(first posted 9/25/2016) The first jetliner in the world wasn’t a Boeing or a McDonnell Douglas. It was a government sponsored project, conceived in war to serve a post-war Empire. It was a commercial failure, not helped by a fundamental flaw that made it the first jetliner to crash and be grounded. It conceded market supremacy to the Americans who weren’t then challenged from Europe for half a century. But it was an aerodynamic beauty from the company that created the wooden Mosquito, and it had a life of 60 years. It looked and flew like no plane before it, and had a great name – Comet.
The Comet had its roots in the British government’s wartime planning for the post war world – as early as 1942, the Air Ministry established a committee led by aviation pioneer and government minister John Moore-Brabazon, 1st Baron Brabazon of Tara, to consider how to meet future civilian aircraft needs.
Brabazon’s Committee recommended that six types of civilian aircraft be developed, ranging from a large, luxurious airliner capable of serving the transatlantic market to a ten seat plane for low volume domestic routes. The resulting designs were a mixed bunch. The large Bristol Brabazon was a flop – only one prototype was built. The economics of a plane the size of a Boeing 767 but with just 100 seats were as weak as the design was over-ambitious.
On the other hand, the de Havilland DH104 Dove, with two engines and around 10 seats, used modernity, with modern engines and easy maintenance, to give it an edge over the many surplus military transports that became available after the war.
Alongside the Brabazon Committee, the British engineer Frank Whittle was slowly perfecting his jet engine, and just as slowly persuading the RAF and government of its merits.
By 1942, the RAF had ordered what became the de Havilland Vampire as one of two prototype fighters using the new technology – and its success gave Brabazon committee member Geoffrey de Havilland the confidence to push the committee to include a specification for a 100 seat pressurised jet powered airliner, aiming for a cruising speed of 400 mph (640 km/h).
De Havilland was convinced his company could produce a plane meeting the resulting specification, and, determined to get ahead of his competitors, stuck to his guns. And, in February 1945, the British government duly gave de Havilland the contract to develop what became the Comet; by December the state owned British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) had ordered 10, and a design team began work in 1946 – all without any publicity.
In 1949, the Comet emerged from its hitherto secret development, looking like this. Let’s think about this for a moment. Just four years earlier, Europe had emerged from the bloodiest war in its bloody history; across Britain, factories were struggling to move from swords to ploughshares, while coping with significant bomb damage and dislocation, and with funds short. The country was basically broke and dependent on American credit; food and petrol were rationed, coal was scarce, infrastructure was crumbling from wartime overuse and under maintenance, and the new threat of Russian dominance of eastern Europe was becoming apparent just as a huge army was being demobilised and returned to civvy street. And in the middle of this, a sleek streamlined silver plane, powered by a technology that had barely existed five years earlier, shot across the sky, promising a better future for us all. It would be fair to call the public gobsmacked.
As it appeared in 1949, the Comet 1 was like no other plane. The streamlined fuselage, which still looks modern now, made extensive use of new alloys and adhesives in the metal skin, while the swept back wings with the engines buried in the wing root marked a transformation in appearance from any propeller driven plane.
The design was all de Havilland’s, led by Ronald Bishop (1903 – 1989), a 25 year de Havilland veteran and also chief designer of the Mosquito.
The Comet 1 was 93ft long, with a wingspan of 115ft. De Havilland’s Goblin jet engines, developed from the Vampire’s, were also fitted to the Comet 1, until Rolls-Royce’s new Avon jets (an evolution of the Goblin) were ready. A lot of the visual impact of the Comet comes from how the jets were buried in the wing root; this location was partly for aerodynamics, and partly to avoid overloading the wings with the heavy engines. It did however necessitate extensive noise and heat insulation, and complicated the structure of the wings and the protection needed from any engine explosion.
First BOAC flight leaves London Heathrow
First flight was on 27 July 1949, flown by the famous de Havilland test pilot John Cunningham, with Frank Whittle watching from the ground. The first production aircraft flew in January 1951, and by May 1952 BOAC were ready for fare-paying passengers – the world’s first on a jetliner. The first route was not transatlantic – the range of the Comet was not yet sufficient for this – but to Johannesburg, South Africa, with en route stops at Rome, Beirut, Khartoum (Sudan), Entebbe (Uganda) and Livingstone (Zambia) – a distance of 7,000 miles in 23 hours, over 4 hours faster than the previous piston engine service, and with a far superior passenger experience, and cruising at 450mph.
In BOAC configuration, it had 36 reclining seats, with legroom to match, and service unlike anything you’ll see today.
By the summer of 1953, BOAC Comets were also reaching India, Colombo (Sri Lanka), Singapore and Tokyo, as well as Australia. French airlines flew it to the West Indies, and the larger Comet 2 was being developed, and even the Americans were placing orders.
But then it all began to go wrong.
The first accident was in October 1952, on take-off from Rome airport, and was blamed on pilot error. Another in March 1953, on take-off from Karachi in Pakistan, was ascribed to the same cause. But with hindsight, that perhaps wasn’t the full story.
A BOAC Comet was lost near Kolkata, India, in May 1953 (a year to the day after the first passenger flight) – reports spoke of a wingless plane plunging to the ground, and the first suspicions of structural weakness were beginning, but were linked to turbulence rather than any other cause.
But in January 1954, again shortly after take-off from Rome, the first production Comet crashed into the Mediterranean near the island of Elba, killing all 35 on board. It could no longer be denied that a serious problem existed. De Havilland made 60 modifications in a bid to keep the plane flying, but BOAC grounded its Comet fleet, and the Royal Navy was sent to recover the wreckage.
Then, in April, another Comet, chartered by BOAC to South African Airways, crashed near Naples, killing 21. This was the end. Production was halted, all Comets grounded worldwide, the UK Certificate of Airworthiness revoked, and a public inquiry established. As this was before the days of voice and data recorders, only the wreckage could provide clues to the cause.
Eventually, over 60% of the Comet from the January 1954 crash was recovered and reassembled.
Water tank testing at the de Havilland site at Hatfield, near London, identified that the fuselage had burst open at the corner of one of the Comet’s distinctive large square windows. Further tests on a second airframe donated by BOAC produced the same result, at the corner of a hatch. Metal fatigue in the ground-breaking alloys through the exaggerated stresses at the corners was thus pinpointed. Problems were exacerbated by the faster pressurisation and depressurisation cycles of a fast high flying jet compared to those of existing piston engine planes.
Comet 1 mothballed at de Havilland, Hatfield
Today, such a weakness would probably be the end of a plane, with its reputation decisively shredded. But not the Comet. All the remaining Comet 1s were scrapped, and the Comet 2s that were in production were modified with heavier gauge skin and smaller, round windows before being passed to the RAF rather than their intended civil purchasers.
There was a Comet 3, which was already in development by early 1954; it was a lengthened version of the Comet 2, offering greater range and capacity. But it never entered service, as the fuselage was based on the flawed Comet 2.
In place of the Comet 2, airlines got the Comet 4 from 1958 – the definitive Comet, and the first jetliner capable of transatlantic flight.
The Cornet 4 came in three versions, all with Rolls-Royce Avon jets. The original Comet 4, 18 feet longer than the Comet 1, took up to 81 passengers in a lengthened and strengthened fuselage; the 4b had a longer still fuselage, with shorter wings optimised for short haul flights – launch customer was BEA (British European Airways – the other half of what became British Airways in 1974). The 4c took the longer fuselage of the 4b and the longer wings of the 4 to make the final version; 23 examples were built, mostly sold to airlines in central America and the Middle East. In total, 113 Comets of all types were built
So, on 4 October 1958, BOAC inaugurated the first transatlantic jet service, between London and New York, with Comet 4’s seating 48 passengers in space and comfort. Westbound, with a stop in Gander, Newfoundland, took 10 hours 22 minutes; eastbound, non-stop, 6 hours 11 minutes with helpful tailwinds – impressive even now. But on October 26, Pan-Am began a competing service with the new Boeing 707 – and the writing was on the wall for the Comet. The American jet was bigger, more fuel economical and available in much larger quantities than de Havilland could manage – and hearing Boeing talk about how the Comet’s problems had influenced their thinking was scant consolation for the Brits.
The Boeing was developed from the 367-80 prototype, which first flew in 1954 – 5 years behind the Comet, and it showed in the design. The Boeing’s swept wings, with four jets hanging from them in pods, looked more modern than the Comet’s straighter wings, and the greater length (148 feet to the Comet 4’s 111ft) and wider fuselage allowing 6 abreast seating gave a larger and thus more profitable capacity of up to 189 passengers. This was clearly the model for future long distance air transport, not the small and lightly loaded Comet. By 1979, Boeing had built over 1,000 707s and McDonnell-Douglas over 500 of the very similar DC-8.
Hedging their bets early on, BOAC had ordered fifteen 707s back in 1956, and by 1960, was flying the 707-420, fitted with Rolls-Royce Conway 508 engines, the world’s first bypass turbofan jets, rather than the typical Pratt and Whitney jets.
BOAC promoted them as the “Rolls-Royce 707”, playing up the British engines. BOAC’s last Comet left the fleet in 1965 and soon disgruntled British engineers spoke about the ‘Boeing Only Aircraft Corporation’.
Other British airlines kept their Comets for longer, notably the British charter operator Dan Air. All of Dan Air’s 44 Comets (although the fleet never exceeded 18 airworthy craft) were second hand, including several from the RAF. The air force had been a user of Comets since 1956, for troop and VIP transport, and for general transport duties. Well maintained aircraft with low usage obviously appeal to charter airlines and Dan Air snapped up the last few when the Air Force declared them surplus in 1976.
With strengthened floors and reduced seat pitch, Dan Air squeezed in 119 seats in rows five abreast into their Comets, but the plane’s days were numbered – a Comet with 119 passengers used the same fuel as a DC-10 with 345. Dan Air operated the Comet 4c until 1980 – being the last operator of the world’s first jet is probably the only thing Dan Air can be positively remembered for!
But there was more to come. The Comet 4 fuselage provided the base for the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod maritime reconnaissance plane (Nimrod, Comet, Spitfire, Mosquito, Lightning, Hurricane, Vulcan – we Brits know how to name planes!). Designed to replace the Avro Shackleton (itself a development of the Lancaster), and powered by Rolls-Royce Spey jets, the Nimrod first flew in 1967.
The Nimrod provided Britain’s anti-submarine warfare and maritime reconnaissance capability, including search and rescue, for almost 40 years, until the planes were prematurely retired as part of swingeing defence cuts that also claimed the Hawker Harrier. They were key to the RAF’s role in the Falklands War of 1983, by providing reconnaissance and radar based navigation support to the Vulcans and Victors that were used to attack the islands’ airport.
The first two Nimrods were actually built from unfinished Comet airframes; the Spey jets gave greater fuel efficiency, and the plane was designed to allow cruising on just two engines to extend its range and endurance even further.
But after the Comet, Britain never challenged Boeing and McDonnell Douglas again head-on – subsequent British jetliners were short haul planes like the BAC111 and the Hawker Siddeley Trident. The last British long haul jet was the Vickers VC-10, which was specifically designed to serve Commonwealth routes, principally between Britain and Africa with short runways at high altitude. Not until the Airbus consortium was formed in the 1980s did the Americans face real competition.
Several Comets remain; Duxford near Cambridge has G-APDB in BOAC livery, the first jetliner to cross the Atlantic, while the Scottish National Museum of Flight at East Fortune, 30 miles outside Edinburgh, has G-BDIX, still in Dan Air colours. It may look a bit tired and in need of a repaint –but that would cover up the RAF markings still visible on the rear fuselage!
Stepping inside it will give away its age – the door is barely 5ft 6in high, the front door is on the right, not the now universal left, and the luggage racks are racks, not lockers. This is the four man cockpit.
This one is a Comet 4c, named Canopus, and the last to fly, in 1996, after spending its entire 33 year life as a Ministry of Defence research plane. It still taxis at Bruntingthorpe Aerodrome in the English Midlands, alongside a collection of Cold War jets.
The Nimrod was shot at the also excellent Yorkshire Air Museum, on a former Bomber Command base outside the city of York; the Museum will tell you that manned flight was invented in Yorkshire, by George Cayley – and they have a case! And you might enjoy reading Empire of the Clouds, a very readable history of 1950s British jet aviation.
RAF Museum, Cosford
So there you have the Comet – too far too soon, perhaps, then a refusal to let disaster and failure prevent pioneering triumphs and ending with almost 60 years’ service? Not bad for a first effort at a jetliner? The jury is still out, I suspect.
Lovely aircraft and writeup!
Thank you; I enjoy aviation history.
Still have my UK Dinky Comet model from childhood; it must be about 1:200 scale.
I think a bit the Comet lived on as the same design was used for the nose/cockpit of the Sud Est Caravelle.
Correct about the Caravelle using much of the design of the Comet’s nose…Anglo-French cooperation, way before Concorde.
Never saw a Comet here in the US, but United did use the Caravelle on some routes. I never got to ride in one, only Convair 340 and DC-6 props on West Coast routes back then.
Great story about a plane I’ve I known quite a bit about. I have been a fan of commercial planes since I was a kid, probably has something to do an uncle being a 707 flight engineer
“Boeing talk about how the Comet’s problems had influenced their thinking“
Sounds like a polite fib; Boeing, along with Douglas & Lockheed, had experience with pressurized cabins since the late ’30s (hence lots of skilled engineers available), whereas deHavilland, famous for their wood aircraft, had little experience at building large, all-metal (let alone pressurized) aircraft. I think industry & officialdom both covered up deHavilland’s incompetence to save face, spinning it as a metal-fatigue “frontier of science” thing ever since.
Don’t believe me? Boeing finished the Dash-80 before the Comet Official Inquiry was published. There’s no evidence they had to redesign its windows afterwards. Even Canada knew how to build jet airliners by then.
Great piece. This, the jumbo and the constellations are my favourite flying shapes. Those engines blended into the wings are exquisite, even if they do present added compromise to the airframe in case of failure. Those shots of the unadorned Comet 1 have already made my week.
The Brits seemed to like the jet engines in the wing as opposed to the jet nacelles mounted under the wing as on American aircraft. This gave them a sleek, very clean look that also worked well on the Vulcan bomber. I was always a big fan of the Comet, and always wanted to fly on one. Notice how most of the passengers are dressed up for the flight. Compare that to the almost slobbish look of an average Jet Blue flier!
It turned out to be very limiting, though, because the larger by-pass jet engines didn’t really fit there.
I suspect Boeing’s experience with B-29 engine fires made podded jets on the ground-breaking B-47 an easy decision. The R-3350 radial was of magnesium; once ignited, it was said to burn thru the main spar in about 30s.
Also, pods are easier to upgrade, as for example with the KC-135 & 737.
There are also specific aerodynamic advantages to engines hung below the wing in pods, which is why they were done so. Fire was not one of them, as far as I know.
Having done a bit more reading, there’s no particular aerodynamic advantage in pods, but their extra drag can be mostly mitigated. But they do have a number of other advantages, the biggest being that it’s much easier to make a light, strong wing spar not interrupted by an engine, thus reducing the bending moment of the wing. Others too; gets a bit complex, though. Maintenance access is much easier. And the whole arrangement is safer too; pods can be designed to just break away when a certain degree of vibration exists.
In any case, the high-bypass turbofans were never going to work mounted in the wings.
bending moment can’t be reduced, it is what it is based on engine mass and wing mass. if anything wing root placement would reduce the bending moment because it’s closer to the fixed base.
Bending moment works both ways, yes on the ground the fuselage largely supports the wings but when in flight it’s the other way around. Where the engines are hung is only part of the equation.
At any rate I think what PN’s getting at is that an uninterrupted wing spar can have a more effective cross section, thus enabling it to better handle bending moments.
I think there are several advantages with pod mounts when things go bad; fire, the breakaway design that PN mentioned and I would think that if you had uncontained engine failure it it would be of benefit to not have 100% of ejected parts go into the wing structure.
Great article BTW, I didn’t know the Comet soldiered on for so long.
I’m going to agree that fire was a big factor at Boeing. The crash of the first B29 into an occupied building with their chief test pilot and engineers on board was fresh in their memory. there is definite aerodynamic benefits to wing root engine placement and a review of published articles verifies that. the other benefits of pods are true.
Hundreds of Constellation and DC-7 planes flew in passenger service with R-3350’s. While the intakes were magnesium, which could ignite by a backfire, dont recall any of them lost due to engine fires like the B-29’s. The bomber must have lacked a sufficient firewall to protect the wing structure. A Constellation was lost due to wing fire, caused by an accessory driveshaft to a pressurization pump taking out fuel lines.
Early 049 Constellations were grounded because of that engine after the B-29 crash, hence limited production/use of the C-69 variant. BTW a Boeing test-pilot flew the 1st 049 because of his engine experience.
Later during the War, the R-3350’s teething problems were resolved. Changing to direct-injection helped, so by War’s end it was reliable enough for the Connie & DC-7.
Always loved the sleek lines of the Comet; I had a little model of one as a kid and adored it.
The Comet reminds me in a number of ways of the Concorde: pioneering, European, sleek, fast, small cabin, and ultimately a technological dead end.
Was thinking the same thing. BTW, a great read on the development of the first jets through the 747 – and how Boeing came to supplant Douglass as the commercial aviation leader is Clive Irving’s Wide Body. Lots of details on the podded jets and the swept wing, both of which Boeing learned about because one of their engineers was on an aviation version of the “Monuments Men”, tasked with scooping up German aeronautical research at the end of WWII.
“Monuments Men” recovered confiscated cultural property; what you’re thinking of is the von Kármán mission, which included Boeing aerodynamicist George S. Schairer. The German data simply confirmed the ideas of NACA engineer R.T. Jones, which at first were ridiculed by his peers at Langley.
Irving’s “Wide Body” is an excellent read on the 727/747/DC8 saga.
CC
not sure what happened to previous comment… meant to write:
We’ll find out whether or not the Concorde was really a technological dead end or just merely an example of poor execution and/or tech not there yet, when/if the Boom Overture supersonic airliner launches later this decade. There have been many false starts when new technologies (or revived old technologies) are involved.
Here’s one of GM’s attempts at an electric car in the 1960s and 70s.
Haven’t you heard? Boom went…boom! All of their potential engine suppliers have bailed. No engines, no Boom.
https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/boom-failing-find-partners-supersonic
Anyway, I didn’t say supersonic transport was a technological dead end; I said the Concorde was, which it was. There’s a difference.
note to self: check dates on news updates before posting… thought it had been awhile since i heard from them
British airline treachery: The VC-10 was designed to BOAC specs in the 1st place, & was an advanced design including a zero-visibility landing system (like the later TriStar). Problem was, its wings were designed for shorter takeoff runs, which contributed to higher seat-mile operating costs vs. lower-tech, noisier 707s.
Perhaps Britain’s state-run airlines, with mixed priorities, were UK industry’s undoing; American builders had to bend over backwards to please private airlines, which in turn made their planes more exportable. Nowadays, Boeing has serious competition after seeing off Lockheed & Douglas.
The days when air line travel was Travelling with a capital T, not like today when I can pop my shoes of, take my belt out and walk with my trousers at my ankles through the X-ray machine, put all metal I have with me in a bin for another X-ray and fight for a decent seat in a cramped environment.
Flying was romantic, the stewardess the sister of a playboy model, the drinks were free and most air passengers had a certain level of civilisation, you’d ask if yo could pass to go to room 101 or for a stroll and everything happened in a relaxed atmosphere, the pilots were God who came down over the PA to inform you about the flight and the weather at your destination.
Today I have to pay extra for a suitcase on whose so-called budget airlines,
I hate them and I stick to the traditional brands whenever I can.
Often they are not as expensive as you may think.
The Comet was briljant too bad as the windows and metal fatigue caused those horrible accidents, the competition learned a lot from the Comet’s failure I guess.
Southwest offers free luggage. It is amazing how Southwest, the pioneer budget airline, with its free luggage policy, is positioned as more premium than the legacy carriers.
OTOH flying has become greatly democratized, affordable by many, not just the 1% of yore.
My big concern in recent years is all the merging – prices have roared upwards as competition has diminished.
Thank you for this very good post. Lovely Comet — the shape was so elegant. Wish I could just see one in the metal. Fly in it? No, probably would pass on that…
One thing though: what’s the second passenger jet after the Comet? If you read this, you’d say “Boeing 707”. But the only passenger jet in the air when Comets were still grounded in ’56-’57 was the Tu-104. The West was shocked when those started coming from the USSR — they thought Soviet aviation was still trying to better the DC3… Foiled again by those pesky Ruskies!
The Avro Canada C102, which 1st flew about 2 weeks after the Comet, was actually the 2nd jet airliner, but it went nowhere (despite interest from H. Hughes & the Pentagon) because of interference from a gov’t minister who demanded CF-100 production instead.
But you’re right, Russian accomplishments are often overlooked, in part due to their mania for secrecy at the time.
I flew on an Aeroflot plane in 1974…. It flew but it was very very crude. Some examples – a tissue placed against a passenger window edge stayed there, held there by the escaping air- the Russians pressurized the cabin by pumping air in faster than it could leak out. We were held on the ground in Moscow, because they had trouble finding a pilot willing to take off in foggy weather – not much in the way of technological assistance for the pilot was available apparently. A bit nervous in some bumpy air, I lit a cigarette (permitted on all US flights in those days); our InTourist Guide unbuckled her seat belt, came flying down the aisle, snatched the cigarette from my mouth and stomped it to death on the
carpetfloor of the plane. “No smoking is permitted in Soviet planes!”, she said breathlessly, and then wild-eyed she added, “But we had never had an accident!”.Hmmmm.
Good story! A Russian emigré told me he saw ground crew fix an engine problem — with a sledgehammer! He also said flight crew were often intoxicated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4448262/Aeroflot-says-drunk-pilot-no-big-deal.html
Yeah, I’ve heard a few horror stories about the Soviet-era Aeroflot too. My parents went there for a holiday in 1991, just before the coup. They flew internally to Tashkent. They came back in one piece but said “Aeroflot, never again”!
But I’ve heard horror stories from folks who flew in Asian and African airlines too. The plane itself is usually not to blame — bad maintenance and staff training, on the other hand, always lead to nasty outcomes. I understand the Tu-104 was noisy, tricky to fly and easy to stall. The Comet 1 and 2, though, were basically time-bombs due to inadequate design.
114 Comets made, 25 hull losses (in service 1952-1980)
201 Tupolev 104s made, 37 hull losses (in service 1956-1985)
Not all crashes can be attributed to the design in either plane, but it’s still pretty shocking compared to 21st century aircraft.
I flew from Moscow to Saigon in february 2002 and was allowed to smoke all the way through – it was a 767 and the the food, to my surprise, was excellent. I flew back on april 3rd and was not allowed to smoke, since all smoking was banned from Aeroflot international flights as of april 1st 2002.
The Russians did have a head start-they developed the Tu-104 from the “Badger” bomber. They even kept the bombardier’s “greenhouse” and used it for the navigator. (They did it again when they used the Tu-95 “Bear” as the basis for the Tu-114 inter-continental airliner.)
Thousands of air travelers in and out of Chicago O’Hare Airport each day could have seen one of the few Comets that made the USA its home. An Illinois resident and would-be tycoon owned one. It broke down and was parked at O’Hare, easily visible from some of the busiest traffic patterns there. I flew often then, and saw it dozens of times. But he fell upon hard times…it turned out he was a pedophile…and his Comet began to suffer from disuse and the elements. The Smithsonian was involved in an effort to bring it to its Air and Space collection, but like any government-related bureaucracy, it moved slowly, fitfully; and in this case, ultimately fruitlessly. That Comet was scrapped. The only other one in the USA at the time…and the first Comet 4C built…was donated to the Museum of Flight in Seattle. It is now undergoing cosmetic restoration.
Great piece. The Comet is such a tragic story. It’s hard not to suspect that the plane was rushed into service for economic and perhaps political reasons.
The second Comet crash, in March 1953 at Karachi Airport, was a Canadian Pacific Airlines plane on its delivery flight from Britain to Australia, where it was to be based for service on the trans-Pacific route to Canada. Due to range issues, it could fly only as far as Hawaii, connecting with propellor service for the longest leg from Honolulu to Vancouver. Following Canadian Pacific ‘Empress’ naming traditions, it was designated ‘Empress of Hawaii’.
The plane failed to achieve adequate speed for takeoff and the crash was ascribed to pilot error, but De Havilland later made changes to the wing design.
I’m still waiting for this British-designed atomic-powered plane to become a reality…
+1
It is amazing to think that Thunderbirds was made 50 years ago!
That Fireflash airliner was real boss!
This pic probably belongs in the Marlin thread, but in the movie “Thunderbirds Are Go!” there was a brief glimpse of a Rambler Marlin as the Zero-X spacecraft was being assembled on the tarmac.
One of the things I love about Thunderbirds is that it depicts a 21st century where cars and architecture are still very much 1960s and wacky ideas like atom-powered aircraft have become a reality.
I loved the Thunderbirds, and its predecessor Fireball XL5. I was a bit too old for Supercar, and didn’t find Stingray or Captain Scarlet as gripping.
Important trivia:
The Tracy brothers were given American accents and were named after five of the seven Mercury astronauts, so as appeal to an American audience.
Alan – Alan Shepard
Virgil – “Gus” Grissom (by rights, Virgil)
John – John Glenn
Scott – Scott Carpenter
Gordon – “Gordo” Cooper
Had there been seven brothers, the other two, given Gerry and Sylvia’s propensity to eschew nicknames, would have been:
Donald – “Deke” Slayton
and
Walter – Wally Schirra
While I can understand the potential for issues that making jet engines integral with the wings might have (stylish as it might be), who would have thought the shape of the Comet’s windows would have such dire consequences?
It is indeed, tragic, that such a progressive, attractive airliner would end up with such a troubled history.
Yet look at the windows of the pressurized Boeing 307 Stratoliner, ca. 1938:
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/307.html
It was based on the Boeing 299 (AKA B-17).
Maybe the fuselage of the slower prop-plane just didn’t encounter as much stress as the jet-engined Comet, even though both had pressurized cabins? Does seem odd that nothing but round windows have been used since the Comet’s issues with square windows.
You may have a point; Boeing’s postwar Stratocruiser had elliptical windows, so maybe they saw that coming. Too bad deHavilland didn’t pay attention.
Later windows have been rounded rectangles.
And yet, the Caravelle had rounded triangular windows;
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/photo-album-outtake-1957-sud-aviation-caravelle-dawn-of-the-modern-commercial-jet/
I had a Caravelle model as a kid. I loved that design, too. Also a beautiful plane.
For one thing, the pressurized prop planes flew at lower altitude, so the pressure difference was less. Also, the aluminum alloys typically used pre-WWII less strong, but more corrosion and fatigue resistant than the more advanced alloys of the post war period.
What I always found odd is that the non pressurized DC-4 had round windows. Maybe Douglas originally intended for it to be pressurized. The pressurized DC-6 had rectangular windows with rounded corners.
I believe the DC-4 was offered with pressurization, but there were no takers. The Lockheed 049 Connie had it, & with round windows.
The final L-1649 Connie version had rectangular ones. Boeing’s 377 Stratocruiser had round or rectanguar, depending upon airline.
I know, I am 6 months late for this post ( just found it today), but you mention the Sud Caravelle. There is one sitting out at John Glenn Airport, I would love to see it get restored. I do not think there is a flying Caravelle anywhere on earth. It is a beautiful aircraft.
The movie “No Highway in the Sky” with Jimmie Stewart reminds me of this real life problem with the Comet.
Yes, the “reindeers” kept losing their “antlers”!
Basically, not a very good movie. I knew the producers took a risk when Jimmy Stewart told the female passenger to make it into the men’s rest room in event of an emergency, as it was the strongest area of the plane! Verboten!
BTW Stewart was a decorated heavy-bomber commander.
True, that. I should have mentioned it.
The author of the novel from which the movie was made, Nevil Shute, ironically once worked as an engineer for deHavilland. The story was published before the issues with the Comet, and Comet was one of Santa’s reindeer, correct? (The “Reindeer” was the name of the commercial airliner that liked to lose its tail in flight, due to unexpected and undiagnosed premature metal fatigue issues…hmm…).
I first read “No Highway” in the early ’80s, and of course assumed it was based on the Comet. I was very surprised to see that it was published in 1948, years before the Comet disasters. What a shame the Comet’s designers apparently didn’t talk to Shute about metal fatigue.
I consider about half a dozen of Shute’s books, including “No Highway” to be absolute masterpieces, and have reread them a number of times.
I have never seen the movie, but would like to.
What an absolutely fascinating post! I know little about aeroplanes, and this was thoroughly absorbing reading – thank you Big Paws.
Thank you! Great read. Not a lot appears to have gone to plan commercially for British industry, aeronautical or automotive. Interesting solutions nevertheless.
Wonderful! The Comet was a marvel. We forget the aircraft industry is built on learning from mistakes. The Comet’s issues ensured structural integrity for all the jets that came after (minus the DC-10).
To b fair, the DC-10’s issues were attributed to poor maintenance practices,not design flaws.
Some issues with the DC-10 were clearly design flaws:
– the cargo door lock mechanism (Ermenonville crash, 1974)
– all the hydraulic lines meeting up in the tail, just under the number 2 engine — if it explodes, you lose all hydraulics (Sioux City crash, 1989).
– instability at low speeds, particularly when landing (made worse with the bigger MD-11s)
The TriStar was the safest of the early wide-bodies; few accidents were due to design. And our flight in one yrs. ago had the smoothest landing of any plane I’ve flown in, probably due to its automated system. We barely felt runway contact.
Lockheed’s mistake was tactical: committing solely to the RB-211.
Thanks for a great article Bigpaws! More please!
Of course Boeing probably would have become the dominating airliner manufacturer in the longer term, even without the Comet having its well known issues. I can remember a quote from a Boeing engineer who had toured the de Haviland outfit about the time the 707 went into production “They had a workshop, we had a factor.”
It’s still a pity though it didn’t do as well as it could have.
Boeing did pay an official visit to Hatfield. I have to wonder what deHavilland was thinking here, unless it was customary back then to let competitors indoors.
Britain, despite her Industrial Revolution, was never entirely sold on the American System of Manufacturing, I think because the medieval craft-guild mentality, along with the management/labor social divide, was deeply rooted. I understand even Ford had trouble getting their UK factory to match Dearborn’s productivity.
OTOH, America has always relied on mass unskilled labor, starting with convicts & slaves, then with Irish & Eastern/Southern European immigrants, & now with illegal immigrants.
I always find it fascinating how the British were and are such innovators in technology, but not the best in their execution of the results. I read somewhere that during WWll that some general credited the British as being outstanding experts in their planning of various strategies, but poor in successfully achieving them. I think that comment was made after the “Market-Garden” fiasco which took many British lives that the nation could ill-afford to lose. A sad, sad outcome compared to what could have possibly been accomplished if it were successful.
That’s not an insult by any means, because I’m continually impressed how such a small nation like GB comes up with so many marvels in computing, electronics, avionics and even radio, radar and many other endeavors.
Still, Lucas electrics puzzle me to this day…
The Comet was and is still one of the most gorgeous aircraft ever to grace the skies.
Nice piece, BP. We used to fly on package tour holidays as a family from England to the Med in the early 1970s. I’d be given one Kodacolor 24 frame film to put in my Instamatic, and one of the photos was always the plane on the tarmac. Court Line 1-11s in pastel technicolor; BEA Tristars and, on one occasion, a Dan Air (“Dan Dare”) Comet 4. My mother was decidely nervous about this; aged elevenish I knew nothing of the Comet’s history and wisely no one enlightened me at that time. I do recall that it felt like a bit of an antique.
Great article. Wonderful tribute to a pioneering jet that deserves more recognition. Unfortunate that the British often pioneered technological accomplishments only to be overtaken by the Americans.
Eddie Rickenbacker, in his autobiography, mentions a story that he and his CEOs were looking into the possibility of acquiring some Comets back in the early 1950s and flew on a demonstration ride. He commented he was very impressed with the quiet, vibration-free ride, then got up and took a stroll toward the aft cabin and stopped dead in his tracks. He saw the cabin puffing in and out like an accordion, touched it and it scared the daylights out of him. He calmly strolled back to his seat, said to his host and said he had seen enough and had to get back to the office. At his office he described what he saw and said Eastern would never buy that aircraft. Rickenbacker also tried to warn deHavilland about what he saw, but they refused to believe him. But he did warn Boeing and Douglas about the defect.
This happened in computer technology as well. A British catering firm built the world’s first business computer which went online in the early 1950s. (Look up the Lyons Electronic Office, or “LEO” computer.) For a time they led the pack, only to cede that head start to American companies.
Gorgeous airliner–the pure shape, without engine nacelles hanging off it anywhere, is something to behold. Shame about all the initial problems but at least it enjoyed quite a long life in the Nimrod ASW role! Similar to our P-3 Orion, a variation of the Lockheed Electra turboprop.
Great history–it fills in many of the gaps in my knowledge of the Comet.
Excellent piece of work. I’ll read and viewed photos that show the fatal rupture was due to roughly punched hole in the cabin near the top of the fuselage. It was done during production and should have been a cleanly cut circular one. Stress from the pressurization cycles caused a tear in the shell that propagated. That was the end.
Haynes has an “Owners’ Workshop Manual” for the Comet. It not only has the history of the Comet but lots of pictures and diagrams of the various systems. ISBN is 978 0 85733 832 7. Fascinating to read. Hayes also has similar books for the 747, Lancaster and other airplanes.
Apparently with fewer people working on their own cars Haynes decided to branch out.
John O’Leary, I assumed you were pulling our collective legs, but that book seems to really exist. Who knew?!?
Somethings a cup of tea can’t fix.
Great write, Mr Paws on a subject that deserves a full exploration. Good picture selection too.
Interesting to read the feedback as well, and the observation that, perhaps, Boeing and the US would always have won the commercial battle with de Havilland irrespective of the Comet’s safety record. Teh Boeing 707 was better sized for the explosion in air travel that came with the arrival of the jets, and Boeing had the capacity and infrastructure to cope with the production volumes, as well as a larger home market. The VC-10, too, was arguably too small, and aimed at a too specific sector of the market, even if it did look amazing.
My Comet story is this – back in the early 1980s as a humble engineering student we had a course on metal fatigue, and the Comet story was (inevitably) rolled out as an example of it. The lecturer went on to say that he and colleague, when doing post-grad work in 1953-54 had looked at the Comet and concluded, possibly with the confidence of youth, that metal fatigue was the cause, and had attempted to suggest this to the UK Air Ministry and de Havilland, only to be given the “go away, young man” brush off.
When he completed his dissertation, he took a job at Bristol Aircraft Co, where he was involved in recovering the Britannia off the mud of the Severn Estuary….oh, to be an aeronautical engineer in 1950s Britain…
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19540204-0
Years ago I watched a “Wings” episode on the History Channel (back when it used to show history all the time) of the Comet and how it was rushed into production and allowed to fly too long after the structural defects and accidents appeared.
There were other episodes covering all the other jet (and prop) airliners showing a lot of test footage. Very interesting series, it covered military planes as well. The in wing engine setup was very good looking, but as time has proved not the safest or most practical design. Nice write up.
Great article. I’m old enough to remember the Comet crashes–trans-Atlantic flights were newsworthy in the 1950s. There is a Comet that is being restored in Seattle by the Museum of Flight. I’ve spotted it a few times driving on I-5 past King County Airport (formerly Boeing Field) in Seattle. Here’s a link to the restoration project with a photos of the Comet.
Missing Link http://rbogash.com/Annex.htm
Thanks for that link. Great pics!
True, amazing factoid: the quad headlamp nacelles and bulges to accommodate them on the bonnet/hood of the Jaguar X-Type were inspired by the jet engines and nacelles on the De Havilland Comet – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxU3KbSHH3o , watch 18:07 – 19:00 . As they described it, one British thing being inspired by another failed British thing…
The twin ovals in the grille of the late 1950s Toyopet Crown were inspired by the Comet jet intakes as well
Such a well-written and informative post. I really appreciate the aviation articles here on CC.
As mentioned by a previous comment, the Comet affair was largely anticipated by British author (and aeronautical engineer) Nevil Shute, in his book “No Highway”, originally published in 1948 and made into a feature film with Jimmy Stewart in the lead role in 1951:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Highway_in_the_Sky
One shudders at the notion of a passenger on one of those early comets reading “No Highway” as light entertainment.
Nevil Shute’s biography “Slide Rule” details his earlier experience on the design team of the R-100 dirigible, and his observations on the failures of the management of the competing government R-101 project, which is very pertinent to this day.
First named “Comet” was the twin DH GypsyR engined winner of the McRobertson England to Australia Air Race, a “wooden wonder” preceding Mosquito by several years. RR Avon was not “developed from DH Goblin, but radically different axial flow, rather than Goblin and Australian built Vampires’ RR Nene Centrifugally Compressed.
This is the earlier, pre war Comet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH.88_Comet
This and the lovely Dragon Rapide, would lead to the exceptional Mosquito of WW2.
If the Comet 1’s windows & skylights, had, had rounded edges, they would not have failed. But over time, the pressure & heat on the Aluminium skin, would have still led to accidents.
The Comet, was rushed into production under the pressure of the 1945 Labour Government, to earn valuable Hard U$ currency.
Those same risk taking, would then lead to the over engineering of Concorde.
Which sadly couldn’t be enlarged to carry more passengers, without having to design it again from scratch..