Why You Wouldn't Want to Fly The First Jet Airliner: De Havilland Comet Story 

*The downsides outweighed any perceived advantages... the configuration is less aerodynamic, causes excessive interior cabin noise that requires extra heavy sound insulation, it is more difficult to service or replace the engines and greater risk of damage to the airframe and injury to passengers in the event of a fire or un-contained catastrophic engine failure (which is still a threat even today), the wing root mounting also prevents the aircraft from being upgraded to newer more efficient and powerful turbofan engines like the Boeing 707 received and continues to receive as it remains in service beyond the 2040's.*

@@user-ky6vw5up9m OH YAW!

@@doktorbimmer Also, that mounting caused airflow patterns around the air intakes that tended to starve the engines. That was a factor in the Comet takeoff accidents. The problem was exacerbated by spanwise airflow that occurred with swept wings, directing air away from engines near the wing roots. .

@gcrav *Excellent comment, in fact a complete redesign of the Comet's engine inlets was required to pass air-worthiness certification in later models. The exact same problem would again come back again to haunt Hawker-Siddeley with the Nimrod and was a major factor in the cancellation of the BAE Nimrod MRA4*

Yes, most of us already know all the technical problems of wing integrated engines. That aside, it looks sleek and more modern than what's common today. Add some winglets, change the tail design and the Comet would look better than any current airliner.

The early Comet's engines weren't powerful and the aircraft's structure had to be light in order for the plane to reach its required performance targets, so the plane's skin was paper-thin, like kitchen foil,strong but very thin, subject to immense pressure from within at high altitude...

@flip inheck The early "Comet" design was a flop but the plane was redesigned to get rid of its shortcomings: when the revised planes started being produced and delivered in the late '50s, Boeing's superior "707" variants had won most of the orders for big transatlantic-range airliners.

@@None-zc5vg Bollocks little idiot. You have no idea.

@@None-zc5vg Boeing had to pay bribes and hide the design fault on the 707 which killed more people than the Comet

Stfu

How was the flight? I've always been curious about someone's experience on one of these beauties.

Wow! Very cool

Did it fell apart

@@Maximus20778 i dont think so ;-;

@@dontknowwhattoputhere2793 well obviously hes commenting here

king james488 funny how older planes look more futuristic like the sr-71 blackbird

@@joeboi1342 also b2 and f117

A lot of our modern planes are still from the 70s and 80s.

The Boeing 707 series is still in service, the tanker version is expected to remain in service until the 2045 or longer.

It is funny that the shape of the nose on the Comet, with the cockpit windows following the same curvature as the rest of the nose, is remarkably similar to that on the three newest airliners; the 787, A350 and A220.

Beautiful it may be, but unlike Concorde, the Comet was not safe.

@CovertCoder01 not really. At first yes but the Comet never really recovered in sales following the two accidents. The Comet 4 for instance, while an improved design and safer, hardly made any sales.

@CovertCoder01 But even then compared to newer Jet airlines, the Comet wasn't very fuel efficient either. It was more efficient than the propeller aircraft it replaced, but newer jet airlines? no.

I concur. The Comet has the most elegant and sleek nose profiles of any airliner bar none. I've always wondered why other airliner designs never mimicked it. That was until the Boeing 787 Dreamliner arrived, but still not as good.

@flip inheck Turbo props aren't jets.

Yeah, a young boy seeing pictures of the wright brothers and their first plane would have grown to watch jet fighters and commercial jet planes in the sky near the end of their life. If he survived WW1, Spanish Flu, the Great Depression, and WW2.

80/20 rule

As harsh as it sounds, it is a fact that war is the strongest steroid for invention.

Bruno Altobello You’re right, and it’s a shame that that’s the way it was. But hopefully in modern times we can innovate further without the need for in fighting.

Remember that prior to the Comet Disaster DeHavilland was still building planes the same way as the Wright brothers did, from wood and fabric.

Last of the Gone w the Wind cast.

Yeah it is a great design but it's just not efficient. You need huge high by-pass engines now.

Not really fun

The Comet Disaster remains a shameful example of how NOT to build a jet airliner. The tragedy of the Comet Disaster was that it could have been easily prevented if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for design and construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys. The truth is Boeing, already the world's leader in pressurized airliners flew the 707 prototype in July 1954 before anyone knew what caused the Comet Disaster.

@@sandervanderkammen9230 There seems to be some idiots posting inane & rather ridiculous comments in any videos that mention the Comet?

@@paulpaul9914 *Please name a single British company that still makes commercial jet aircraft in the U.K.?*

@@paulpaul9914 *I don't think you're an idiot, just uneducated, misled and pathetically biased*

@@sandervanderkammen9230 "Name a single ....." UK Aerospace & nuclear power / weapons engineering sectors - highest per capita sector specific activity on the planet.

Except for the straight-finned empennage, yes.

It's probably still used today. In the 60s the RAF replaced its Lancaster-based maritime patrol aircraft with the Nimrod, which was basically a Comet airframe reconfigured for the role. The replacement, the P-8, only entered service much later

Comet is the most beautiful plane in history of aviation. Those cute engines and sweet front of the plane with its painting... Awww

It has to be because of the integration of the engines into the wings. There's nothing that looks like it in civil aviation since.

True True

tbf you probably wont feel it for very long

lol you wouldn't even know about it it would be a very quick death

*Quick death? Not for the folks at De Havilland... it was a slow and humiliating death for the company that was finally defunct in 1959.*

@@roblaa3198 it's a quick splat, but you see it coming all the way down.

Those people died from pulmonary barotrauma that means their lungs exploded

That's what I was thinking! Best intro I've seen yet.

Part of problem very expensive to maintain engines in there hours and hours just to inspect

@@garypeatling7927 Yup thats true, but honestly modern jets look ugly compared to this. But we gotta be happy that we took function over form.

@@hoen2009 The Comet's engine placement was a fatal flaw in its design and was responsible for several fatal accidents. Based on a aerodynamic theory that was later proved to be incorrect, the. Germans had already developed data on the ideal placement of jet engines in subsonic aircraft. Data later used by Boeing and Douglas thanks to Operation Lusty and Operation Paperclip.

@@sandervanderkammen9230 what aerodynamic theory back then that make this Comet design a failure?

@@FnD4212 Placement of the engine inlets in the leading edge of the wing was believed to have aerodynamic and performance advantages however several of the Comet crashes are directly related to this flawed theory. DeHavilland failed to do its due diligence in proper wind tunnel and prototype testing. Modern aircraft designers avoid placing the engine inlets in the leading edge for these reasons.

*Flying was something that the Comet 1 just didn't do well... which is why its airworthiness certification was permanently revoked and the aircraft in the fleet that had not yet crashed were grounded and were scrapped.*

@@doktorbimmer can you stop using the bold letter it started looking a bit corny

doktorbimmer You idiot did anyone here say it was a good aircraft? It’s about the looks and I have to agree it looks good.

@@TijmensAviation I say the comet was a very good aircraft, the Comet 4 went on for many years with a low accident rate. doktorbimmer is well known for hating anything British.

I wonder if the Hawker Nimrod has a beter designed fuselage

Agreed. But sad to say, it creates major problems, primarily by taking up space inside the wing that can be used for structural support (to make the wings stronger) or fuel (to give the plane better range). Also, the failure of an in-wing engine usually blows the wing off and destroys the airframe, whereas the failure of a hanging engine doesn't usually doom the aircraft because the debris has two separate barriers to penetrate and a lot further to travel if it wants to smash anything important. People recently were outraged when a hanging engine failed on a jetliner, blew up, smashed the nearest porthole window out and killed the poor woman leaning against it. Nearly sucked her out, in fact. But....Other casualties? 0. Wing intact? Yes. MISSION SUCCESS. Crass, but true. That spray of debris was BELOW the engine, got deflected away from the hydraulics and fuel by the armor on the bottom of the wing, and instead blew out a single porthole in a non-critical area. A dog's breakfast, but one that DOESN'T crash the plane, and therefore not so bad. The amount of power those things harness is crazy. The DC10 for many years had external engines EXCEPT for one in the tail which was internal. It was that engine that was responsible for most of it's crashes, since a huge compressor lighting on fire or blowing up directly next to your important flight controls in the tail was typically fatal for everybody.

As a mechanical engineer (not aircraft), I would guess, perhaps, because an integrated engine would be a bitch to work on, which would drive up maintenance costs and the overall cost of commercial flying. And don't get me started on resonant frequencies..

Well, you can have sexy or you can have safety. Not both.

@@jasoncarswell7458 Wait, did not the DC-10 also integrate the different doors that depressurized abd opened during flight because they electric locks didn't close right, pulling giant holes in the planes?

Also, if one engine needed to be removed, I'd imagine that the Comet's wing would have to be taken off just to get to the engine.

The Comet Disaster was the worst engineering failure in the history of aviation... it is disgraceful that the DeHavilland personnel responsible were never punished.

@@sandervanderkammen9230rappy is a pathetic liar, 707 design fault killed more people, DC19 design faults killed many people, 787 was grounded because it is dangerous, 737 MAX grounded but still not fixed. It was very disgraceful that McDonnel Douglass and Boeing have been allowed to make such bad designs.

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Vin DurbKrappen / Dr DikBummer - poster of SO much BS They need the world's largest cow herd..? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_707

​@@sandervanderkammen9230 said in the video other manufacturers admitted they would have had to learn as well though

@@James-dv1df That is a popular but completely false urban myth that is easily debunked by the slightest scrutiny. The Comet Disaster could have been easily prevented if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standard for design and construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys. de Havilland company was decades behind in aircraft technology and was still building aircraft primarily from WOOD and Fabric well into the Jet Age. The only thing that was learned by the _Comet Disaster_ is that manufacturers cannot be trusted to conduct their own aircraft crash investigations.

Liar

@@theyracemesohardchair Grow up....

Bro how fucking rich are you 💀💀

LOL🤣🤣🤣

Joke in bad taste! :-(

@George Buller *Its not a joke... the Comet disaster was one of the worst engineering failures in history...*

@@doktorbimmer You make it sound like they knew there were issues. Don't forget, the Comet was - for its time - at the very cutting edge of advancing technology.........

@Goerge Buller *Of course they knew there were huge risks and went forward anyway... **_WAS IT?_** Boeing had produced the first large all-metal, fully pressurized commercial passenger airliners in 1938... at a time when De Havilland was still building wooden biplanes... Boeing was vastly more experienced in large multi-engine planes and critically with large multi-engine jets with the cutting edge B-47 **_Stratojet_** years earlier...*

jordan hardink good work jordan.... im proud of you like my own son

Any plains of flying it again, maybe just for historical plane expositions?

I'm jealous of you.

I have a cousin who has helped restore historic propeller-driven birds. I’m grateful people with your skills use them this way.

But not approved for flight.

We gave it all away 😂 Look at the mills we had, as soon as the bosses realised foreign shores saved a lot of money we lost an industry. Jet industry Nuclear industry Pioneered by us and given away for no return Im still coming to terms with how shit this country actually is

jamsstar2010 imagine your entire thought process being ‘what stuff we have’

Perhaps the UKs self-image as a technical innovator was simply exaggerated?

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I'd hardly suggest it's exaggerated - We've always seemed to be better at creating academic new things but never entrepreneureal enough to become a market leader.

@@EpicMania18Perhaps if we are discussing the steam age but by the 20th century the UKs self image as a technology leader is without doubt greatly exaggerated if not completely fictional in some cases... like the development of jet engines.

Americans completly rejected jet engines and then a guy from Lockheed came to Britain and flew in the comet (even flying it himself). It shattered his anus and American industries.

@Michell C *Please tell us what british companies make commercial airliners today?*

@@doktorbimmer For a start, you aren't clever changing the subject because you're a bit butt hurt. Second, name an American plane that's built in America....... Aviation is our biggest industry and we build enough of your shit, because you know , global-iz-im innit. Think we still build CRJ aircraft in NI. Plus, plans for future aircraft is there also, supersonic and military. Even a damm spaceport in Newquay. Jesus Christ.

@Michell C *I'm not changing the subject, De Havilland went "tits-up" in 1959 and there are no british commercial aircraft made in the UK anymore. Bombardier NI. is a **_Canadian_** company.*

@Michell C *That is easy, Boeing is the largest manufacturer of large transport aircraft in the world....*

You were actually on board Comet G-ALYV before it departed Calcutta on May 2, 1953? Wow! That must be absolutely surreal. Do you remember anything else about that experience?

Wow. That is like Waylon Jennings, who gave up his seat to the Big Bopper on the plane with Buddy Holly and Richie Valens. He took a bus instead. The rest, on the plane? Well that was the day the music died. For them, anyway. Weird, how sometimes fate just seems to intervene (you're not dying today!)

British Overseas Airways Corporation

"Flew in from Miami Beach BOAC, didn't get to bed last night..."

You must have been rich to fly on a jet back then. You sound posh how you say "Had mother not been..." In normal English we usually say, "If my mom hadn't been..."

You really need to get you eyes checked.

​@@sandervanderkammen9230 Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc and co - they should note good with much awestruckness & extreme wonderment. *UPDATE BREAKING NEWS ETC* *_It's interesting that some of the aircraft on the list should really have been noticeably safer than the Comet due to being a similar type but of much later design & manufacture but they definately were not safer._* How things were back then - *_Accident losses - % of aircraft built._* DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all mks 17% Vickers VC10 UK 5% *_The DH Comet had better safety than or similar safety to many other commercial passenger aircraft of a similar era_* Douglas DC-1 99% Douglas DC-2 47% Douglas DC-3 30% Douglas DC-4 26% Boeing s300 72% Boeing 307 70% Boeing 247 48% Boeing 707 20% Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Sud Aviation Caravelle 15% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% A comparison of more recent aircraft. Accident losses comparison examples. 1970s - 1980s % of total Aircraft built Similar aircraft type, date / decade, useage, size. Biz Jets BAe-125-800 1.7 % Beechcraft Beechjet 400 2.2 % Cessna 550 Citation II 7.1 % Learjet 35 / 36 12 % Beechcraft 1900 6% Dassault Falcon 10 11.5% Aérospatiale SN.601 22.5% Medium size jets / Turboprops. BAe-146 5.1% Fokker 100 6% McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 9.5% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% Beechcraft, Fokker, McDonnell Douglass, Learjet, Fairchild, Aerospatiale, Canadair, Convair companies defunct. All Comets, including some Comet 1s, had full civilian use certification at some point after 1954, civilian use certification only being withdrawn after commercial flying stopped. Examples were flying until 1997 - one example did a signals research global circumnavigation flight series in 1993 via Australia virtually without a rest travelling 28000 miles, only had an ice warning indicator issue during the flights. *The DH Comet - World Firsts.* 1st gas turbine jet powered airliner. 1st high altitude 8psi pressurised full fuselage length passenger cabin airliner, not a trivial feature as structure strength required for pressurisation considerably exceeded strength required for normal flying stress. Nobody else had done anything similar before the Comet. The b-47 used 2 relatively small, heavily built pressurised modules (the aircraft where 6 had their wings fold up in 2 months while flying & some had their wings fall off while parked). The 1937 Boeing piston engined airliner pressurised passenger cabin was pressurised to 2 psi only - in fact that could easily be done as the normal unpressurized fuselage cabin structure strength for flying stresses only was all that was needed to be adequate so no significant weight increase issues needed addressing. 1st all hydraulically powered flying surface controls & actuators airliner with under carriage wheel disk brakes + ABS. 1st jet airliner to cross the Atlantic. 1st jet aircraft to do a world circumnavigation flights series. *Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft including thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland & we know the world's first all metal construction airframe airliner was built in England in the 1920s by Handley Page.* *_De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, no evidence of negligence ever being produced in relation to the DH Comet._* The course of De Havilland & the general UK aerospace industry sector was not affected even slightly by the DH Comet. *_Other interesting World firsts_* *Vickers Viscount Turboprop Airliner 1947* *Gloster Meteor Turboprop Aircraft 1945* They might like to answer these questions. *Which airline has just ordered* *60 RR England Trent XWB Engines* *& What aircraft are the engines for?* _Bonus question for 10 points._ Which country has the *World's Highest Combined Per Capita Nuclear + Defence + Aerospace Sector Activity?* 👍 Cheers 🙂 .. ... ..... ....... ........ ixixixixxixicivcvcvc

That's just not true. Take a B-777, the Boeing Dash 80 and the flying artillery shell and put them side by side. Now tell me which aircraft Dash 80 or the artillery shell looks almost identical to the very modern 777. 😎

Thank you! New video coming soon:)

And new jet aircraft? *MMMMMMMMMMMM*

hahahahahaha

So what is next SSSSSSSSS?

@@nigelmarvin1387 LMAOOOO

A10-warthhog be like: you whirrrr and you eeeee that's cute A-10 *brrrrrrrttttttssssss*

Working below wing at an aiport and I'm still amazed every day

Well, YOU don't personally, lol...

Once asked a pilot how they stay up and he told me. I didn't understand one friggin word....lol

As a short time between the Wright brothers flight I want airplanes were high in the sky in the 30s 40s 50s etc. Amazing amazing engineering

But remember, somehow we just “eVOlvEd”

Indeed - the last aircraft of my own career was the mighty 747-400, but I'll readily concede that the A380 is noticeably quieter in the cabin. As for smoothness of landing - in all modesty, that depends mostly on the competence of the pilot, although some aircraft types are inherently more difficult to land than others. The DC-8 was difficult to land well, and the Lockheed L-1011-200 TriStar (which I flew for a year and a half before converting to the 747-400) was also a handful. This was due not only to its rigid landing gear struts and main gear trucks maintained at 90 degrees to the struts, but also because of its alarming tendency to dump lift very rapidly if you entered the flare at any speed below Vref + 10. My father maintained that the Bristol Britannia 312 always gave him problems on landing (he flew the Britannia for nearly seven years for BOAC). Conversely, he loved the VC10, and found it relatively straight forward consistently to make smooth landings therein. In my own career, I found the BAe-146 and the B744 were the easiest to land - there were times I put the 744 down, and even in the cockpit we didn't know when or even if we'd touched down.

Flew on them also in the early sixties as a kid , I still have a free tiny postcard size Comet 4 jigsaw they gave to kids on the flight back then . Happy days going to Ibetha as it was spelt back then .

woah 38"! the average today is about 29-31"!!!

Indeed - I have manufacturers' documents from Vickers in the 1960s which describe the all-Economy class seating configuration on the VC10 at 34" pitch as being "high density" - and I quote! The Vickers VC10 Type 1180 'Superb' (a double-deck/'Double-Bubble' design which was never built), was designed to carry 295 passengers in a 'high density' all-Economy class cabin layout, at 34" pitch and six abreast. I did my calculations and discovered that the VC10 Type 1180 could have carried 343 passengers in all-Economy class seating at 29" pitch/six abreast.

xetalq At least you made it to all of those places and back in one piece! I often think about air travel back then, and how safe it was compared to today.

SSOrontes now it can be done in half that time.

SSOrontes How long ago was this if I may ask?

How old are you darling?

John Tam Here's a handy frame of reference: In the mid '40's, Sydney-London took 4 days with 6 stops. By the '50', Sydney-London was down to 54 hours same number of trips. In 1960, the fastest trip from Sydney to London was 34 hr 30 min with eight stops. In 1970, Sydney- London took 29-32 hours with 5-7 stops (this improved drastically, shortly after with the 747). In 1989, a Boeing 747-400 flew nonstop from London Heathrow to Sydney in just over 20 hours. With the 787-Dreamliner, Sydney-London non-stop in 15 hours.

Now you can do that one way on a BOEING 747. Hell, even a 727-77 can do that

*Too bad it was the worst aircraft ever made...*

which one?

@@doktorbimmer You dont know anything about the worst planes. The very worst plane was the Wright Kitty Hawk Flyer which ONLY flew 4 times and was super unstable and slow. Losers.

@Herve B *What about all the first attempts that never flew??? Like Welhelm Kreiss or Samuel Langely???*

@Herve B *The **_Comet Disaster_** was the worst engineering failure in the history of aviation, De Havilland's incompetent engineering and shoddy construction and criminal negligence produced an aircraft that disintegrated in mid-flight and mass produced it anyway . Other companies managed to built jet airliners like the Boeing 707 that were safe and successful.*

The engines in the wings was viewed as a fire prevention problem in an un- contained engine failure. The B707 engine pylons were meant to shear off in a crash or sudden engine stoppage.

Melinda Reiter nice info! But whatever the reasons....it was sleek and sexy in my opinion.

This must have made maintenance a lot more complicated and longer as well - just to gain access to the turbines would have been an huge effort.

de Havilland loved unconventional designs. Check out the Sea Vixen, for example. It looks like something out of Thunderbirds.

Agreed it’s super pretty

Yes...and people actually got dressed up to fly...today half of the passengers are total pigs and smell bad...and then there are the lunatics who cause some sort of 'incident' because they are 'special'. I absolutely hate to fly these days.

...I remember passengers dressing up...most people have no social skills, or at least don't use them while flying or in airports...my wife used to SFO to PHX at night, stopping in Vegas to pick up loud, sunburnt, obnoxious drunks in flip flops...I avoid flying if I can anymore...

Yep a cattle car with wings.

- Wow ok that went from 0 to 100 quick

Comet ???? 1980 ???

Oh how I remember Dan Air!

Dan Air never operated Comet 1 aircraft. Despite being modified with round windows all the Comet1s had their airworthiness certification revoked. Dan air flew Comet 4s, a completely redesigned aircraft. The Nimrod was designed and built by Hawker Siddeley decades later... History proves that planes that have engines on wing mounted pylons can and do land safely on water... History also proves that placing the engines inside the wing caused many fatal crashes... which is why this flawed design is not used anymore.

@@derektaylor2941 The remaining Comet 1 aircraft that were not destroyed in accidents or broken up after 1954 were modified with round windows. In 1958 it was determined that these aircraft would never be safe to carry passengers and all Comet 1 aircraft had their civilian airworthiness certification permanently revoked. No commercial airline used the Comet 1 after 1958. The Comet 4 series is a completely redesigned aircraft and is very different in appearance and operated with a different type certificate. The Nimrod is not a de Havilland Comet, while 2 unsold Comet 4C aircraft where extensively modified to build the first prototypes. The Nimrod was designed by Hawker Siddeley nearly 2 decades later...a completely new aircraft albeit specifically designed to repurpose millions of pounds worth of unsold parts and unused tooling from the canceled Comet 4C production line. While many ancillary parts and systems are interchangeable between the Comet 4 series and the Nimrod... their airframes, engines and structural parts are not interchangeable, they are different aircraft with different type certificates. Only amphibious aircraft are designed to land safely on water, their engines are typically mounted above the wings and fuselage... neither of the Comet's nor the Nimrod were designed to be amphibious or land on water... so it's a completely moot point. The Comet 1 suffered four runway excursions in 1949, 1950, 1952 which completely destroyed the aircraft and 1953 which destroyed the aircraft and killed people. These failures to take-off are directly related to the severely flawed placement of the engines inside the wings, specifically the disruption of airflow to the inlets mounted in the wings leading edge at high angles of attack. There were approximately 100 Comets in total that saw operational service but 26 aircraft crashed or were destroyed in accidents. A loss rate of 1 out of every four in service, and appalling loss rate and the worst safety record of any jet airliner in history.

@@derektaylor2941 No, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod is not a de Havilland Comet... Just like a Poseidon MRA1 is not a Boeing 707.

@@derektaylor2941 You have made several false assumptions based on your very limited knowledge and experience... and have made yourself look like a fool... don't blame me for pointing out your errors.

Lachlan O'Neil - LOL. First. You are such a moron (and probably a pre-teen one at that) that you actually had to type 'No one cares' as 'n1 crs'? ROFL. A longer sentence, I could understand. But three short words. Again...ROFL. Second. You made the post after people had already thumb'd up it (including the guy who created it). So you still typed something that you already knew to be 100% false. Try using more of what brain cells you have before you type a post and you will not come across as quite so stupid.

McRocket same I already knew this but I enjoyed this video

Here's your 83rd like.. nice comment, and nice video at that

same here. to the OP, i chuckled at the closing graphic/animation ( the mustard meteorite.) if someone actually built that plane or used its name, i dont think it would sell. "meteorite"

McRocket yeah I know it was quite hillarious but I stand strong on my point.

It's just you. I'd rather bonk Jessica Alba than an aeroplane, you sicko!

@@Revelian1982 actually I think they are beautiful

Neither will happen Revelian

All planes are really beautifull

Check out concorde

sorry to hear this amigo..it must have taken a lot of courage to fly a plane of any sort in those early days

Comet G-ALYY Navigation Officer A. E. Sissing. Both my grandfathers designed planes for the US government and McDonnell Aircraft (what would become McDonnell Douglas) during the 1940s and 50s; it's why we moved to St. Louis.

This is like the 4th comment about how they have some weird connection this flight or plane

Do you mean "first officer"?

@@chocomanger6873 No. They meant what they said. The equivalent in modern times would be a Second Officer, but not really because they were not pilots. They had a map, a compass, a ruler, a stopwatch and a pencil. In early aviation, the Navigation Officer would be responsible for keeping the aircraft on course and would give headings to the Pilot (Captain) and Co-pilot (First Officer). There would also be a Flight Engineer who would be monitoring the engines and gauges. The Captain wore a coat with 4 bars, the First Officer had 3, the Navigation Officer had 2 bars and the Engineer had 1.

The last models were just as safe as the other Boeing Variants though, it's just the original window design that was at fault.

muya kill em all if you look at all Aircraft of its time they ALL had square windows, so just used the same type, BUT nobody had EVER CONSIDER the pressure differential at the cruise altitude, the grand difference was NONEof the other aircraft were PRESSURISED.., AND that was the sum difference.

Being a pilot myself, I’d love to fly some of the later, safer Comets.

Leighton Samms The difference wasn't that no other craft were pressurized, but that no other craft faced such a large pressure differential because of it's uniquely high cruising altitude.

*It wasn't that there were earlier aircraft that were pressurized, the problem was none had ever been made by De Havilland... in fact not only had DH have zero experience with pressurized aircraft, it had little to no experience building large aircraft, jet powered aircraft or using all-metal construction... DH had only ever produced a single engine jet fighter... and it was very primitive being constructed mostly from wood.*

What?

There was no economy. It was all first class.

@Desmond Bagley You mean Aeroflot flight 593?

The same thing, for the same price, exists today: Private (GA) jet planes.

Douglas didn't say that he was flying the aircraft. In fact, Douglas didn't even mention one word about being in the cockpit of those aircraft.

All de Havillands are old... they went out of business in 1958 thanks to the _Comet Disaster_

@@sandervanderkammen9230Liar, De Havilland didn't go out of business, they merged with Hawker Sidfeley and were still going years later, they had borrowed from the government but paid it back.

@@barrierodliffe4155 *Please name a single British company that still makes commercial jet aircraft in the U.K.?*

deHavilland's the manufacturer's though

@@DrSabot-A chill he is a hentai salesman not a aviation expert

@@gamebrains834 I didnt even notice his name, loll

Azar Asgarov they'll just keep on saying it's because it's in beta stage

Ahh the hentai salesman, say got any offers?

Chris Johnson h

My grandad worked as the flight engineer on a Nimrod, and although he grew very sick and died when I was young (he was only 66 when he died) I do remember 1 conversation I had with him about his time in the RAF - specifically flying on Nimrods. He always stressed how much he loved that plane and how nice it was to fly

J nobody has ever died on The 787 and hopefully that will be The case forever

@@pilotjonas8 Sadly, it won't........

Let us not forget the safety record of the 737!

How old are you

@@tarunbasra8230 Old enough to remember these things .. so for now, ruling out dementia. I also remember the seats were big. But I was very small come to think of it.

@@doriensutherland8893 ok thank you fir the reply. Stay safe

Still here... still flying like the Boeing 707... the De Havilland Comet and the Concorde however are long since retired.

@@sandervanderkammen9230 No passengers in a 707 for many years. Just like the failure DC 10, as for the 737 Max Boeing has shut down the production lines of that disaster.

In fact it wasn't the square windows, but the rivets of the windows being punched into the metal instead of being drilled. Creating craks that will developp into fatigue and then failure

@@Spido68_the_spectator The windows did play a role as they increased stress near the rivets, but the cracks did originate at manufacturing cracks caused by the punch rivets. If De Haviland had used drill Rivets and/or Redux (an adhesive used on other parts of the plane) these accidents might not have happened. But hindsight is 20/20. Everyone was using square windows and punch rivets at the time. Its also a pity that the extensive testing De Haviland put the Comet through didn't reveal the problem. the test bed survived 18,000 cycles before failure. If it hadn't held up so well, the problem would have been noted and corrected before the accidents occurred.

*You became the very thing you sought to destroy*

No Mustard! No!

Same weakness in the titanic

*The bright silver color ironically was very advantageous for finding the smaller pieces of wreckage...*

#docktorbimmer heh.

@@doktorbimmer Roasted! *Literal*

The only impact the Comet made was on the ground... de Havilland went tits-up in 1958 as a direct result of the worst engineering failure in the history of commercial jet aviation.

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I did highlight that in the paper

As the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history the real tragedy was that it could have been easily prevented if de Haviland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for the design and construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys. d-H was still more than a decade behind in aircraft technology and was still building planes out of wood and fabric when all-metal pressurized aircraft were introduced into service.

​@@WilhelmKarsten *UPDATE* Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Werkzxoffen etc and co SHUD note good with much awestruckness. *_It's interesting that some of the aircraft on the list should really have been noticeably safer than the Comet due to being a similar type but of much later design & manufacture but they definately were not safer._* How things were back then - *_Accident losses - % of aircraft built._* DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all mks 17% Vickers VC10 UK 5% *_The DH Comet had better safety than or similar safety to many other commercial passenger aircraft of a similar era_* Douglas DC-1 99% Douglas DC-2 47% Douglas DC-3 30% Douglas DC-4 26% Boeing s300 72% Boeing 307 70% Boeing 247 48% Boeing 707 20% Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Sud Aviation Caravelle 15% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% A comparison of more recent aircraft. Accident losses comparison examples. 1970s - 1980s % of total Aircraft built Similar aircraft type, date / decade, useage, size. Biz Jets BAe-125-800 1.7 % Beechcraft Beechjet 400 2.2 % Cessna 550 Citation II 7.1 % Learjet 35 / 36 12 % Beechcraft 1900 6% Dassault Falcon 10 11.5% Aérospatiale SN.601 22.5% Medium size jets / Turboprops. BAe-146 5.1% Fokker 100 6% McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 9.5% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% Beechcraft, Fokker, McDonnell Douglass, Learjet, Fairchild, Aerospatiale, Canadair, Convair companies defunct. All Comets, including some Comet 1s, had full civilian use certification at some point after 1954, civilian use certification only being withdrawn after commercial flying stopped. Examples were flying until 1997 - one example did a signals research global circumnavigation flight series in 1993 via Australia virtually without a rest travelling 28000 miles, only had an ice warning indicator issue during the flights. *The DH Comet - World Firsts.* 1st gas turbine jet powered airliner. 1st high altitude 8psi pressurised full fuselage length passenger cabin airliner, not a trivial feature as structure strength required for pressurisation considerably exceeded strength required for normal flying stress. Nobody else had done anything similar before the Comet. The b-47 used 2 relatively small, heavily built pressurised modules (the aircraft where 6 had their wings fold up in 2 months while flying & some had their wings fall off while parked). The 1937 Boeing piston engined airliner pressurised passenger cabin was pressurised to 2 psi only - in fact that could easily be done as the normal unpressurized fuselage cabin structure strength for flying stresses only was all that was needed to be adequate so no significant weight increase issues needed addressing. 1st all hydraulically powered flying surface controls & actuators airliner with under carriage wheel disk brakes + ABS. 1st jet airliner to cross the Atlantic. 1st jet aircraft to do a world circumnavigation flights series. *Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft including thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland & we know the world's first all metal construction airframe airliner was built in England in the 1920s by Handley Page.* *_De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, no evidence of negligence ever being produced in relation to the DH Comet._* The course of De Havilland & the general UK aerospace industry sector was not affected even slightly by the DH Comet. *_Other interesting World firsts_* *Vickers Viscount Turboprop Airliner 1947* *Gloster Meteor Turboprop Aircraft 1945* 👍 Cheers . .. . ... ... . ... .. ... .. xcvcxxcxvcxvcxxc

​@petemaly8950 *Pete, please tell us why there are no longer any British jet aircraft still made in the UK?????*

Fatal design failure

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Isn't that what they said about the aerodynamic problem on the Boeing 707?

@@barrierodliffe4155 The Boeing 707 never had a catastrophic structure failure of its pressure cabin and mever had its airworthiness certification permanently revoked... in fact, unlike the Comet the 707 series is still in service and is expected to remain in service until at least 2045 with the U.S. Air Force. Boeing still makes the safest aircraft in the world... unlike deHavilland which no longer exists.

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Only because DH gave all of the information to Boeing and the FAA was so weak. After a number of crashes that were listed as unexplained loss of control, Boeing eventually restricted the speed, they knew if they grounded the aircraft it would cost them plenty so they just let people die. There was an aerodynamic problem that Boeing didn't understand. The USAAF often keep obsolete aircraft flying well past their time, maybe it has something to do with there being so many that airlines do not want.

@@barrierodliffe4155 Boeing and Douglas were building pressurized airliners years before DeHavilland without any catastrophic structural failures. De Havilland received technical data on cabin pressurization from the Boeing B-29 program during WW2 but obviously ignored this valueable information in the design of the tragic _Comet Disaster_

Justice Warrior It's not the first jet plane. It's the first commercial jet plane yes, but the Germany used jet fighters in ww2

*The Boeing 707 is a very beautiful plane... and was heavily influenced by German jet technology captured by operations "Paperclip" and "Lusty".*

Yes, and the Me 262 was BEAUTIFUL.

*Indeed! the Messerschmitt Me-262 **_IS_** beautiful!* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-II2zGYRS4Jw.html

Look up VC-10

Indeed, the Comet Disaster remains the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history. How can the Comet be the most important commercial airliner? It was clearly a failure, a dead end design. The Boeing 707 series was the plane that revolutionized the air travel industry, more than 200 remain flying today.

If the comet wasn't a thing we will still have jet airliners. It would just have happened a bit later

​@@sandervanderkammen9230bro, it was literally the first jet airliner, don't try and cause arguments by trying to sound dumb

@@Aderin. The Comet Disaster was definitely a failed attempt to produce the first jet airliner. The first successful, airworthy jet airliner is the Boeing 707... several other manufacturers developed jet airliners at this time.

@@Aderin. The Comet 1 was grounded in 1954 after 6 unexpected hull loss accidents, 5 of them with fatalities. It airworthiness certification was permanently revoked. The Boeing 707 is still flying today and is expected to remain in service until 2050.

hey,respect my country!!!! embraer brasilia is bad but the e jets are good

Goytá F. Villela Jr. OK

Gelo ummmmmmm embraer vs bombardier, bombardier+airbus vs embraer vs boeing

The little plane war

+Gelo, e de onde você acha que eu sou? (Não deu para desconfiar nem por eu ter enumerado justamente os turboélices que eram a base das frotas da Varig e da VASP, e depois da Rio-Sul?) E por que você acha que é falta de respeito e um insulto à nação falar que eu não gostei de viajar no Brasília? Como se tudo de ruim que se faz aqui tivesse que ser varrido para debaixo do tapete e nunca mencionado... Nada a ver! O Brasília é uma merda mesmo, pelo menos do ponto de vista do passageiro (apesar de seguro e econômico para as empresas aéreas regionais). Horrivelmente apertado, claustrofóbico, barulhento, cheio de vibrações que dão até dor de cabeça... Não pretendo voar nele nunca mais, se eu puder evitar.

yes, it would actually be able to reach mach 1 if placed into a dive but it would be a very slow climber with its thin wings and small engines.

But now its all about efficiency

It's probably harder to service the engines in that configuration, which is likely why it hasn't been copied. It would likely improve the aerodynamics though.

The Comet's engines were accessed through doors. They could be removed through them as well.

it looks cool but is not ideal from safety and maint. persepective

*Engines mounted in the wing roots was a fatal flaw in the Comet design, it was believed that this configuration improved aerodynamics but instead caused several crashes at take-off due to airflow problems with the engines during rotation. This was also the reason why development of the Nimrod was cancelled, mounting modern engine proved to be impractical.*

santinieve 1 wendover productions?

NoobXSLAYER 1099 as much as i love him, i must say he always tends to get things wrong, and the only really cool part of his channel is the animation

Urho The Human what does he get wrong?

NoobXSLAYER 1099 Im just going to talk about his Small plane vs Big plane video because it is the only one that i remember really well. He completely ignores overflight fees, airport cost and just overall gets it wrong. In the section about airlines and hubs he is also wrong. If every airport flew to every other airport, the demand would be extremely small and cost huge. Hubs are just overall better. Also in his Why don't planes fly faster video just take a look at the comments and you'll see what i am talking about

I prefer VOX but this is a great channel as well

Flying on a Comet 4 wasn't actually anything risky. Only the first one was dangerous

@@dododakowski2813 Both Comets had a very poor safety record.

​@@sandervanderkammen9230 ​@WilhelmKarsten Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc and co - they should note good with much awestruckness & extreme wonderment. *UPDATE BREAKING NEWS ETC* *_It's interesting that some of the aircraft on the list should really have been noticeably safer than the Comet due to being a similar type but of much later design & manufacture but they definately were not safer._* How things were back then - *_Accident losses - % of aircraft built._* DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all mks 17% Vickers VC10 UK 5% *_The DH Comet had better safety than or similar safety to many other commercial passenger aircraft of a similar era_* Douglas DC-1 99% Douglas DC-2 47% Douglas DC-3 30% Douglas DC-4 26% Boeing s300 72% Boeing 307 70% Boeing 247 48% Boeing 707 20% Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Sud Aviation Caravelle 15% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% A comparison of more recent aircraft. Accident losses comparison examples. 1970s - 1980s % of total Aircraft built Similar aircraft type, date / decade, useage, size. Biz Jets BAe-125-800 1.7 % Beechcraft Beechjet 400 2.2 % Cessna 550 Citation II 7.1 % Learjet 35 / 36 12 % Beechcraft 1900 6% Dassault Falcon 10 11.5% Aérospatiale SN.601 22.5% Medium size jets / Turboprops. BAe-146 5.1% Fokker 100 6% McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 9.5% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% Beechcraft, Fokker, McDonnell Douglass, Learjet, Fairchild, Aerospatiale, Canadair, Convair companies defunct. All Comets, including some Comet 1s, had full civilian use certification at some point after 1954, civilian use certification only being withdrawn after commercial flying stopped. Examples were flying until 1997 - one example did a signals research global circumnavigation flight series in 1993 via Australia virtually without a rest travelling 28000 miles, only had an ice warning indicator issue during the flights. *The DH Comet - World Firsts.* 1st gas turbine jet powered airliner. 1st high altitude 8psi pressurised full fuselage length passenger cabin airliner, not a trivial feature as structure strength required for pressurisation considerably exceeded strength required for normal flying stress. Nobody else had done anything similar before the Comet. The b-47 used 2 relatively small, heavily built pressurised modules (the aircraft where 6 had their wings fold up in 2 months while flying & some had their wings fall off while parked). The 1937 Boeing piston engined airliner pressurised passenger cabin was pressurised to 2 psi only - in fact that could easily be done as the normal unpressurized fuselage cabin structure strength for flying stresses only was all that was needed to be adequate so no significant weight increase issues needed addressing. 1st all hydraulically powered flying surface controls & actuators airliner with under carriage wheel disk brakes + ABS. 1st jet airliner to cross the Atlantic. 1st jet aircraft to do a world circumnavigation flights series. *Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft including thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland & we know the world's first all metal construction airframe airliner was built in England in the 1920s by Handley Page.* *_De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, no evidence of negligence ever being produced in relation to the DH Comet._* The course of De Havilland & the general UK aerospace industry sector was not affected even slightly by the DH Comet. *_Other interesting World firsts_* *Vickers Viscount Turboprop Airliner 1947* *Gloster Meteor Turboprop Aircraft 1945* They might like to answer these questions. *Which airline has just ordered* *60 RR England Trent XWB Engines* *& What aircraft are the engines for?* _Bonus question for 10 points._ Which country has the *World's Highest Combined Per Capita Nuclear + Defence + Aerospace Sector Activity?* 👍 Cheers 🙂 . .. . ........ ...... ..... ... ivcivcivxivcixcviiiixc

LOL, but he meant commercial-passenger plane

Pretty sure me 262 isn't the only jet aircraft operational in ww2 Its only famous due to being rushed into combat

The jet engines in question were invented by the British in 1920's and 30's. A.A. Griffith invented the first working axial-compressor with Sir Frank Whittle inventing the centrifugal jet engine design. The British had jet-engined fighters in service from 1943 onwards, using primarily the more reliable centrifugal engine design, but some had test-bed axial-flow jet engines as well. The German engineers copied the British engines designs, but the ME262 had very poorly-manufactured engines, the Germans lacking the metallurgical know-how of the British to make proper metals for durable engines. Messerschmitt didn't invent them. The first jetliners were British, not forgetting the Avro Tudor 8 jetliner from 1947 that was beaten by the Comet to airline use. It's successor, the Avro 706 Ashton was a stronger design, as well, and first flew in 1950, but never entered full-scale service. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Tudor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Ashton Also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire

nerd

@Michelangelo Miano Frank Whittle did not invent the turbojet engine...

Takeoffs never get old.

I know, right? Everyone else is tapping away on the phones, but I look out the window and feel the _G E E S_ pushing on my body, it really feels cool.

Polp. Is it not dangerous to open the window to look out during flight?

Yeah, the wind is moving awfully fast, and the lack of oxygen would make your fellow passengers uncomfortable.

I'm going to get my pilots license before I go to college.

So my first cousin works with lots of plane ONE of them is a Douglas DC-3 with 20 seats like usual

Lockheed definitely should have won over McDonnell Douglas!

FaZe M3RK As good as supply drops.

Eclipse you know it!

The Comet Disaster remains a very shameful chapter in British history...

RC BOSS britain invented everything

Banyana?

Nukes for Dayz Nk yeah. Cause Britain is the best. We also invented tanks (military tanks)

*The brits also invented the jet airliner crash.*

​@@doktorbimmer ​@WilhelmKarsten Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc and co - they should note good with much awestruckness & extreme wonderment. *UPDATE BREAKING NEWS ETC* *_It's interesting that some of the aircraft on the list should really have been noticeably safer than the Comet due to being a similar type but of much later design & manufacture but they definately were not safer._* How things were back then - *_Accident losses - % of aircraft built._* DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all mks 17% Vickers VC10 UK 5% *_The DH Comet had better safety than or similar safety to many other commercial passenger aircraft of a similar era_* Douglas DC-1 99% Douglas DC-2 47% Douglas DC-3 30% Douglas DC-4 26% Boeing s300 72% Boeing 307 70% Boeing 247 48% Boeing 707 20% Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Sud Aviation Caravelle 15% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% A comparison of more recent aircraft. Accident losses comparison examples. 1970s - 1980s % of total Aircraft built Similar aircraft type, date / decade, useage, size. Biz Jets BAe-125-800 1.7 % Beechcraft Beechjet 400 2.2 % Cessna 550 Citation II 7.1 % Learjet 35 / 36 12 % Beechcraft 1900 6% Dassault Falcon 10 11.5% Aérospatiale SN.601 22.5% Medium size jets / Turboprops. BAe-146 5.1% Fokker 100 6% McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 9.5% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% Beechcraft, Fokker, McDonnell Douglass, Learjet, Fairchild, Aerospatiale, Canadair, Convair companies defunct. All Comets, including some Comet 1s, had full civilian use certification at some point after 1954, civilian use certification only being withdrawn after commercial flying stopped. Examples were flying until 1997 - one example did a signals research global circumnavigation flight series in 1993 via Australia virtually without a rest travelling 28000 miles, only had an ice warning indicator issue during the flights. *The DH Comet - World Firsts.* 1st gas turbine jet powered airliner. 1st high altitude 8psi pressurised full fuselage length passenger cabin airliner, not a trivial feature as structure strength required for pressurisation considerably exceeded strength required for normal flying stress. Nobody else had done anything similar before the Comet. The b-47 used 2 relatively small, heavily built pressurised modules (the aircraft where 6 had their wings fold up in 2 months while flying & some had their wings fall off while parked). The 1937 Boeing piston engined airliner pressurised passenger cabin was pressurised to 2 psi only - in fact that could easily be done as the normal unpressurized fuselage cabin structure strength for flying stresses only was all that was needed to be adequate so no significant weight increase issues needed addressing. 1st all hydraulically powered flying surface controls & actuators airliner with under carriage wheel disk brakes + ABS. 1st jet airliner to cross the Atlantic. 1st jet aircraft to do a world circumnavigation flights series. *Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft including thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland & we know the world's first all metal construction airframe airliner was built in England in the 1920s by Handley Page.* *_De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, no evidence of negligence ever being produced in relation to the DH Comet._* The course of De Havilland & the general UK aerospace industry sector was not affected even slightly by the DH Comet. *_Other interesting World firsts_* *Vickers Viscount Turboprop Airliner 1947* *Gloster Meteor Turboprop Aircraft 1945* They might like to answer these questions. *Which airline has just ordered* *60 RR England Trent XWB Engines* *& What aircraft are the engines for?* _Bonus question for 10 points._ Which country has the *World's Highest Combined Per Capita Nuclear + Defence + Aerospace Sector Activity?* 👍 Cheers 🙂 . ... .. ... . .... . . .. xcxvxcvxcvxcvci

Because, modern jet engines are bulky.

no,the only reason jet engines aren't built into modern day airliners is due to maintenance, the bulkiness does not matter

also its probably safer to have them under the wing then in the wing should one go boom

The (ultra gorgeous) Comet was as far as I know the only commercial aircraft with engines integrated into the wing structure, (oops Tu104?) The next nearest implementation would be the tri-jets with the no2 (?) integrated in the tail section, (L1011, DC10, 727, Trident, TU154). The pylon mounting that was used by Boeing on the 707 gave a clean wing, easy maintenance and a thrust clear of obstruction and has been chosen by all modern airframes. The only other arrangement is that of the rear mounted twins (DC9, Caravelle, 134, 1/11 etc.) and fours (VC10, IL62), which have most of the advantages as the pylon mounted wing engines with the addition of less noise in the cabin but require a T-tail to allow clean air over tail section and have nastier stall habits. Most modern aircraft look (and sound) boring, just like today's cars. Why does a 707 look so gorgeous next to an Airbus? When the 707 itself is the archetype of them all - not the Comet?

The designer of the comet could've used podded engines but apparently just didnt like them

Anyone that has flown in a modern jet is still alive because we don't use this fatally flawed design...

The Comet Disaster was the result of incompetence and criminal negligence on the part of DeHaviland... thankfully this careless, poor managed company went completely bankrupt in 1958 due to the worst engineering failure in aviation history.

Chow Mein gobblers should be aware. *_Accident losses - % of aircraft built._* DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all mks 17% Vickers VC10 UK 5% Boeing 707 USA *20%* Lockheed Electra USA *29%*

US i see what you did there 😁

😑😐

I would have to say... the Bombardier CRJ 1000 NextGen

Did you just

Neither, it is a complete disaster, practically a copy of the 707 with major design flaws, this is what happens when countries haven't got a clue what they are doing.

Thank you for the kind comment :)

The Duke. America has also come "second" to Britain in the fastest land speed record...

The Duke Douglas sure knew how to make a far more effective death trap than De Havilland ever could have dreamed of. I heard someone was making 'I flew on a DC10 and got to wear this lousy t shirt as I didn't die' t-shirts.

The "smart" money.

de Havilland: "Early bird gets the worm" Douglass: "Second mouse gets the cheese."

@@TheSecondVersion And yet as the second mouse they didn't really capitalise on it, did they?

I flew on a Comet from Mexico City to San Antonio in the mid 60's. I remember the take off (in late May) as taking forever. I swear the aircraft used the entire runway, and maybe a few extra feet, for takeoff.

@@nrmnchb Maybe it was overloaded because the Comet could take off from short runways unlike the 707

They looked at the Comet in absolute horror after 6 of them crash ed in rapid succession.. Thankfully is appallingly bad aircraft was finally grounded permentally and it airworthiness certification revoked.