jadall77
@jadall77 22 дня назад
I remember some disaster where the jet was only running it's tail engine with like it's wing or side engines shut down and the engine naturally pushes like nose up or nose down the engine doesn't push strait back maybe they engineered that into the design because it is how it runs with all its engines in normal operation. In the case I'm thinking about with the remaining engine the pilots got the nose up or down handled enough to emergency land I think.
@jadall77
@jadall77 22 дня назад
I'm on the big section about the connie there is one flying around still and it's gorgeous I think it's called Connie.
@jadall77
@jadall77 22 дня назад
49:00 or so into the video I think I saw a thing about the dc-8 breaking the sound barrier they took it up high and put it in a dive and it stuck their flight controls for a moment before they got control of it again but yeah they broke mach 1. Also It was I think a test or company flight so had limited persons on board.
@brucegibbins3792
@brucegibbins3792 Месяц назад
In their rush to be first to fly a passenger jet, the British were doomed to produce a flawed aircraft. In contrast, American aircraft manufacturers, took what time was nessesery to release a more utilitarian design and more reliable airliners that quickly became the preferred choice of Airlines around the world. The British were masters of innovation, yet much less so in implementation.
@PETERYOUNG-ko9to
@PETERYOUNG-ko9to 14 дней назад
Thanks!
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes 14 дней назад
Thank you 🙏
@awuma
@awuma Месяц назад
Lovely film sequences, but quite often the spoken commentary is not about what is being shown (e.g. talk about turboprops when only piston engined aircraft are being shown). Not a single Viscount shown during the first Viscount segment.
@neilsunn
@neilsunn 13 дней назад
Loved the L-1011.
@mikecawood
@mikecawood 6 дней назад
You seem to be confusing a Douglas DC4 with a Vickers Viscount.
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes 6 дней назад
You are right, but on RU-vid you cannot correct it once it is posted
@321-Gone
@321-Gone 18 дней назад
You've got to stop saying twin piston engines. Gear heads will immediately think of a 2 cylinder engine, and say wait, what did you just say?. Could you imagine a 20 liter 2 cylinder engine?
@user-xj6rr3yv8q
@user-xj6rr3yv8q Месяц назад
Post WWII Britain aviation 'thrived' what?
@jimczerwinski4951
@jimczerwinski4951 Месяц назад
Sculldugery played a big part of their downfall
@PeteSty
@PeteSty Месяц назад
Jet Age? Boeing vs de Havilland? This is Lockheed vs Douglas. And they aren't jets!
@mikecawood
@mikecawood 6 дней назад
The Boeing 707 was so much better than the De Havilland Comet.
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes 6 дней назад
But the Comet was a groundbreaking aircraft as well, despite the notorious initial fatal flaws. It is interesting to note how these days Boeing is consciously and constantly releasing aircraft that are born flawed, or in other cases simply ignores fatal flaws for financial reasons. I doubt back in the days Wall Street was a concern for those companies. Back in the days Whittle expressed doubts about the shape of windows, but his remark did not make DeHavilland make modifications. It is also interesting to note how much Britain shared with the U.S. in terms of technology, including turbojets. We all know that the very first turbojet powered aircraft to fly on U.S. soil was powered by a variant of Whittle's turbojet, which was shipped in great secrecy, together with the inventor, to General Electric in 1941. the same engine also powered the first operational U.S. jet fighter, Kelly Johnson's F-80 Shooting Star. It is also important to note that Metrovick also shared their knowledge on axial turbojets, and the Miles assisted Bell with aerodynamic issues (Bell X-1). A British engine also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet (licensed). Obviously Britain owed to the U.S. during, and after WW2, and you can see that here and there in those years.
@christianwentzien1106
@christianwentzien1106 2 дня назад
Shame on Boeing now !
@user-kw5qv6zl5e
@user-kw5qv6zl5e Месяц назад
The mode of failure you describe is NOT CORRECT!!!!....NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS...The skylight-aerial hole in the top was the origin...it ENDED AT the windows ...rounding square windows was a rectification which LOOKED as if this was the cause
@_triff
@_triff Месяц назад
No need to shout!
@mizake01
@mizake01 Месяц назад
It's ARCHIVAL film. Teedee : )
@user-kw5qv6zl5e
@user-kw5qv6zl5e Месяц назад
@@mizake01 smartarse
@mizake01
@mizake01 Месяц назад
@@user-kw5qv6zl5e Well, Thank you :)
@eat_a_dick_trudeau
@eat_a_dick_trudeau 4 дня назад
Simmer down rain man.
@jasons44
@jasons44 21 день назад
Watershed?
@fireboltjd
@fireboltjd Месяц назад
I have a heavily modified g80 m3 that looks EXACTLY the same as this M2 under the hood. These inspections are a joke and waste of both the police and citizens time.
@michaelpielorz9283
@michaelpielorz9283 Месяц назад
.
@raymondttompson2638
@raymondttompson2638 15 дней назад
It was a British aircraft so therefore flew in miles per hour, not kilometres.
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes 15 дней назад
…Although Britain is slowly adopting the metric system, and the vast majority of the planet also uses the metric system. That is, apparently, well over 90% of the world population. As most people tend to learn English as a common language, it also seems easy to learn to convert km to miles and adapt to most common way of measuring speed around the world. It is also a good exercise for the mind and not so complex either.
@raymondttompson2638
@raymondttompson2638 14 дней назад
@@Dronescapes we are not talking about now we are watching a film of an aircraft from the early 1950s, and in this country we still travel in MPH as the road signs dictate, it just comes across as trying to make it sound faster than it really is, it's the same when people are discussing something monetary in the UK and describe the amount in US dollars, it's just weak sensationalism
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes 14 дней назад
@@raymondttompson2638 my reply was vaguely sarcastic… With km/h and mph you are always going to upset someone, no matter what. It is sort of the endless tomato drama, but I still think that anyone would benefit from being able to do some on the fly conversion. You never know, you might travel to Europe one day, and that would help not getting totally confused. Flexibility is usually a good thing.
@ZacLowing
@ZacLowing 13 дней назад
3 minutes in and I've heard brittan 38 times. No thanks
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes 13 дней назад
Well, they are very relevant in aviation, especially in that period. During WW2 they provided the fundamental Merlin engine. Whittle invented the turbojet in 1937, and Britain handed it over, together with the inventor, to the U.S. in 1941. Whittle's turbojet, in the hands of General Electric, equipped the first jet aircraft to ever fly on U.S. soil, in 1942 (Bell XP-59). It also equipped the first operational U.S. jet fighter. Lockheed/Kelly Johnson's F-80 Shooting Star. It fought (unsuccessfully) the MiG15 in North Korea, which was ironically also powered by the same British engine, reverse engineered by the Soviets. The same engine also powered the first jet powered airliner in the world, the de Havilland Comet. That same engine also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet. Let's also not forget the the contribution of Metrovick, which was working on the axial turbojet, and shared their research (same as Whittle) with the U.S. the legendary P-51 Mustang was initially made for the British. Miles contributed to fix aerodynamic issue that Bell had with the X-1, allowing Yeager to break the sound barier. Britain (and France) built the only truly operational supersonic passenger jet, the Concorde, still unsurpassed. Again, the Soviets simply stole the plans and tried to copy it. but the Tu-144 was a true disaster. Boeing was asked to beat Concorde with the SST 2707, but that wasn't to be, as the program, so fundamental to Kennedy, just as much as beating the Soviets to the moon, was cancelled. Concorde still remains one of the most beautiful, and iconic aircraft ever built. The list goes on... Britain might have semi vanished from aviation innovation, but back then it was extremely innovative, even without immense amount of money to spend.
@jasons44
@jasons44 21 день назад
Things r different now, Boeing is dead
@risaacpadilla3889
@risaacpadilla3889 2 дня назад
What a circular-wishful production. Plenty of "however"s and"nevertheless"s, until the point in which watchers feel nauseated. It seems to be made not for them to learn about history, but to pretentiously wash the face of the british aviation industry for political purposes. Its consistent failures, representative of an ancient industry, financed by british tax payers in some way or another, those flying gaskets never end serving commercial airlines fleets; like the 707s successfully did around the world. Curiously, manufactured airplanes from the occidental world continued financing the intellectually-diminished arrogance of few "sirs" of the royal circle. History indeed shows that an elite with diminished expectations kept insisting in doing what they never were prepared for. Competing in a niche for which even the Russians were better qualified. Terminals of british airports, overwhelmingly dominated by American built planes; financed the nationalism mania of positioning airliners doomed in testing periods. Dark ages of so-called achievements, that ended, hope; with the concord. An almost brilliant way to recycle comets. Six (6) mosquitoes on wings went to fleets domainded by 707s, DC-10s and L1011s. Half of them bought by Air France, concordes continued the pattern from those dark ages of britain's aviation industry, protagonizing in 2000 one of the biggest tragedies. Ironically, in american soil. The difference is that those pieces of junks were far from being prototypes. Tragically, the already banned planes in many airports at the time, ended one of the most incompetent eras of aeronautical design for 113 reasons.
@Dronescapes
@Dronescapes День назад
I think you referring to the Concorde with an e. It still remains an astonishingly wonderful aircraft to this day, and a symbol of when flying was glamorous, and something to look forward to. People even saved all their lives in order to fly once in it, something to aspire to. Was it perfect? No, but was it something to fantasize about, absolutely yes. Unless you are too young to have lived that era, or you lived in a cave for the past 50 years, that's what Concorde symbolized. If someone never saw it before and saw it today, they would still think it came from the future, just like the Lockheed SR-71, another stunning creation (also full of flaws). Do not forget that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. tried to do the same with either no result at all (boeing 2707), or an unsuccessful and borderline pathetic outcome (Tu-144), despite stealing the plans, and attempt to copy it. Kennedy made a speech similar to the famous moon speech, urging the U.S. to beat Concorde. It wasn't to happen. The Comet was indeed flawed (depressurization), but it was still the first jet powered aircraft, and also achieved some impressive milestones, but today we have companies like Boeing that are aware of deadly mistakes, and simply do not care because they have to please investors and beat Airbus (and there is also plenty of UK in Airbus's origins). As a further reminder, Britain provided the U.S. with such innovations as their first turbojet (commonly known today as jet engine). It was shipped in great secrecy, together with the inventor, Frank Whittle, to General Electric in 1941 (they are still widely grateful to this day). It also became Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet. It powered the first jet aircraft to fly on U.S. soil, and also the first operational one, designed by none other than the great Kelly Johnson, the F-80 Shooting Star, which ironically had the same British derived turbojet as the MiG15, which proved to be superior in the Korean War (swept wings). The Soviets simply copied it after Rolls Royce sold them some. Britain also shared their axial turbojet knowledge (Metrovick) and assisted Bell with aerodynamic issues (Bell X-1). Mentioning the Merlin engine also comes easy... Some of Britain's inventiveness got lost over the years, but they still produce brilliant engineers. To name one, the engineer considered to be the absolute genius of the pinnacle of automotive engineering (F1), Adrian Newey, is very much British, and so is 1/2 of the sport. Ford, in order to beat Ferrari at Le Mans, had to basically use British engineers, and spend a fortune. They are quite good at that, when they are allowed to work, and aviation has a lot of engineering involved.
@daveballin
@daveballin Месяц назад
Far too long.
@u47mkbg
@u47mkbg Месяц назад
First !
Далее
100😭🎉 #thankyou
00:28
Просмотров 27 млн
Münster Raid - The 100th Bomb Group is Wiped Out
26:39
Fleet Admiral Ernest King - Semper Iratus
1:04:02
Просмотров 972 тыс.
The Insane Engineering of the X-15
31:30
Просмотров 8 млн
Over 3 Hours of Aviation History | Rex's Hangar - Season 2
3:11:55
How the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird Works
55:30
Просмотров 2,9 млн
Плохие и хорошие видеокарты
1:00
Индуктивность и дроссель.
1:00