Talk:De Havilland Comet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De Havilland Comet article.
Article policies
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

/Archive1

Contents

[edit] Stress Concentration

I just made an edit mentioning why square windows are bad: stress concentration. I'd like to be a little more specific about the problem: Were the engineers unfamiliar with stress concentration, or did they know of it and underestimate it? Seems that the latter is more likely.

This is important because the square window problem is a standard example in engineering. Tac2z 13:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of "feel" in controls

I've just added one requested citation; the one remaining is for The Comet 1 and 1A have been criticised for a lack of "feel" in their controls. I find this a bit dubious – there's a quote from test pilot John Cunningham (in Nicholas Faith's Black Box) stating that the Comet "responded to the controls in the best way De Havilland aircraft usually did". So unless someone comes up with a citation for the 'lack of feel' claim shortly, I suggest we remove it. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, found it myself in Job and added the citation. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it might be a good idea to add the Cunningham quite as well, for balance. It seems some didn't like it, and some did? Or perhaps Cunningham's quote is meant to be ironic? Maury (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding earlier - yep, will add Cunningham's quote. I think he meant it seriously, the full quote has more words about the plane's impact on aviation, which is probably worth including. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many were built?

DonPevsner has just changed the figure from 477 to 114. Can this be correct? I was led to believe that there were 113 C4s alone. Any cites that confirm or refute? ... richi 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

37 x Comet 1/2, 1 x Comet 3, 76 x Comet 4s = 114. MilborneOne 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, source Jet Airliner Production List Roach and Eastwood 1992 (ISBN 0 907178 43X) and probably many others I suspect. MilborneOne 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One of the first...

"The Comet was also designed as one of the first pressurised commercial aircraft"

Is this even remotely true? I can name about a dozen aircraft that predated it: connie, DC-4, Ambassador, etc.

Maury (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe as the first pressurized jet aircraft? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Nope, Meteor :-) Thinking it should go. Maury (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
1st pressurised turbine commercial aircraft? Or was that the Britannia? (BTW, I changed it to "jet-propelled".) Trekphiler (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well that's a possibility, but at that point what is the value of the statement? One could come up with some sort of contrived set of specification that would make any aircraft the first at something. The F-15 was the first to carry conformal fuel tanks -- but is that what we think of when we think of the F-15? Is pressurization what made the Comet interesting? I still suggest the statement simply be removed. Maury (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Maury. Obviously it's the first commercial jet transport to be pressurised, because it was first commercial jet transport and it was, well, pressurised! However I'd simply mention that it was pressurised, not turn it into a contrived 'first'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur. It was jets that made her, not pressurization; that was a consequence, not a cause. Just to confuse the ish, tho, can it be said she was first to demand pressurization, to take best advantage of her powerplants? (I don't recall if the C.102 was pressurized; I'd guess so, ditto.) Trekphiler (talk) 14:35 & 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comet wings

The Comet wing was a design which has been in near-continuous civil and military service for over half a century, an achievement matched only by the Boeing 707/C-137/E-3.

What is the purpose of this sentence? As written, this is OR, and basically meaningless. The DC-3's wings have been in service for much longer, as have their airframes in most cases. I could be wrong, but are there some Comet wings out there flying around without fuselages?? Seriously, it's not unusual for wings to be in service as long as the airframe, tho some aircraft have been re-winged during there service life. Basically, this is a peacock sentence, and irrelevant. It seems to be a round-a-bout way of say that although the original fuselage design was crap, the wing was a much better design. Huh? - BillCJ (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree - sentence removed Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It is trying to focus on the wing design vs actual hardware. But that's does not change your point. Basically it says the wing was a good design. I think the sentence is OK without the "an achievement ..." part though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the removal of the sentence - I am not sure the fact the basic wing design has been used for a long time is really an achievement - just the luck of history nothing to do with the design. It was only used on two aircraft one happened to be the Nimrod which has been around for a long time because the Military dont like spending money on new equipment. Was the Comet 4 wing exactly the same as the Comet 1?, was the Nimrod wing centre-section re-designed for the Spey? My is point is that good design does not equal longevity. There is an original 1909 Bleriot still flying I presume the wing design on that was an excellent achivement! MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair points. The sentence itself doesn't actually say it is a good design, just states longevity. Which may not mean much as you said. Yea, just leave it out. In general a good design doesn't mean the best. A good design could be overdesigned, i.e. heavier than needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source describing the wing design as an achievement (or as anything else notable), with a description of its longevity, and what made it notable, I'd have no problem with something like that being included in the text. - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tupolev

My source is the red star book #35. RGDS Alexmcfire

[edit] no highway

"No Highway" written in 1947 perminates the problems with the Comet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.158.31 (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Perminates" is not a word I'm familiar with, so I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes the novel foreshadows the Comet disasters in certain respects. Nevil Shute was an aircraft designer before WWII, and - contrary to popular perception - the issue of fatigue in airframes and concern over new materials and techniques existed long before Comet. FiggyBee (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that's the reason many 1930's metal airliners were highly polished; they found that polishing the metal reduced crack growth that led to fatigue. Improved alloys and "structural paints" have greatly improved the airframes in this regard. Maury (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)