*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.*
@@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.
@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.
I help maintain the worlds only running comet here in England. Being a 4c (most up to date) variant, the 4 rolls Royce avons still whirl into life with ease after all these years. We do have some minor hydraulic and electrical faults but she can still move under her own power.
*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.*
@@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'm no engineer but I just find the engines incorporated into the wings to be so sexy unlike today's airliners where they just hang under the wings like ballsacks.
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..
@@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?
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 "Name a single ....." UK Aerospace & nuclear power / weapons engineering sectors - highest per capita sector specific activity on the planet.
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
I was on a that ill fated aircraft , BOAC (British Overseas Air Corp.) Comet. Gilmore family was on flight #783/057 May 2 1953. My mother , my sister Angela and myself Wayne were aboard. Had mother not been expecting and been too tired to continue and insist that we wait till the next day so she may rest I would not be typing this today. We left and flew out on a conventional Prop plane the next day.
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!)
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..."
@@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...*
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.
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.
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.
@@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.*
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.
I flew the Comet 4 on BOAC as a small boy, in 1960, during a trip to Tokyo, Australia and back. All these years later, my memories are fewer now, but those that remain are crystal clear. In my mind's eye, I still remember looking out the (round!) window of the Comet 4 at its wingtip tank, as the sun rose behind it. I remember the ride as smooth and quiet, and - above all - comfortable. My father was an airline pilot for BOAC (no - he never flew the Comet himself), and in my own airline career I flew the DC-8 (briefly featured in this video), in its DC-8-73F and DC-8-63F and -61F variants. By the time I flew the "Diesel 8" in 1987, it was ancient technology, and a bit of a Dog's Dinner to operate. We cruised the -8 at M0.80 (by company policy), but the aircraft was much more speed-stable (and much more thirsty on fuel) at M0.82. Forget about M0.84 cruise though - it would have guzzled fuel so quickly at that speed we would never have been able to fly it very far! I also flew as a passenger on the B707 (BOAC operated the B707-420): again, more comfortable than the jets of today (because of greater seat pitch - typically, 38" in standard economy, back then), but - boy! - was it noisy. If you were seated in economy class aft of the engines, engine noise made conversation difficult-to-impossible. The one area where modern jets triumph over the jets of the 1960s is cabin noise - it is simply far, far quieter in the cabin in all classes now than it was back then, simply because of the high-bypass turbofan engines with which all aircraft are equipped today. Amongst the 2nd Generation jets of the 1960s, only the VC10, the B727, the HS.121 Trident and the MD-80 were as quiet in the cabin as modern aircraft are now. The quietest today? The much-maligned Airbus A380, which might surprise some of you. But they're all so quiet these days, that were really isn't much to choose between any of them for cabin noise.
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 .
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.
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.
My first flight was in a Dan Air Comet after the modifications had been made to round windows instead of square. Still a beautiful looking aircraft and the RAF continued to use the Nimrod for decades. Very safe because in an emergency with no protruding engines creating drag, it could land on the sea and remain intact.
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 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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
In the 80's, I got to go inside a Comet that was grounded at Chicago's O'Hare airport. Oh my GOSH, those planes were VERY rich inside!!! Beautiful out side as well!
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...
@@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 *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.*
Two years later and I still wanna give credit to how he sets up the prop plane before the transition to the comet. Amazing animation on the fact that I could feel the uncomfort of the first plane then the ease of the comet.
To all those armchair experts who call this plane a failure....yes, it was. Someone had to be first, and DeHavillands learnt a lot from the metal fatigue etc. The variants of the Comet (Nimrod) gave good service until 2011. Not bad for a (basically)1940s plane from a small island.
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
I pretty much knew everything you said already (I am a bit of an aircraft buff). But you presented it so very well that I watched (and enjoyed) the entire video. Well done.
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.
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"
Beautiful plane. Growing pains, sure... But somebody has to pioneer, or we don't get anywhere. Thanks to Dehavilland and the people that flew and crewed. We owe you.
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
@@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.
I flew on Comets as a child in the 60's - and almost all other jets right through from the 60's to now, including several trips to the US by Concorde. It's been alot of fun!
As a young kid back in the 50's, I got to fly in a DC-7 and a Lockheed Super Constellation. The seats were huge by today's airline standards. The meals were great, not just soft drinks and peanuts. True, it took twice as long to get there, but you did it in comfort.
My grandfather was the Navigator of the fateful G-ALYY. Even though I never met him, each time I look out a (rounded) Aircraft window I think about him.
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.
@@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 windows should have been glued by Redux bonding but were rivetted to save costs but it iniated stress. That was the weakness. Also, at first, DH wanted to use their own Ghost engines which were not so powerful so very thin metal was necessary. The later, successful Comet 4s has RR Avons. I was impressed by your inclusion of the over-rotation. Originally blamed on the pilots DH very quietly made a retro fit to the leading edge. I grew up with these planes living between where they were made at Hatfield and what was then called London Airport.
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.
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.*
There was a documentary about this on TV. Jet planes were seriously glamorous back in the day (my dad flew on Concord and still brags about it now) and Britain was leading the wold in this new era. The square windows were very unfortunate but the problem was fixed.
There have been so many times in Britain where we were ahead of everyone else in technical innovation, only to screw it all up. Computers would be another example.
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
@@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.
Even early turboprops had a lot of noise and vibration. I've never flown on a pure piston-engined airliner, but I'm old enough to have traveled on such turboprop antiques as the Lockheed L-188 Electra, Vickers Viscount, HS-748 Avro, and NAMC YS-11 (my first flight was actually on a YS-11). The Electra was a bit better, but the Avro caused me the only episode I've ever had of motion sickness. Then I flew only jets for a while, until I got a regional flight on an Embraer EMB-120 Brasília, returning on a Fokker 50. The Brasília was bad, but the Fokker 50 surprised me. Extremely quiet, smooth and comfortable. I haven't flown on other recent turboprops like the ATR-72 or the Bombardier Q400 yet, but I'd like to try them.
+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.
Compared to modern aircraft, I bet some people wonder why we don’t have such sleek looking jet aircraft with integrated engines today. Got to admit they look totally cool, but Airlines ( and passengers) care more about economy than cool jets. Hence the huge, high bypass engines, slung underneath the engines. Wendover and Real Engineering covers this. Efficiency and serviceability lead to the somewhat sluggish looking aircraft we have in comparison, but they got it where it counts.
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 square windows weren’t the cause. They used punch rivets which created small cracks in the aluminum skin which was too thin in the first place and the windows were designed to be riveted and glued but never were glued. The cracks started from the antenna cut outs on the top of the plane. There are videos of engineers that worked on the plane and also documented information from test pilot talking about doing hard turns feeling the floor moving and noises in the structure.
Hi, I flew on Comets as cabin-crew from 1966-to-1973 Hence I challenge the notion that the Comet-4B was quiet? The rest; great :) this Vid' offered a lot, and yes it was quiet, almost silent at the front, but the rear seats were only 6-feet from the exhausts and the noise levels were damaging to anyones hearing; as soon as cruising altitude was reached the flight crew would kill the two inner engines to save fuel and to lessen the noise. It could fly on one engine so was quite safe. Thanks :)
@@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_
@@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 🙂
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. 😎
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.
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
When I was a kid I flew everywhere.. I’d say 20 states easy and flights every 6 months. My grandpa traveled for work and I guess I took it for granted, it was so fun. As an adult I’ve flown from the Bay Area to San Diego lol..
Great video, well done. Just a couple of extra points if I may; The Comet did find success when it became the basis for the RAF maritime reconnaissance aircraft “Nimrod”, it served until 2011. One of the reasons the 707 surpassed the Comet was that it was designed to use longer runways which required most airports to extend runways to accomodate this new Boeing jet, the Comet was designed to operate from existing short runways which made it more versatile at the ultimate expensive of less ability to carry passengers. The 707 stood on the shoulders of the Comet in the same way that the Douglas DC-3 stood on the shoulders of the pioneering Boeing 247, sometimes being first is not always best.
@Alejandra y Alan Bowman *WRONG! The Boeing 707 cost $4.5 million USD each! and in 1959 earned a 32 million dollar profit (a 21% return on investment).*
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 The 707 was a better airliner than the Comet 4. It was faster and held more passengers, which made it more financially viable. That was probably the biggest reason the 707 won out. The Comet was fine plane, but needed a few upgrades to compete with the 707 in the markets they were competing in. Those upgrades were coming in the form of the Comet 5, but by that point that was being considers, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were in dominant market positions. They gave up on the airliner market and the Comet 5 never happened.
*De Havilland went bankrupt in 1959... as a direct result of the **_Comet Disaster_** which remains the worst engineering failure in aviation history.*
+Brad Rigg. While it came first, in the long line of jet airliners, the Comet was at best a transitional design. With it's quite small narrow fuselage, straight tail surfaces, slightly swept wing with plain leading edge & plain flaps, it still had a lot in common with the piston-prop airliners of the '40s. It's early accidents clearly restricted it's success, but even if they hadn't occurred, with the launch of the B707 & DC8 on the horizon, it's sales potential still would have been quite limited. The B707 surpassed the Comet in a number of ways. It was simply a more advanced design, with a lot more potential. Modern designs owe more to the B707 than to the Comet. The Comet was the pioneer, but the B707 created the jet airliner template that's still followed today.
Dude, I must say that I love the way you explain everything and the visual quality on your videos. It looks amazing as always! you sure make anyone turn into a transport tech passionate by just looking one of your videos I hope you keep going ahead, they're awesome and give a lot of inspiration!
@@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 🙂
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.
*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.*
@@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 🙂
I flew on Comets BEA to Malta in 1962/3...i was 12yrs old and going back home from boarding school Fantastic..the alternatives were Viscounts or Vanguards..have always felt privileged. Good luck.
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.
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.
My father assisted in the crash investigations of the Comet. He told me that the main point of failure for stress cracks was a small window in the ceiling of the cockpit. The window was there for navigation so the navigator could shoot stars with a theodolite/sextant (way before GPS etc. they still confirmed inertial navigation over ocean routes with star charts) . That window was where most of the fractures began.
The window in the top of the fuselage where the fracture started wasn't a glass window to look out of, but an opening covered in plastic to provide a way for the direction finder antenna to receive signals. This was used for homing in on radio beacons and even radio broadcast stations as part of radio navigation. Here's a drawing from the investigation report, showing where the ADF "window" was located: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comet_1_G-ALYP_-_wreckage_recovered_png.png
The _Comet Disaster_ investigations revealed that the catastrophic in-flight structural failures were not related to any specific penetrations in the fuselage but the the completely inadaquate thickness and strength of the aluminum skins, the lack proper rip-stop doubler joints and poorly designed and constructed riveting, the rivet joints were shockingly bad and well below Industry standards.
@@barrierodliffe4155 *The Comet has the worst safety record of any jet airliner in history.* *26 Comets crashed or were destroyed in accidents making it the worst commercial jet in.the entire history of commercial aviation.*
LOVED THIS VIDEO … 2:30 Dateline 1958 Age 9. I remember being on an Eastern Airlines Connie just like this, talking to a pilot about new jets and I asked the pilot, as we were leaving the plane: “Do you think jets will ever replace planes like this?” I loved the Connies, even then. He said, “sadly, yes they will. People want to get there sooner.” I never thought the engine drone was bad. In fact I found it soothing. Thanks again.
Lucky enough to have experienced flying in the Comet, but it was in the RAF's Nimrod MR2 derivative. Awesome aircraft, used it's four engines for take-off and cruised with just two ! Thrilling experience, preferable to a modern passenger jet any day of the week !
The Nimrod is a completely different aircraft that was designed by a different company decades later. The Nimrod like the Comet had a checkered safety record and was grounded due to metal fatigue issues.
Nice video. Although it was designed as a pax aircraft it would have been good if you had mentioned that a military version (Nimrod) which was based on the Comet was built for the RAF. The last of those was retired in 2011.
The Comet had so much going for it. It looked (and still does) beautiful and was futuristic, but on the flip side it was rushed through and in some respects under engineered. Such a shame.
Yet the Comet 4 was an excellent aircraft and a pleasure to fly in,. Boeing had their share of trouble but they restricted the speed of the 707 and hushed it up, not before it killed many more people than the Comet ever did.
@@barrierodliffe4155 The DeHaviland Comet Disaster was and remains the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history. 26 Comets crashed or were destroyed in accidents killing 426 innocent people... that is 1 out of every 4 Comets built making it the worst safety record in commercial aviation.
@@ericgeorge5483 Don't mind Barrie, he is not old enough to understand *Statistics* like _per flight_ and _per passenger/mile_ safety records. The Comet Disaster remains the worst aircraft safety record in commercial aviation history.
It's a shame many adults lose the excitement for flight they once had as kids. They'll just sit there tapping away on devices, completely desensitized to the fact it's still the most miraculous experience of their lives. I always make a point of looking out the window during flights, and it's a real joy to see other people do the same thing
The comet was disastrous, yet in my opinion I think it was the most important commercial airliner to have existed. Without it Commercial aviation would not be where it is today, it thought us more about anything than any modern plane today
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.
@@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.
Has anybody noticed that Queen Amidala’s Spaceship (the one that was blown up on a sky platform on Coruscant, just after it landed) had wings with embedded engines and a silver metal design that seemed to be nod to the original Comet. Anybody notice? 😃
The Duke. America has also come "second" to Britain in the fastest land speed record...
6 лет назад+13
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.
Yes, I do like the sturdy, reliable,but slow Douglas DC-3,took a bit longer to get there and the Lockheed Constellation was one of the most beautiful prop driven airliners ever,but yes as far as jet liners that Comet was a modern thing of beauty,as well as the amazing Concorde!
Nice vid. I grew up near the de Havilland aircraft museum in Hertfordshire. They've a beautifully restored Mosquito prototype on display (and two other restored Mossies), as well as sections of Comet's and other DH aircraft. Definitely worth a visit if you're ever in that neck of the woods.
I did fly in Comets. The first and the later versions. Well, I`m still here decades later. I`ve flown in all the jetliners since but Concorde aside this was a beautiful aircraft. The most ever ...
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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
The Comets rough start reminds me of the old Jimmy Stewart 1952 movie "No Highway in the Sky" about the (fictional) Reindeer class of aircraft that suffered from metal fatigue in the tail section. He was the stubborn engineer that couldn't convince his superiors of the aircraft's unworthiness in flight. Good flick, everyone needs to watch it.
This reminds me of that old cartoon from the 50's, Johnny Jet. Remember that? The airplane guy hates jets because they're taking all the jobs and then he's all pissed off when his son is born a jet. "JETS? I HATE JETS!"
LoL yeah I do! Doesn't the kid come flying out at the end and help his dad win a race or something?? They go blasting past the Statue of Liberty and her skirt goes flying up and the little jet's cheeks get red lol... Thanks for the memory!! I loved those old cartoons!
@@kenworthNH Yeah, pissed me off though because his dad had to cheat to win. Poor example to show kids. Could have had the kid fly fast to get an airplane part so his dad could live.
Awesome video. Will you do a video on the blended wing aircraft design or other unconventional aircraft designs? I'm kinda sad that blended wing aircraft weren't developed further and these type of aircraft are more fuel efficient than normal tube aircraft and you can put engines on top to make them quieter too.
Rocksen I'm not a plane enthusiast however just as jet engines were seen as inefficient and the original passenger jets suffered lots of problems, the blended wing aircraft may pose tons of problems but may be better, more efficient than current airlines. Idk, just stating my thought. Most truly new things aren't at their most efficient till they are refined.
Seating is a major problem that will ensure blended wing airliners never see the light of day. The passengers sitting far out will be moving up and down 20 to 30 feet every time the plane turns, plus how would evacuations work? Blended wings are good for bombers and cargo and that’s all you’ll ever get unless you build a home built kit.
Not necessarily so. There can be other factors that exclude it. My first thought is that for the same carrying capacity, a flying wing/blended wing body needs to have a greater wingspan. Also, the jetways (the bridge from the gate to the aircraft) would need to be different because they're designed to interface a "tube" fuselage. Other logistical and technical challenges also exist.
Whenever I hear the Boeing 787's name mentioned, I can't help but smile as I remember my flight attendant on Southwest Airlines saying "this is a state of the art Boeing 787; its a multi-million dollar 21st century aircraft and it uses seatbelts from a '57 Chevy"
You , Sir, owe me a new keyboard. I just spit tea all over this one. Seriously, you have no idea. I worked in aircraft for 40 years, helping to manufacture the most modern lethal helicopters ever. Many systems drew mechanical power from the main gearbox, utilizing a gear shaft, housing and ball bearings. This bearing is a Model A Ford generator bearing. Still state of the art. One bearing company, I forgot which, still listed the bearing under it's original part number. This bearing can be had today for the whopping sum of $ 5.50. These helicopters used a Delco-Remy starter generator, it looked to be about the same size as the ones in 1918 Dodge Brothers cars.
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%*
@@ronjon7942 It's very classic de Havilland Art Deco style.. Unfortunately de Havilland was more concerned with looks than safety and their technology peaked in the early 1930s.
@@WilhelmKarsten Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Werkzxoffen etc and co - they should note good with much awestruckness. *UPDATE* *There are advantages to wing root mounted engines including aerodynamic advantages.* *_The Comet engines air intake configuration was not actually a design flaw._* *_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 🙂 . ... ... . . ... . . ... . . ... . . xcvxcxvxcxvxcxvxcviii
Great summary of the history of that plane and putting it into perspective of the time period while comparing to other aircraft. Furthermore, you have a good voice-over talent. This is a professional video and it is a positive presentation for SKILL SHARE, of which I am not sure I ever heard of it before today. Great job! Brennan Callan Cinematographer/Aerial Videographer/Aeronautical Scientist
These were such beautiful planes. It is heart breaking to think of how people must have felt as they were failing. Had they been super reliable and safe the UK might be the leaders in Airline Production today.
I flew on a Comet 4B from Manchester to Alicante in 1970. Only a few days after a 4B had flown into a mountain near Barcelona. I was on MH17 from Amstadam to KL the week before this aircraft was shot down. I thought it was rather concerning when flight path was over Kabul and Ukraine. I guess I am lucky to still be here!
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.
There is absolutely nothing modern looking about the Comet... its stodgy Art Deco styling and antiquated empennage look old and very dated in the 1950s...
The de Havilland Comet is regarded as glaring example of how NOT to design a jet airliner... it was without any doubt an evolutionary dead-end in the commercial aviation industry and the plane that destroyed the once great de Havilland company.
@@imperialinquisition6006 The Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in aviation history. 1 out of every 3 Comets built crashed or were destroyed in accidents... a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Gotta love how the engines are integrated in the wings, so sleek...
*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.
Its a shame the Comet was a failure. Those intergrated engines and smooth 50's futurism lines are downright sexy
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
beside the Concorde, this is by far one of the most beautiful passenger jets ever made.
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.
I flew on a Comet as a kid....I remember thinking it was cool looking, and then found out about its colorful history much later.
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
I help maintain the worlds only running comet here in England. Being a 4c (most up to date) variant, the 4 rolls Royce avons still whirl into life with ease after all these years. We do have some minor hydraulic and electrical faults but she can still move under her own power.
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.
Easily one of the sexiest hunks of metal to have ever flown.
*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
I'm no engineer but I just find the engines incorporated into the wings to be so sexy unlike today's airliners where they just hang under the wings like ballsacks.
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.
So the Comet ended up being an expensive “beta test” that taught all future competitors how to make passenger jets correctly.
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.
Having your plane "disintegrate" around you at 40,000 ft above ocean doesn't sound like a particularly good way to go..
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
it actually still looks kinda futuristic to this day
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
I was on a that ill fated aircraft , BOAC (British Overseas Air Corp.) Comet. Gilmore family was on flight #783/057 May 2
1953. My mother , my sister Angela and myself Wayne were aboard. Had mother not been expecting and been too tired to continue
and insist that we wait till the next day so she may rest I would not be typing this today. We left and flew out on a conventional
Prop plane the next day.
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..."
Fun fact: Sir Geoffrey de Havilland, whose company made the Comet, was the cousin of actress Olivia de Havilland, who just recently passed away.
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 shattered conventional thinking..."_** it also shattered when it reached cruising altitude.*
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...*
Remember that this is just 45 years after planes were invented.
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.
1:09 - "It *shattered* conventional thinking." Now, that right there is some quality foreshadowing.
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....*
the comet almost looks more futuristic than modern planes lol.
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.
Damn the production value on this video was better than most documentaries. I LOVE THIS CHANNEL.
I flew the Comet 4 on BOAC as a small boy, in 1960, during a trip to Tokyo, Australia and back.
All these years later, my memories are fewer now, but those that remain are crystal clear. In my mind's eye, I still remember looking out the (round!) window of the Comet 4 at its wingtip tank, as the sun rose behind it. I remember the ride as smooth and quiet, and - above all - comfortable.
My father was an airline pilot for BOAC (no - he never flew the Comet himself), and in my own airline career I flew the DC-8 (briefly featured in this video), in its DC-8-73F and DC-8-63F and -61F variants. By the time I flew the "Diesel 8" in 1987, it was ancient technology, and a bit of a Dog's Dinner to operate. We cruised the -8 at M0.80 (by company policy), but the aircraft was much more speed-stable (and much more thirsty on fuel) at M0.82. Forget about M0.84 cruise though - it would have guzzled fuel so quickly at that speed we would never have been able to fly it very far!
I also flew as a passenger on the B707 (BOAC operated the B707-420): again, more comfortable than the jets of today (because of greater seat pitch - typically, 38" in standard economy, back then), but - boy! - was it noisy. If you were seated in economy class aft of the engines, engine noise made conversation difficult-to-impossible.
The one area where modern jets triumph over the jets of the 1960s is cabin noise - it is simply far, far quieter in the cabin in all classes now than it was back then, simply because of the high-bypass turbofan engines with which all aircraft are equipped today. Amongst the 2nd Generation jets of the 1960s, only the VC10, the B727, the HS.121 Trident and the MD-80 were as quiet in the cabin as modern aircraft are now. The quietest today? The much-maligned Airbus A380, which might surprise some of you. But they're all so quiet these days, that were really isn't much to choose between any of them for cabin noise.
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.
My first ever flight. London to Singapore. Only had to stop six times for re-fueling and took twenty three hours. Things change.
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
Man that whole intro up until the title is gorgeously made. I love how the British Loop music fades in. 👍👍👍
That's what I was thinking! Best intro I've seen yet.
Sometimes I randomly remember just how genuinely incredible it is that we have designed giant metal machines capable of true flight.
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”
My first flight was in a Dan Air Comet after the modifications had been made to round windows instead of square. Still a beautiful looking aircraft and the RAF continued to use the Nimrod for decades. Very safe because in an emergency with no protruding engines creating drag, it could land on the sea and remain intact.
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.
The Comet was SUCH a sexy....pretty....futuristic jet. I love the design of the engines in the wings.
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
The included jet engines inside the wing are stunningly gorgeous
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.
In the 80's, I got to go inside a Comet that was grounded at Chicago's O'Hare airport. Oh my GOSH, those planes were VERY rich inside!!! Beautiful out side as well!
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 ???
that has to be one of the best looking aircraft ever made
*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 prop plane's like *WHIRRRRRRRRRR*
and the comet's like *EEEEEEEEEEEE*
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*
Two years later and I still wanna give credit to how he sets up the prop plane before the transition to the comet. Amazing animation on the fact that I could feel the uncomfort of the first plane then the ease of the comet.
To all those armchair experts who call this plane a failure....yes, it was. Someone had to be first, and DeHavillands learnt a lot from the metal fatigue etc. The variants of the Comet (Nimrod) gave good service until 2011. Not bad for a (basically)1940s plane from a small island.
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!
I pretty much knew everything you said already (I am a bit of an aircraft buff). But you presented it so very well that I watched (and enjoyed) the entire video.
Well done.
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.
Beautiful plane. Growing pains, sure... But somebody has to pioneer, or we don't get anywhere. Thanks to Dehavilland and the people that flew and crewed. We owe you.
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.
I flew on Comets as a child in the 60's - and almost all other jets right through from the 60's to now, including several trips to the US by Concorde. It's been alot of fun!
Liar
@@theyracemesohardchair Grow up....
Bro how fucking rich are you 💀💀
As a young kid back in the 50's, I got to fly in a DC-7 and a Lockheed Super Constellation. The seats were huge by today's airline standards. The meals were great, not just soft drinks and peanuts. True, it took twice as long to get there, but you did it in comfort.
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.
Is it just me or are these airplanes really beautiful?
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
My grandfather was the Navigator of the fateful G-ALYY. Even though I never met him, each time I look out a (rounded) Aircraft window I think about him.
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 windows should have been glued by Redux bonding but were rivetted to save costs but it iniated stress. That was the weakness. Also, at first, DH wanted to use their own Ghost engines which were not so powerful so very thin metal was necessary. The later, successful Comet 4s has RR Avons. I was impressed by your inclusion of the over-rotation. Originally blamed on the pilots DH very quietly made a retro fit to the leading edge. I grew up with these planes living between where they were made at Hatfield and what was then called London Airport.
De Haviland = open beta, early access
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?
Such a beautiful aircraft though. I always loved the Comet.
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.*
There was a documentary about this on TV. Jet planes were seriously glamorous back in the day (my dad flew on Concord and still brags about it now) and Britain was leading the wold in this new era. The square windows were very unfortunate but the problem was fixed.
There have been so many times in Britain where we were ahead of everyone else in technical innovation, only to screw it all up. Computers would be another example.
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.
Even early turboprops had a lot of noise and vibration. I've never flown on a pure piston-engined airliner, but I'm old enough to have traveled on such turboprop antiques as the Lockheed L-188 Electra, Vickers Viscount, HS-748 Avro, and NAMC YS-11 (my first flight was actually on a YS-11). The Electra was a bit better, but the Avro caused me the only episode I've ever had of motion sickness. Then I flew only jets for a while, until I got a regional flight on an Embraer EMB-120 Brasília, returning on a Fokker 50. The Brasília was bad, but the Fokker 50 surprised me. Extremely quiet, smooth and comfortable. I haven't flown on other recent turboprops like the ATR-72 or the Bombardier Q400 yet, but I'd like to try them.
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.
Compared to modern aircraft, I bet some people wonder why we don’t have such sleek looking jet aircraft with integrated engines today.
Got to admit they look totally cool, but Airlines ( and passengers) care more about economy than cool jets.
Hence the huge, high bypass engines, slung underneath the engines.
Wendover and Real Engineering covers this.
Efficiency and serviceability lead to the somewhat sluggish looking aircraft we have in comparison, but they got it where it counts.
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
Why is it that the first jet plane was the most beautiful??!
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!* ruclips.net/video/II2zGYRS4Jw/видео.html
Look up VC-10
The square windows weren’t the cause. They used punch rivets which created small cracks in the aluminum skin which was too thin in the first place and the windows were designed to be riveted and glued but never were glued. The cracks started from the antenna cut outs on the top of the plane. There are videos of engineers that worked on the plane and also documented information from test pilot talking about doing hard turns feeling the floor moving and noises in the structure.
Love the original Chrome silver colour of that revolutionary aircraft.
*The bright silver color ironically was very advantageous for finding the smaller pieces of wreckage...*
#docktorbimmer heh.
@@doktorbimmer Roasted!
*Literal*
Hi, I flew on Comets as cabin-crew from 1966-to-1973 Hence I challenge the notion that the Comet-4B was quiet? The rest; great :) this Vid' offered a lot, and yes it was quiet, almost silent at the front, but the rear seats were only 6-feet from the exhausts and the noise levels were damaging to anyones hearing; as soon as cruising altitude was reached the flight crew would kill the two inner engines to save fuel and to lessen the noise. It could fly on one engine so was quite safe. Thanks :)
That plane still looks good than any other place out today ... The way those jets blend together with the wing is just amazing 👌😍
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_
It's remarkable how similar to modern jets this looks.
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. 😎
Great Plane or Greatest Plane?
No comet.
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.
Best.Channel.Ever. Period.
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
This channel is so good. Reminds me of what Wendover productions was trending to be before it went tech fanboy without critical thinking.
shinybaldy they were great before i went flying around channels
Im 90% sure this channel and Half As Interesting are Wendover, just changing his voice style/equalizer settings
louiearmstrong same affiliated channel but the style is definitely different. Wendover is just sad speculating stuff now.
louiearmstrong half as interesting is actually Wendover’s second channel
Horus Morus I had a feeling
When I was a kid I flew everywhere.. I’d say 20 states easy and flights every 6 months. My grandpa traveled for work and I guess I took it for granted, it was so fun. As an adult I’ve flown from the Bay Area to San Diego lol..
Great video, well done.
Just a couple of extra points if I may;
The Comet did find success when it became the basis for the RAF maritime reconnaissance aircraft “Nimrod”, it served until 2011.
One of the reasons the 707 surpassed the Comet was that it was designed to use longer runways which required most airports to extend runways to accomodate this new Boeing jet, the Comet was designed to operate from existing short runways which made it more versatile at the ultimate expensive of less ability to carry passengers.
The 707 stood on the shoulders of the Comet in the same way that the Douglas DC-3 stood on the shoulders of the pioneering Boeing 247, sometimes being first is not always best.
The reason the 707 did well was they were given away, the customer only had to pay for the spares.
@Alejandra y Alan Bowman *WRONG! The Boeing 707 cost $4.5 million USD each! and in 1959 earned a 32 million dollar profit (a 21% return on investment).*
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 The 707 was a better airliner than the Comet 4. It was faster and held more passengers, which made it more financially viable. That was probably the biggest reason the 707 won out. The Comet was fine plane, but needed a few upgrades to compete with the 707 in the markets they were competing in. Those upgrades were coming in the form of the Comet 5, but by that point that was being considers, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were in dominant market positions. They gave up on the airliner market and the Comet 5 never happened.
*De Havilland went bankrupt in 1959... as a direct result of the **_Comet Disaster_** which remains the worst engineering failure in aviation history.*
+Brad Rigg. While it came first, in the long line of jet airliners, the Comet was at best a transitional design. With it's quite small narrow fuselage, straight tail surfaces, slightly swept wing with plain leading edge & plain flaps, it still had a lot in common with the piston-prop airliners of the '40s. It's early accidents clearly restricted it's success, but even if they hadn't occurred, with the launch of the B707 & DC8 on the horizon, it's sales potential still would have been quite limited. The B707 surpassed the Comet in a number of ways. It was simply a more advanced design, with a lot more potential. Modern designs owe more to the B707 than to the Comet. The Comet was the pioneer, but the B707 created the jet airliner template that's still followed today.
I swear, this is literally one of my favorite RUclips Channels!! The quality of the models and editing is superb!
Holy crap, I had no idea that Sydney airport's tower was so old! It still looks like something from the future.
(Behind the boeing at 7:24)
Dude, I must say that I love the way you explain everything and the visual quality on your videos.
It looks amazing as always! you sure make anyone turn into a transport tech passionate by just looking one of your videos
I hope you keep going ahead, they're awesome and give a lot of inspiration!
Thank you! New video coming soon:)
I was lucky enough to fly on the Comet several times... Never did me any harm!
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
Imagine if they designed an anniversary plane with the in-built/integrated engines of the comet nowadays, would look so cool
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.*
Your channel is absolutely awesome
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
The transition from the engine to that soundtrack was rather smooth
I flew on Comets BEA to Malta in 1962/3...i was 12yrs old and going back home from boarding school Fantastic..the alternatives were Viscounts or Vanguards..have always felt privileged. Good luck.
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
video: "don't put square windows or you'll explode!"
mustard meteorite: has square windows
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
My father assisted in the crash investigations of the Comet. He told me that the main point of failure for stress cracks was a small window in the ceiling of the cockpit. The window was there for navigation so the navigator could shoot stars with a theodolite/sextant (way before GPS etc. they still confirmed inertial navigation over ocean routes with star charts) . That window was where most of the fractures began.
The window in the top of the fuselage where the fracture started wasn't a glass window to look out of, but an opening covered in plastic to provide a way for the direction finder antenna to receive signals. This was used for homing in on radio beacons and even radio broadcast stations as part of radio navigation.
Here's a drawing from the investigation report, showing where the ADF "window" was located:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comet_1_G-ALYP_-_wreckage_recovered_png.png
The _Comet Disaster_ investigations revealed that the catastrophic in-flight structural failures were not related to any specific penetrations in the fuselage but the the completely inadaquate thickness and strength of the aluminum skins, the lack proper rip-stop doubler joints and poorly designed and constructed riveting, the rivet joints were shockingly bad and well below Industry standards.
@@sandervanderkammen9230Liar. DH had a problem, then got it right, too bad you can't say the same for American dearhtraps.
@@barrierodliffe4155 *The Comet has the worst safety record of any jet airliner in history.*
*26 Comets crashed or were destroyed in accidents making it the worst commercial jet in.the entire history of commercial aviation.*
@@barrierodliffe4155 *The Boeing 787 is the safest jet airliner in history.*
LOVED THIS VIDEO … 2:30 Dateline 1958 Age 9. I remember being on an Eastern Airlines Connie just like this, talking to a pilot about new jets and I asked the pilot, as we were leaving the plane: “Do you think jets will ever replace planes like this?” I loved the Connies, even then. He said, “sadly, yes they will. People want to get there sooner.” I never thought the engine drone was bad. In fact I found it soothing. Thanks again.
Lucky enough to have experienced flying in the Comet, but it was in the RAF's Nimrod MR2 derivative. Awesome aircraft, used it's four engines for take-off and cruised with just two ! Thrilling experience, preferable to a modern passenger jet any day of the week !
The Nimrod is a completely different aircraft that was designed by a different company decades later.
The Nimrod like the Comet had a checkered safety record and was grounded due to metal fatigue issues.
Nice video. Although it was designed as a pax aircraft it would have been good if you had mentioned that a military version (Nimrod) which was based on the Comet was built for the RAF. The last of those was retired in 2011.
It's funny, I thought the shape of the air intakes looked like the Nimrod!
Now you know why you thought this ;)
You beat me to it.
Your videos are A+. Keep the aviation stuff coming.
And my suggestion: Do something about Embraer
The Comet had so much going for it. It looked (and still does) beautiful and was futuristic, but on the flip side it was rushed through and in some respects under engineered. Such a shame.
Yet the Comet 4 was an excellent aircraft and a pleasure to fly in,. Boeing had their share of trouble but they restricted the speed of the 707 and hushed it up, not before it killed many more people than the Comet ever did.
@@barrierodliffe4155 I had no idea about the safety record of the 707 to be honest.
@@barrierodliffe4155 The DeHaviland Comet Disaster was and remains the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history.
26 Comets crashed or were destroyed in accidents killing 426 innocent people... that is 1 out of every 4 Comets built making it the worst safety record in commercial aviation.
@@ericgeorge5483 Don't mind Barrie, he is not old enough to understand *Statistics* like _per flight_ and _per passenger/mile_ safety records.
The Comet Disaster remains the worst aircraft safety record in commercial aviation history.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 It's such a shame because aesthetically its a lovely design.
I just know, this video is going to be gooooooood
FaZe M3RK As good as supply drops.
Eclipse you know it!
The comet was a lovely plane to fly in. I had a number of flights in them.
It's a shame many adults lose the excitement for flight they once had as kids. They'll just sit there tapping away on devices, completely desensitized to the fact it's still the most miraculous experience of their lives. I always make a point of looking out the window during flights, and it's a real joy to see other people do the same thing
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.
The comet was disastrous, yet in my opinion I think it was the most important commercial airliner to have existed. Without it Commercial aviation would not be where it is today, it thought us more about anything than any modern plane today
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.
Has anybody noticed that Queen Amidala’s Spaceship (the one that was blown up on a sky platform on Coruscant, just after it landed) had wings with embedded engines and a silver metal design that seemed to be nod to the original Comet. Anybody notice? 😃
The chairman of Douglass once said, "Being first is pretty great, but the money is in being second."
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?
Sees video about planes
Doesn't see it was made by Wendover Productions
MIND = BLOWN
TheHvk Mustard does a lot of planes too
You know what was also blown?
@@brianmo2965 My Ass
Yes, I do like the sturdy, reliable,but slow Douglas DC-3,took a bit longer to get there and the Lockheed Constellation was one of the most beautiful prop driven airliners ever,but yes as far as jet liners that Comet was a modern thing of beauty,as well as the amazing Concorde!
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!
Nice vid. I grew up near the de Havilland aircraft museum in Hertfordshire. They've a beautifully restored Mosquito prototype on display (and two other restored Mossies), as well as sections of Comet's and other DH aircraft. Definitely worth a visit if you're ever in that neck of the woods.
I did fly in Comets. The first and the later versions. Well, I`m still here decades later. I`ve flown in all the jetliners since but Concorde aside this was a beautiful aircraft. The most ever ...
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.
It's still looks sleek even for now
Agreed it looks more modern than most new aircraft
Looks like a 787 ;)
Hans Peter Grüner what no
No it doesn't, but the noses kinda looks the same. I don't know.
Oh yeah I see what you mean in that regard
This video inspired me to make a research paper on the impact that the De-Haviland comet had on the aviation industry
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?????*
Thank you so so much for the informative and beautiful videos.
It's from Mustard, so I liked the video before I watched it. :)
The only complaint is that Mustard doesn't post regularly enough - great videos though :)
I always watch the full add just for him.
Which mustard?The one I put in my mouth?
JAUN MOVIE SCENES *Dick*
Congrats, you're a sheep.
The Comets rough start reminds me of the old Jimmy Stewart 1952 movie "No Highway in the Sky" about the (fictional) Reindeer class of aircraft that suffered from metal fatigue in the tail section. He was the stubborn engineer that couldn't convince his superiors of the aircraft's unworthiness in flight. Good flick, everyone needs to watch it.
Based on the Nevil Shute novel from 1948.
Wow! I heard the first prop plane coming in my right earphone before my left! That's pretty cool.
This reminds me of that old cartoon from the 50's, Johnny Jet. Remember that? The airplane guy hates jets because they're taking all the jobs and then he's all pissed off when his son is born a jet. "JETS? I HATE JETS!"
LoL yeah I do! Doesn't the kid come flying out at the end and help his dad win a race or something?? They go blasting past the Statue of Liberty and her skirt goes flying up and the little jet's cheeks get red lol...
Thanks for the memory!! I loved those old cartoons!
One of my favorites!
He’d have a heart attack if he saw an airport today
@@kenworthNH Yeah, pissed me off though because his dad had to cheat to win. Poor example to show kids. Could have had the kid fly fast to get an airplane part so his dad could live.
Awesome video. Will you do a video on the blended wing aircraft design or other unconventional aircraft designs? I'm kinda sad that blended wing aircraft weren't developed further and these type of aircraft are more fuel efficient than normal tube aircraft and you can put engines on top to make them quieter too.
Yao Lou I’m sure the weight distribution on that shape of a plane would have many problems.
Yao Lou you can do all that but you then have to solve the deplaning problem. Almost all major airports are set up for the tube design.
Rocksen
I'm not a plane enthusiast however just as jet engines were seen as inefficient and the original passenger jets suffered lots of problems, the blended wing aircraft may pose tons of problems but may be better, more efficient than current airlines. Idk, just stating my thought. Most truly new things aren't at their most efficient till they are refined.
Seating is a major problem that will ensure blended wing airliners never see the light of day. The passengers sitting far out will be moving up and down 20 to 30 feet every time the plane turns, plus how would evacuations work? Blended wings are good for bombers and cargo and that’s all you’ll ever get unless you build a home built kit.
Not necessarily so. There can be other factors that exclude it. My first thought is that for the same carrying capacity, a flying wing/blended wing body needs to have a greater wingspan. Also, the jetways (the bridge from the gate to the aircraft) would need to be different because they're designed to interface a "tube" fuselage. Other logistical and technical challenges also exist.
Whenever I hear the Boeing 787's name mentioned, I can't help but smile as I remember my flight attendant on Southwest Airlines saying "this is a state of the art Boeing 787; its a multi-million dollar 21st century aircraft and it uses seatbelts from a '57 Chevy"
You , Sir, owe me a new keyboard. I just spit tea all over this one.
Seriously, you have no idea. I worked in aircraft for 40 years, helping to manufacture the most modern lethal helicopters ever.
Many systems drew mechanical power from the main gearbox, utilizing a gear shaft, housing and ball bearings. This bearing is a Model A Ford generator bearing. Still state of the art. One bearing company, I forgot which, still listed the bearing under it's original part number. This bearing can be had today for the whopping sum of $ 5.50.
These helicopters used a Delco-Remy starter generator, it looked to be about the same size as the ones in 1918 Dodge Brothers cars.
And it's partly held together with rivets, used ever since anyone joined two pieces of metal together centuries ago!
It might’ve been terrible but wow it’s shape looks badass.
Mustard: Talks about how square windows fxxk planes up
Also Mustard: Uses square windows for his experiment jet
*Visible confusion*
Just a joke, relax
They are rounded out
The original Comet was a beautiful looking airplane.
*Nothing beautiful about a airliner crash...*
@@doktorbimmer you could also not reply to every comment and type like a normal person. It just physically hurts to read your comments.
@Stan Pines *Sound like you can't handle the truth...*
@@stanpines9011 thank god he doesn't use that account anymore but sander ver Kamen still uses it
@@Maximus20778 *You can't handle the truth either... poor little snowflakes.*
I’ve seen a comet up close and personal at RAF Costford. They really are gigantic beasts
New technology always has a teething component. I admire De Havilland for their fearless innovation. Took a lot of guts.
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%*
It is a beautiful plane. The jets in the wing make it look more modern than current planes.
Engines in the wings was one of its many fatal flaws and caused several fatal accidents... no other manufacturers have used this deadly design.
But it looks goooood. Very Art Deco.
@@ronjon7942 It's very classic de Havilland Art Deco style..
Unfortunately de Havilland was more concerned with looks than safety and their technology peaked in the early 1930s.
Unfortunately, in terms of aerodynamic performance integration of the engines within the wing is a serious design flaw.
@@WilhelmKarsten
Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Werkzxoffen etc and co - they should note good with much awestruckness.
*UPDATE*
*There are advantages to wing root mounted engines including aerodynamic advantages.*
*_The Comet engines air intake configuration was not actually a design flaw._*
*_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 🙂
. ... ... . . ... . . ... . . ... . .
xcvxcxvxcxvxcxvxcviii
Great summary of the history of that plane and putting it into perspective of the time period while comparing to other aircraft. Furthermore, you have a good voice-over talent. This is a professional video and it is a positive presentation for SKILL SHARE, of which I am not sure I ever heard of it before today.
Great job!
Brennan Callan
Cinematographer/Aerial Videographer/Aeronautical Scientist
These were such beautiful planes. It is heart breaking to think of how people must have felt as they were failing. Had they been super reliable and safe the UK might be the leaders in Airline Production today.
I flew on a Comet 4B from Manchester to Alicante in 1970. Only a few days after a 4B had flown into a mountain near Barcelona. I was on MH17 from Amstadam to KL the week before this aircraft was shot down. I thought it was rather concerning when flight path was over Kabul and Ukraine. I guess I am lucky to still be here!
bruh man.... i didn't know you were on the crashed plane...
also hi to you from malaysia!
Look even today so futuristic, i cant imagine how people back then would think about it
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.
10:00
That pleases my OCD
this is just sooo well made.i keep coming back and watching this time to time
It's amazing just how 'modern' the Comet still looks today, which is a testament to the degree to which it influenced subsequent airliner design.
There is absolutely nothing modern looking about the Comet... its stodgy Art Deco styling and antiquated empennage look old and very dated in the 1950s...
The de Havilland Comet is regarded as glaring example of how NOT to design a jet airliner... it was without any doubt an evolutionary dead-end in the commercial aviation industry and the plane that destroyed the once great de Havilland company.
@@sandervanderkammen9230You really hate the Comet haha. It looks kind of cool.
@@imperialinquisition6006 The Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in aviation history.
1 out of every 3 Comets built crashed or were destroyed in accidents... a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history.