DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT REALLY WORKS,YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOU"RE LIFE,TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE,HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO OVER 3 VIDEOS OR YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS,NOW YOU STARTED READING DONT STOP,THIS IS SO SCARY POST THIS TO OVER FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN YOUR"RE DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS,THIS IS SO SCARY BUT IT REALLY WORKS
I think the comet was better looking, and more fuel efficient. Unfortunately, when the comet came out, no-one knew what stresses would be put on the fuselage by pressurisation, boeing learned from that.
@godzillasdad Exactly. That's one thing many people seem to misunderstand. The 707 would've fallen out of the sky just the same if it had square windows, which it would've done like you said had they not learned from the Comet's mistakes. The aviation industry more than any other industry in the world is one where improvemets are made from mistakes learnt the hard way
Besides the wing embedded engines(Which looked cool as hell,btw) The Comet really was a great looking and performing aircraft. The most interesting thing I notice now is that the nose and windscreen section looks very much like Boeing's B-787!
In the end though, the Comet was an early jet and therefore eclipsed fairly quickly by the more modern B-707, which was designed to be more serviceable and profitable for airlines.
I'd vote for the 707 although I also love the lines of the Comet. And if you had put the DC-8 in the contest, I'd vote for her. I think she is the overall winner because she is still in commercial use today in reasonable numbers. 707 mainly in militairy service.
@molotilkin07 Absolutely agree. The VC-10 would get my vote. I remember seeing artists' impressions of it when I was a kid and couldn't wait to see one flying. For me, that and the Lockheed Constellation are the two most beautiful airliners built.
Of the two aircraft on offer here though, I would go for the Comet on looks (and because I'm a Brit). But Boeing showed the way and today everything's a 'Boeing'; and you have to say Mr Boeing has sold an awful lot of aeroplanes!
The comet was a beautiful plane for its time but it does look very dated now so does the 707 ... 707 was a big clunky thing and the comet is an elegant old lady, certainly great looking aircraft but for me not my favorites.
I can only imagine how futuristic these jet airliners must have seen in the 1950's. Today they are so commonplace several generations know of no world without them.
What we see today is basically just improved and larger version of what they already developed in the late 40's and early 50's.
For all those people praising piston engines in aircraft, the jets really made trips around the other side of the world commonplace. I mean they are literally the next step after the Ford Model T in travel
The Comet was a sound aircraft. The square windows and thin skin were the only issues. The embedded engines made it far more efficient than a 707 for it's day. and the shields elimiated all the 'compressor blade failure' theorists.
I think the Comet was the best looking ever - like someone abone - it is similar in some ways to the 787.
But, the 707 was 'da bomb'. That was my first flight as a boy from London to Seattle (PanAm with the hot stewardesses ofcourse). Flew the 707 many times.
I noticed that some examples have square windows while some have round windows, I gather that DeHavilland must have learned from their mistakes and that the round window examples are later production models.
Also, when the Boeing was designing the Dash 80--precursor of the KC-135 and 707--it had a wealth of experience and engineering data gleaned from study of WW2 German research and its own work in developing the B-47 and B-52, making Boeing uniquely capable of creating a truly revolutionary large passenger jet. Douglas thought that they'd steal Boeing's lunch as they had with the DC-3 and DC-6, but the DC-8 took longer than expected to get into service and was no better than the 707.
The Comet was the first...unfortunately, in many ways it meant that it had overly-conservative features such as embedded engines (standard for props, but greatly complicating maintenance for jet engines) and very moderate wing sweep. If metal fatigue catastrophic failures had not occurred, Comet would have rivaled the 707 for a few years...especially if Suez hadn't murdered UK prestige...but the 707 was the more economic aircraft and Comet would have lasted just a few years longer in service.
@TheMightyBlighty Only in your dreams. The 707 was larger, therefore carried more passengers and could fly longer distances as well. Even if the original comet didn't have that nasty habit of breaking apart in mid flight, it was still a poor second overall.
Hey .....one is a clasic , the other one is the most sold airplane before the 727 made its appareance, they are both SPLENDID, a magic touch of beauty for us the lovers of AVIATION
So many decisions...so many options. Consider: shall the engines be plac3ed right by the fuselage? The middle of the wing? The outboard tips? Should the wings go over the cabin, the midsection, or below the body? It all had to work perfectly. And, DAMN it still does! I'll NEVER cease to be amazed at the marvel of the engineering that went into building a beautiful, powerful, safe and miraculous contraption-simpkly put, the most amazing machines than man ever built!
@DJ727ROBLOX Yeah thats what I thought, but I didnt want to say for definate incase I was wrong. I must say, the engines of the VC-10 are better looking than the IL-62
The integrated engines on the Comet are sleek and attractive .... but was such a flawed design because of the potential hazards ... if the engines experienced catastrophic failure .... it could compromise the structural integrity of the plane.
@TheWarPlanet If Mozart is "boring" in your opinion then I guess there is nothing to tell to you. Go listen to Justin Bieber or some black rap or something .... Rebecca Black is good too.
@Byron10301 Lol fuck no, you just picked the worst music. I'd rather listen to this but i don't think it fits with Aviation. I know who Mozart is so i understand from where you are coming from.
The first Comets had a nasty tendency to break up and fall out of the sky in mid flight. They were pulled from service after two airliners crashed. They were eventually redesigned and were in service for about 30 years. But over this time, there were about 20 crashes overall.
The Comet program was launched in 1946; the first flight was in 1949, and the aircraft entered service in 1952. The fatigue losses were 2: January & April 1954. The cause was the square window design, plus the use of punch-riveting alone at the window corners (where the design called for epoxy-bonding as well).
But whereas earlier pressurised airliners had cruised at 320 mph, the Comet flew at 510 mph; and it cruised above 30,000', whereas the propliners cruised in the mid-to-low 20,000' range
@flygweilo The higher cruise altitude of the Comet meant that the stress on the fuselage from pressurisation was far greater than anything thitherto experienced in airline operation, and the higher cruise speed resulted in a far higher number of cycles (ie t/os & ldgs) than comparable-range prop airliners.
The fatigue cracks that developed at the square window corners led to structural failure.
@flygweilo More than 60 fixes were implemented, including rounded windows, the inclusion of epoxy bonding and the use of different riveting methods. The skin of all subsequent Comets (models 2, 3 & 4) was made of thicker gauge aluminium, as a belt-&-braces measure.
No more Comets ever crashed as a result of structural fatigue after April 1954.
The Comet had the distinction & the disadvantage of being 'first'. It acted as the prototype, in so many ways, for all the jet airliners to follow.
@flygweilo Yes, unfortunately (and I do not think that De Havilland really saw the Comet as this) but being the first of anything makes the aircraft itself seem to be like a prototype.
Let's look at Concorde, any future SST's will need to reduce the sonic boom, have good range and if any were to come in comercial service then they need to have a decent capacity and lower noise during takeoff and landing.
The 707 had numerous problems, too. It suffered from Dutch Roll problems and fish-tailing on take-off. For these, and for engine-out go-arounds, the 707 had to have a ventral fin added under the tail (look at all pics of BOAC 707-420s) and a larger vertical stabiliser to meet British CAA certification requirements (which were more stringent than their US equivalents).
The 707 was a great aircraft, but had distinct problems. Despite selling 1,010 examples, the program barely broke even.
@flygweilo I dont think so + watch this pilot on Utube, " Boeing 707 does a roll." 707 twas the most popular + the Convair 880 was the fastest Comercial Airliner crusing at 665 MPH + could easily go over 700 MPH + could break the sound barrier. Numerous problems is Comet + it was a major problem +could never be trusted + set Jet aviation back 3 to 5 years. The B707 + C880 owned the skys of the World + U have to understand the testing of Boeing B4 putting a plane on the market was most stringent!
@LottoWinner999 Yes - you're confusing a barrel roll (performed by Tex Johnson, the Boeing Chief Test Pilot) at an airshow, and the phenomenon known as 'Dutch Roll' - the two are entirely different.
The Convair 880 was a commercial disaster - indeed, my airline operated one. It had the glide ratio of a brick and was horrendously noisy. The DC-8 - which sold over 500 examples, and which i have flown myself - was a far better aeroplane than the Convair in so many ways.
The advantage of putting the engines in the wing roots were not just aerodynamic efficiency, but allowing for the a larger percentage of the wing edges to be devoted to low-speed high-lift devices. Plus, there are benefits accruing to control under asymmetric thrust during engine-out situations.
The size of the vertical stabiliser and rudder on an aircraft largely derives from the need to meet the handling requirements of the engine-out situation.
@flygweilo Comet Engines were weak + it was cheap 2 place them next to fuel tanks. Boeing 707 1ST jet 2B commercially successful + dominated passenger air transport in 1960s + 70's + the most flown jet. Boeing 707 is credited with ushering in the Jet Age. Plus the 707 had the best saftey reputation + Comets reputaiton of 6 six crashes delayed the introduction of Jet Transporation based on the fear that people were terrifed + refused to fly on the Comet period + it was slower, smaller + not safe.
@LottoWinner999 The fuel tanks in an airliner are located in both the fuselage and the wings, although most of it is in the wings. It is undeniable that by placing the engines in pods under the wings, you are placing the engines closer to the fuel tanks than by situating the engines in the wing roots.
The 707 most decidedly NOT usher in the 'Jet Age' - that was done in 1939 by the Germans and the British. indeed, the first American jet aircraft to fly was powered by British engines.
@LottoWinner999 The Comet engines were chosen to meet the size and weight of the aircraft, but it was not underpowered in comparison to the 707. The Comet 1 had thrust-loading of only 3.9 lbs-weight/lb-thrust; even the most powerful 707 (the -320B with Pratt & Whitney PW JT3D-7 engines) had a thrust-loading of 4.4 lbs-weight for 1 lb of thrust.
As for delaying the onset of the jet age ... this is unsupported by the facts. Being began the 707 program, in 1952, because of the Comet program.
@LottoWinner999 I think it fair to say that the 707 was responsible for ushering in the age of mass travel. The Comet was designed around the idea that flying was (and would remain) a fairly expensive habit, and that passenger numbers would remain low compared to those who travelled across the oceans by sea.
The Comet - in the form of the AEW Nimrod - is still flying in RAF service today. As is the 707 (as the C-137/C-137) with he USAF. Testament to the outstanding quality of both designs.
@flygweilo Still the fastest Airliner in the sky + I loved flying on it. @ 7 years old I was in the cabin of Super Constellation sitting in the Captains lap. With my Eastern Airlines Student Half Card I could fly from Boston to Miami for $36.00. BTW the sale of 1010 B707'S was the Lions Share of Aircraft Sales. If U keep putting down American ppl than fuck yourself + sit on 12' Rail-Road spike cuz U lost the Boeing Tanker Contract cuz Airbus planes R shit + we build our own planes so UYMF!
@LottoWinner999 The 707? No - not by a long way. The Vickers VC-10 was faster. The Convair 880/990 was uneconomical, but the Hawker Siddley Trident was faster still, and was economic at those speeds.
Contrary to popular belief, none of these aircraft could 'go supersonic'- except during flight testing or by accident and at the risk of significant damage to the airframe. Even then, it had to be 'downhill', and the stories of exceeding the speed of sound are apocryphal. Mne was always < M1.
@LottoWinner999 My father flew the Constellation for BOAC for many years, and had many stories to tell.
I do not think it is I who has 'put down' any American - I have restricted myself to the facts. I have certainly never descended to the level of personal abuse.
@Neoplan80 I have no idea. The closest I can think of is when BA painted one of the 757's nose cone black or something. I may be wrong, I do however remember a BA 747-400 painted gold on the nose cone for the Olympics. Thanks for the comment.
I think the comet was so beautiful but I never flew in one but I flew in several 707s, possibly the Laker one photographed. I didn't find them as 'choppy' as the newer Airbus planes but that might be because of greater turbulance today as opposed to in the 70s. I'm no expert, perhaps some more knowledgeable person than myself can enlighten me.
@freethoughtmusic I don't know either, but I would have thought it would be the other way round as the 707's wings look rather stiff like they can't flex. Thanks for you comment though.
@ConcordeCentral Sorry Comet was junk with tubby body + tail that was from 1940. Boeing swept wing was state of the art + workers had to felt booties not to scratch. Engine placement on B-707 dynamically distributed power + thrust became the wing of the future. Comet wing was heavy + inflexible. Next time U want to badmouth a plane find another Limey Hunk of Junk. The 707 established speed + saftey while the Comet had real issues when it came to crashing VS De Havillands Tombstone Technology!
@ConcordeCentral BTW swept wing Boeing was very flexible and the most functional aerodynamic wing of its time. Your making trash talk to put down the Boeing-707 the worlds greatest American Airliner that established the best speed and saftey record in history and proved the Boeing build the Airliners to this day.
@LottoWinner999 I don't quite know where you have gotten all these 'bad mouth comments' I have made against the 707 I do love it.
The Comet's tail was stumpy because of where the engines were. With the engines being there (yes it was a silly mistake to put them near the fuel tanks) there was less risk of debris flying in the engine during takeoff. The crashes were purely down to metal fatigue and had NOTHING to do with engines as far as I know.
@ConcordeCentral I know all that and the workers hammered the screws in vital spots and the windows caused it to but it amazing that they put a cheap alloyed skin on when Lockheed built the 1937 Constellation or the Boeing B-29 and Boeing-B-47 they had no problems with pressurerization. Boeing and Lockheed establsihed safe pressurized aircraft what happened with De Havilland to make such a obvious mistake?
@LottoWinner999 Hoestly, I couldn't tell you that. I'm guessing it was something to do with the materials the fuselage was made out of possibly or even due to DH rushing the Comet to production and not testing it properly.
@freethoughtmusic It has largely to do with the laminar-flow, supercritical wings that the latest generation of airliners all use. These wings have higher aspect-ratio and lift distribution characteristics different from the wings of the early jet liners. Great for airline economics, but bad for ride quality.
Except for the unstylish and old fashioned tail fin! Should have been swept back like that of the later Boeing. But I agree that the 707 was a beauty in aeronautical elegance, outshining in looks many that came after it. But Comet got there first, if only briefly.
@FrederickDelarge Yes, however I do believe the tail of the Comet was like that because of the position of the engines. But yes the 707 is pretty good looking, the engines were beautiful and they were further away from the fuselage than aircraft of today (as in further to the edge of the wings).
@FrederickDelarge If you look it up, you'll find that the initial designs for he DH.106 (what was to become the Comet) included a swept-back vertical stabiliser, much the same as he 707.
The fin design with which the Comet ultimately equipped, came as a result of aerodynamic research and testing, and had nothing to do with appearance.
The trouble was that it was the rectangular windows, with their failed corner points, that initially got the blame. Their replacement with rounded versions, in the supposition that the problem had been cured, was an abdication of the responsibility that had originally specified an inadequate skin thickness for pressurised flight.
But the Comet had other serious aerodynamic shortcomings also.
@FrederickDelarge Yes, the windows were a flaw as well as the skin. It's a shame about the low passenger capacity and underpowered engines but the Comet was pretty good looking!
On the main tack of this thread, the Comet disasters were a direct result of the type's hasty rush into service to (groundlessly) pre empt perceived American competition. The underpowered DeHavilland engines necessitated a lightweight and fatally thin fuselage skin that wasn't up to repeated pressurisation/depressurisation cycles.
@FrederickDelarge All relivant points, but saying that if it were not for De Havilland to make the Comet with all those faults then we might not have known about the pressurisation/depressurisation until it came too late and killed yet more people.
Not much point in arguing this further except to say that graceful images surely demand graceful audio pairing. Off the top of my head the orchestral opening of Mozart's piano concerto No.23 would be a candidate. But there is much more to choose from than this, not only from Mozart but from many other composers.
No direct offence meant - but you have to admit that these beautiful machines deserve a rather more appropriate accompaniment than the noise which so readily seems to be reached for. Surely Mozart is out of copyright?
@FrederickDelarge I have no idea about Mozart, most of the music that is on here is like what you see here, noise! I am however more careful with my music as it is more up to date.
@FrederickDelarge Because I think you will find that any music we may actually choose to put on rarely stays due to copyright so we have to suffice for these. If your issue is so large then maybe contact YouTube directly so they can upload new, more 'likeable' music!
everybody forgets that while the 707 was more successful than the comet, the comet paved the way for the jet age and taught boeing and douglas lots of lessons (not less about the square windows). if the 707 was before the comet and it's knowldege... then maybe de havilland would still rule the skies today
@jeffhardylysia yeah thats what i have been trying to say, you need aircraft like the comet to come in and 'mess up' (so to speak) so we can learn from the mistakes, just like when a plane crashes the faa can find out what went wrong and train pilots how to control the situation if it hapens to them
@dubkat not fogetting the trident also with its ability to use reverse thrust in the air or the vc-10 which was mega fast! britain has produced wonderful aircraft
i m taking nothing away from the great 707...but it was designed many years later than the original comet and had all the benefit of hindsight and experience ...and of course it had the full might of the US govt funding it as a military tanker aircraft!
The Comet looks like it was designed by 7 year old kids, Big wheels, Square windows, an out of proportion tail and wings, in contrast the 707 looks just like an airplane should look. it radiates confidence and elegance.
@matatan69 i understand where you are coming from but i believe the tail is that size due to the engines being in the place they are. I think De Havilland wanted to redesign the way aircraft of the future will look but obviously they didn't do too well especially with the windows
@ConcordeCentral I agree that the Boeing Aircraft are way out ahead of all passenger designs. In fact, they are so proven that the Airbus of today are essentially copies of Boeings in their basic designs, slight differences in the Air Foils of the wings-
But remember: The Comet was just evolving from an "AIRPLANE" Design after WW2, and to make note of what you said about the windows-
It was those "OVERSIZED" Windows that caused so many of the Comets to Crash at Depressurization during descent
@poitrenaud Your comment is pure bullshit, because Copying means that you make aircraft that is just like other one, of course Airbus aircrafts basic design looks same as every manufacturer tries to make aircraft as economical as possible, and thats what makes basic outside design same, but still none of Airbuses looks like any Boeing model.
Also Airbus used fly by wire first on commercial jet, now Boeing uses it too but with different computer system. Anyway from inside they are different.
I would fly on the "revised" version of the comet. The ones with the picture (square) windows were known to be susceptible to in flight disintegration. No lie, that's one of my worst fears.
@Redden08 yeah it would be nice for a revised comet design to hit the drawing boards, obviously make it able for fly long/medium haul flight and fly at around mach 0.8, even if it is just one aircraft or even a biz jet it would be great!
@ConcordeCentral There was in fact several revised Comets designed and manufactured and of course went on to commercial use. But by that time, the 707 had entered production and soon after the DC-8. The Comet never caught up.
@ConcordeCentral I'm not so sure it was such a great design. It was smaller, slower, and was way too small. Even the subsequent revisions were too small.
@ConcordeCentral Yes U don't want the Comet to suck in debrish from one its decompressive explosions cuz it might cause an engine failure. Comet put the engines like that cuz it was cheaper. The Comet was pooply engineered + rushed N2 production to capure Jet Airliner Maket. Notorius Comet crashes delayed Jet Airliners for years becuase it had so many crashes. The Comets engine congiguration was dangerous since its better to distribute thrust + power than to much heat near fuel tanks + lines..
@LottoWinner999 The engines of the Comet were placed in the wing root because it allowed for a 'clean' wing, thus improving lift characteristics. Boeing slung the engines under the wing because this made the aircraft cheaper to build and maintain. And these are the reasons that engines are slung in pods under the wings of modern airliners, to this day.
The Comet was a pioneer, and led the way. The design of all subsequent jet airliners benefitted from lessons learned from the Comet.
@flygweilo The Comet was a Total Aviation Disaster + never led the way + Boeing 707 derived from the most tested plane in USAF the KC-135 was the basic Boeing 707. Comet engineers +De Havilland was pressured 2B 1ST Commerical Jet Airliner. De Havviland knew Comet had compression cabin problems + Boeing, Lockheed + Douglas most expereinced aircraft manufacturers in pressurized planes offered to help + were snubbed so allot of innocent people died cuz of Brtish pride + made the Comet a failure.
Unfortunately by the time De Havilland made the comet safe it was obsolete. Boeing had the right plane at the right time. That nose on the comet made for one handsome aircraft though. No wonder Sud purchased them to put on the front of the Caravelle.
I agree, the Comet disaster, probably benefited the jet age because engineers better understood the effects of stress and pressurisation. For example window shapes were changed to prevent stress propagation.
The British in the early 50's had many private companies, and probably could never compete on mass producing and carrying out expensive on research jet aircraft compared to companies in the USA. British industry has always been dogged by lack of money.
@LOCOMOTIONNUMBER1 yeah, its a shame that British aircraft never really 'took off' so to speak. like you said there was a lack of money! maybe it wasnt meant to be
@ConcordeCentral I agree with you. Concorde was doomed to failure after the oil crisis in 1973/4. In the 60's oil was relatively cheap. By 1976 when Concorde went into airline service, no other airline could ever make a profit with it with such inflated oil prices.
Probably there is a niche market for a new 40-50 seat supersonic aircraft if the passengers were prepared to pay $10,000 return to New York!
Although the Comet was a disaster, it did give CONSIDERABLE information into how planes are built today due to information collected on metal fatigue. Hadn't it been for those uneventful disasters, we wouldn't have known about them today. Both planes are sexy in my eyes, its unfortunate we didn't know about fatigue early on to prevent those accidents.
FYI to Undead114 - actually the 1st "production airliner" to have a pressurised cabin, was the Boeing model 307 Stratoliner, introduced and 1st flown in 1938. It was put into use by the airlines in the summer of 1940. I believe the 1st flight of the Comet wasn't until 1949 and a couple years after that before it was put into service.
I'd choose the 707. - The Comet may have been 1st, but I tend to base my choice on reliability, safety and life of service. Although I will admit, once Hawker-Siddeley made some major modifications, the military Nimrod has made for a great, long service life Maritime Patrol A/C for the RAF and I believe it's still in service. But, if one is going to go by civilian to military type offspring A/C, variants of the KC-135 are projected to be in use until 2030 and beyond.
The Boeing 707 because the Comet was poorly built..... althought it was the first plane to incorporate a pressurized cabin it would only last a few hundred flights until the airplane would start to develop cracks and fall apart.
hmmm, correct me if wrong, if the 707 did not took off the skies, there will be no airbus a380, boeing 787 and 747-8 flying today because the 707 itself was a revolutionary of a jet liner. although boeing was convinced that the airliner will be powered by jet in future that time, they develop their own tech rather than copy the comet by upscale the B47 stratojet. I think the structure failure of comet allowed boeing to drive them out of business.
I vote for 707 because maintenance to the engine was easy, engine changing also easy. as for 707 case, if the engine explode/ripped apart it just drop off the engine and make emergency landing but for comet, any engine explode/riped apart, it break the whole wings off and crashed. look at the Japan Airlines Cargo Flight 46E and Cape Town 737 incident, engine ripped apart but landed safely
@TombstoneAnnieOakly You really are a tool aren't you. I suppose next you'll be saying that america came up with the all moving tailplane. So how much technology did america learn from the Germans? I'll not bother commenting on this anymore, this tripe has gone on long enough.
@TombstoneAnnieOakly I suggest you do a little more research. The Comet first flew in 1948 and many new lessons were learnt from the outset. I'm not saying that the 707 isn't any good, far from it, that would be stupid. What I have said is that the Comet very much paved the way for the larger jet.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, great choice in music accompaniment!
victron6 1 month ago 2
The Comet was an amazing aircraft.
It rocked the world when it was introduced.
If not for the early problems De Havilland would have been a major player and stiff competition for Boeing, Douglas and Convair.
I nearly lived on 707s for several years so I am biased towards Boeing over De Havilland.
But the Convair 880/990 was, and still is, my favorite commercial jetliner.
The sad fact about Comet is knowing that the Nimrod became one of the safest and most reliable aircraft on the planet.
hammerogod 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT REALLY WORKS,YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOU"RE LIFE,TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE,HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO OVER 3 VIDEOS OR YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS,NOW YOU STARTED READING DONT STOP,THIS IS SO SCARY POST THIS TO OVER FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN YOUR"RE DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS,THIS IS SO SCARY BUT IT REALLY WORKS
Ajay25ism 2 months ago
I think the comet was better looking, and more fuel efficient. Unfortunately, when the comet came out, no-one knew what stresses would be put on the fuselage by pressurisation, boeing learned from that.
godzillasdad 3 months ago
@godzillasdad Exactly. That's one thing many people seem to misunderstand. The 707 would've fallen out of the sky just the same if it had square windows, which it would've done like you said had they not learned from the Comet's mistakes. The aviation industry more than any other industry in the world is one where improvemets are made from mistakes learnt the hard way
aspiringdrummer17 2 months ago 2
why do people have to ruin videos with stupid music?
dfwjcj 3 months ago
@dfwjcj u think this music is stupid?
antonioscheel 1 week ago
The Comet was a pioneering aircraft. There were indeed some tragic failures in the early days.
Nevertheless the Comet 4 remained in service until 1981 (with Dan-Air).
The Nimrod was basically a modified Comet and has only recently been retired from service after 50 or so years of military service.
Ampex196 3 months ago
Besides the wing embedded engines(Which looked cool as hell,btw) The Comet really was a great looking and performing aircraft. The most interesting thing I notice now is that the nose and windscreen section looks very much like Boeing's B-787!
In the end though, the Comet was an early jet and therefore eclipsed fairly quickly by the more modern B-707, which was designed to be more serviceable and profitable for airlines.
Oldbmwr100rs 3 months ago
I've always wondered why the 707 has that antenna sticking out of its tail fin.
WanderingProphet 3 months ago
I'd vote for the 707 although I also love the lines of the Comet. And if you had put the DC-8 in the contest, I'd vote for her. I think she is the overall winner because she is still in commercial use today in reasonable numbers. 707 mainly in militairy service.
marc3471 3 months ago
"Two very well known aircraft rivals from the early days of aviation. To which aircraft will your vote go to?"
Emmmm... VC-10?
molotilkin07 4 months ago
@molotilkin07 Absolutely agree. The VC-10 would get my vote. I remember seeing artists' impressions of it when I was a kid and couldn't wait to see one flying. For me, that and the Lockheed Constellation are the two most beautiful airliners built.
Of the two aircraft on offer here though, I would go for the Comet on looks (and because I'm a Brit). But Boeing showed the way and today everything's a 'Boeing'; and you have to say Mr Boeing has sold an awful lot of aeroplanes!
HSTMDad 3 months ago 3
The comet was a beautiful plane for its time but it does look very dated now so does the 707 ... 707 was a big clunky thing and the comet is an elegant old lady, certainly great looking aircraft but for me not my favorites.
tom211t 4 months ago
I can only imagine how futuristic these jet airliners must have seen in the 1950's. Today they are so commonplace several generations know of no world without them.
What we see today is basically just improved and larger version of what they already developed in the late 40's and early 50's.
For all those people praising piston engines in aircraft, the jets really made trips around the other side of the world commonplace. I mean they are literally the next step after the Ford Model T in travel
McLarenMercedes 4 months ago
Both gorgeous machines along with the Sud Caravelle and Douglas DC-8. Thanks for sharing this with us.
coolspindrift 4 months ago
The Comet was a sound aircraft. The square windows and thin skin were the only issues. The embedded engines made it far more efficient than a 707 for it's day. and the shields elimiated all the 'compressor blade failure' theorists.
I think the Comet was the best looking ever - like someone abone - it is similar in some ways to the 787.
But, the 707 was 'da bomb'. That was my first flight as a boy from London to Seattle (PanAm with the hot stewardesses ofcourse). Flew the 707 many times.
MaxxGladiator 5 months ago 5
@MaxxGladiator I also noticed the nose looking like the 787, glad I'm not the only one!
ConcordeCentral 3 months ago
I noticed that some examples have square windows while some have round windows, I gather that DeHavilland must have learned from their mistakes and that the round window examples are later production models.
OlegKostoglatov 2 months ago
@MaxxGladiator I envy you flying "da bomb" as your first flight!
They just went out of service in this country when i started to take an interest in aviation.My first flight was in a DC-9 from Melbourne to Hobart.
To hear those P&W's spool up must have been a real thrill!
telfud2 2 days ago
Also, when the Boeing was designing the Dash 80--precursor of the KC-135 and 707--it had a wealth of experience and engineering data gleaned from study of WW2 German research and its own work in developing the B-47 and B-52, making Boeing uniquely capable of creating a truly revolutionary large passenger jet. Douglas thought that they'd steal Boeing's lunch as they had with the DC-3 and DC-6, but the DC-8 took longer than expected to get into service and was no better than the 707.
baraxor 5 months ago
The Comet was the first...unfortunately, in many ways it meant that it had overly-conservative features such as embedded engines (standard for props, but greatly complicating maintenance for jet engines) and very moderate wing sweep. If metal fatigue catastrophic failures had not occurred, Comet would have rivaled the 707 for a few years...especially if Suez hadn't murdered UK prestige...but the 707 was the more economic aircraft and Comet would have lasted just a few years longer in service.
baraxor 5 months ago
@TheMightyBlighty Only in your dreams. The 707 was larger, therefore carried more passengers and could fly longer distances as well. Even if the original comet didn't have that nasty habit of breaking apart in mid flight, it was still a poor second overall.
starladear002 5 months ago
Hey .....one is a clasic , the other one is the most sold airplane before the 727 made its appareance, they are both SPLENDID, a magic touch of beauty for us the lovers of AVIATION
supersabrejet 5 months ago
There is no competiion. The B-707 was the superior aircraft.
itsmegp46 6 months ago
@ILikeCheese747 I always thought of the 787's if I'm honest.
ConcordeCentral 7 months ago
So many decisions...so many options. Consider: shall the engines be plac3ed right by the fuselage? The middle of the wing? The outboard tips? Should the wings go over the cabin, the midsection, or below the body? It all had to work perfectly. And, DAMN it still does! I'll NEVER cease to be amazed at the marvel of the engineering that went into building a beautiful, powerful, safe and miraculous contraption-simpkly put, the most amazing machines than man ever built!
Anyone for the DC-8 too?
SteveB801 7 months ago 2
@SteveB801 I take it you are talking about the 707 rather than the Comet?
ConcordeCentral 7 months ago
@SteveB801 Loved the DC-8 as well, and the inlets at the nose.
MaxxGladiator 5 months ago
What was the plane below the 707 on 0:47? The one with 2 engines touching side-by-side?
DJ727ROBLOX 8 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX Looks like a VC-10. I think the engine casings are too rounded to be a IL-62.
ConcordeCentral 8 months ago
@ConcordeCentral It's a VC-10. Googled it. IL-62 has slighty larger engines.
DJ727ROBLOX 8 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX Yeah thats what I thought, but I didnt want to say for definate incase I was wrong. I must say, the engines of the VC-10 are better looking than the IL-62
ConcordeCentral 8 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX VC10 as others have stated
pacificbound67 8 months ago
I find the 707 a much more attractive jet, however I do like the look of the Comet's engines in the wings.
walkingblind06 9 months ago
@walkingblind06 Yeah the engines are something different it has to be said. Thanks for the comment
ConcordeCentral 9 months ago
The integrated engines on the Comet are sleek and attractive .... but was such a flawed design because of the potential hazards ... if the engines experienced catastrophic failure .... it could compromise the structural integrity of the plane.
swampwatch 9 months ago
b-707 is cool
1999sebastian 9 months ago
@1999sebastian I like the way the engines are further away from the fuselage than jets now.
ConcordeCentral 9 months ago
While the 707 was and still is a very versital aircraft in front line service, I must admit that the comet is the more handsome of the two.
HuasoPodrido 9 months ago
the 707 was safer because of the window structure
flyewr1907 10 months ago
@flyewr1907 The Comet 4 had circular windows
aspiringdrummer17 9 months ago
why won't more people use good music like this on their videos? ... oh no! it has to be that 009's CRAP on every single video! ...
Thanks for the good upload
Byron10301 10 months ago
@Byron10301 nah, boring music isnt everyones type. No offense ConcordeCentral.
TheWarPlanet 9 months ago
@TheWarPlanet If Mozart is "boring" in your opinion then I guess there is nothing to tell to you. Go listen to Justin Bieber or some black rap or something .... Rebecca Black is good too.
Byron10301 9 months ago
@Byron10301 Lol fuck no, you just picked the worst music. I'd rather listen to this but i don't think it fits with Aviation. I know who Mozart is so i understand from where you are coming from.
TheWarPlanet 9 months ago
The engines on the Comet were very interesting looking.
scorchedcandy 11 months ago
@scorchedcandy They are pretty fantastic. I must agree.
ConcordeCentral 11 months ago
The first Comets had a nasty tendency to break up and fall out of the sky in mid flight. They were pulled from service after two airliners crashed. They were eventually redesigned and were in service for about 30 years. But over this time, there were about 20 crashes overall.
itsmegp46 11 months ago
the comet is a lot better looking
busterboulton97 11 months ago 6
@busterboulton97 I must agree there apart from the stubby tail...
ConcordeCentral 11 months ago
I BELIEVE THAT DE HAVILLAND COMET IS FUTUROUS
markallayban 11 months ago
I think De Havilland comet is the fastest to takeoff in the whole world. It was even faster than Concorde and the B-2707.
markallayban 11 months ago
The Comet program was launched in 1946; the first flight was in 1949, and the aircraft entered service in 1952. The fatigue losses were 2: January & April 1954. The cause was the square window design, plus the use of punch-riveting alone at the window corners (where the design called for epoxy-bonding as well).
But whereas earlier pressurised airliners had cruised at 320 mph, the Comet flew at 510 mph; and it cruised above 30,000', whereas the propliners cruised in the mid-to-low 20,000' range
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo The higher cruise altitude of the Comet meant that the stress on the fuselage from pressurisation was far greater than anything thitherto experienced in airline operation, and the higher cruise speed resulted in a far higher number of cycles (ie t/os & ldgs) than comparable-range prop airliners.
The fatigue cracks that developed at the square window corners led to structural failure.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo More than 60 fixes were implemented, including rounded windows, the inclusion of epoxy bonding and the use of different riveting methods. The skin of all subsequent Comets (models 2, 3 & 4) was made of thicker gauge aluminium, as a belt-&-braces measure.
No more Comets ever crashed as a result of structural fatigue after April 1954.
The Comet had the distinction & the disadvantage of being 'first'. It acted as the prototype, in so many ways, for all the jet airliners to follow.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo Yes, unfortunately (and I do not think that De Havilland really saw the Comet as this) but being the first of anything makes the aircraft itself seem to be like a prototype.
Let's look at Concorde, any future SST's will need to reduce the sonic boom, have good range and if any were to come in comercial service then they need to have a decent capacity and lower noise during takeoff and landing.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
The 707 had numerous problems, too. It suffered from Dutch Roll problems and fish-tailing on take-off. For these, and for engine-out go-arounds, the 707 had to have a ventral fin added under the tail (look at all pics of BOAC 707-420s) and a larger vertical stabiliser to meet British CAA certification requirements (which were more stringent than their US equivalents).
The 707 was a great aircraft, but had distinct problems. Despite selling 1,010 examples, the program barely broke even.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo I dont think so + watch this pilot on Utube, " Boeing 707 does a roll." 707 twas the most popular + the Convair 880 was the fastest Comercial Airliner crusing at 665 MPH + could easily go over 700 MPH + could break the sound barrier. Numerous problems is Comet + it was a major problem +could never be trusted + set Jet aviation back 3 to 5 years. The B707 + C880 owned the skys of the World + U have to understand the testing of Boeing B4 putting a plane on the market was most stringent!
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 Yes - you're confusing a barrel roll (performed by Tex Johnson, the Boeing Chief Test Pilot) at an airshow, and the phenomenon known as 'Dutch Roll' - the two are entirely different.
The Convair 880 was a commercial disaster - indeed, my airline operated one. It had the glide ratio of a brick and was horrendously noisy. The DC-8 - which sold over 500 examples, and which i have flown myself - was a far better aeroplane than the Convair in so many ways.
flygweilo 1 year ago
Comment removed
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
The advantage of putting the engines in the wing roots were not just aerodynamic efficiency, but allowing for the a larger percentage of the wing edges to be devoted to low-speed high-lift devices. Plus, there are benefits accruing to control under asymmetric thrust during engine-out situations.
The size of the vertical stabiliser and rudder on an aircraft largely derives from the need to meet the handling requirements of the engine-out situation.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo Comet Engines were weak + it was cheap 2 place them next to fuel tanks. Boeing 707 1ST jet 2B commercially successful + dominated passenger air transport in 1960s + 70's + the most flown jet. Boeing 707 is credited with ushering in the Jet Age. Plus the 707 had the best saftey reputation + Comets reputaiton of 6 six crashes delayed the introduction of Jet Transporation based on the fear that people were terrifed + refused to fly on the Comet period + it was slower, smaller + not safe.
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 The fuel tanks in an airliner are located in both the fuselage and the wings, although most of it is in the wings. It is undeniable that by placing the engines in pods under the wings, you are placing the engines closer to the fuel tanks than by situating the engines in the wing roots.
The 707 most decidedly NOT usher in the 'Jet Age' - that was done in 1939 by the Germans and the British. indeed, the first American jet aircraft to fly was powered by British engines.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 The Comet engines were chosen to meet the size and weight of the aircraft, but it was not underpowered in comparison to the 707. The Comet 1 had thrust-loading of only 3.9 lbs-weight/lb-thrust; even the most powerful 707 (the -320B with Pratt & Whitney PW JT3D-7 engines) had a thrust-loading of 4.4 lbs-weight for 1 lb of thrust.
As for delaying the onset of the jet age ... this is unsupported by the facts. Being began the 707 program, in 1952, because of the Comet program.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 I think it fair to say that the 707 was responsible for ushering in the age of mass travel. The Comet was designed around the idea that flying was (and would remain) a fairly expensive habit, and that passenger numbers would remain low compared to those who travelled across the oceans by sea.
The Comet - in the form of the AEW Nimrod - is still flying in RAF service today. As is the 707 (as the C-137/C-137) with he USAF. Testament to the outstanding quality of both designs.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo Still the fastest Airliner in the sky + I loved flying on it. @ 7 years old I was in the cabin of Super Constellation sitting in the Captains lap. With my Eastern Airlines Student Half Card I could fly from Boston to Miami for $36.00. BTW the sale of 1010 B707'S was the Lions Share of Aircraft Sales. If U keep putting down American ppl than fuck yourself + sit on 12' Rail-Road spike cuz U lost the Boeing Tanker Contract cuz Airbus planes R shit + we build our own planes so UYMF!
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 The 707? No - not by a long way. The Vickers VC-10 was faster. The Convair 880/990 was uneconomical, but the Hawker Siddley Trident was faster still, and was economic at those speeds.
Contrary to popular belief, none of these aircraft could 'go supersonic'- except during flight testing or by accident and at the risk of significant damage to the airframe. Even then, it had to be 'downhill', and the stories of exceeding the speed of sound are apocryphal. Mne was always < M1.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 My father flew the Constellation for BOAC for many years, and had many stories to tell.
I do not think it is I who has 'put down' any American - I have restricted myself to the facts. I have certainly never descended to the level of personal abuse.
flygweilo 1 year ago
Well, Comet has only had 2 crashes, and 707 has, i dont know, 20 crashes...?
Maybe 707 was a better plane, but the Comet is beside Constellation maybe the best looking commercial plane ever built.
I wonder why todays airliners dont paint their Boeings in black around the cockpit windows and nose, it looks tough!
Neoplan80 1 year ago
@Neoplan80 I have no idea. The closest I can think of is when BA painted one of the 757's nose cone black or something. I may be wrong, I do however remember a BA 747-400 painted gold on the nose cone for the Olympics. Thanks for the comment.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@Neoplan80 Comet had four crashed and two were cover up!
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
Comet for me ;)
JamesB767 1 year ago
@JamesB767 Thanks.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
I think the comet was so beautiful but I never flew in one but I flew in several 707s, possibly the Laker one photographed. I didn't find them as 'choppy' as the newer Airbus planes but that might be because of greater turbulance today as opposed to in the 70s. I'm no expert, perhaps some more knowledgeable person than myself can enlighten me.
freethoughtmusic 1 year ago
@freethoughtmusic I don't know either, but I would have thought it would be the other way round as the 707's wings look rather stiff like they can't flex. Thanks for you comment though.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral Sorry Comet was junk with tubby body + tail that was from 1940. Boeing swept wing was state of the art + workers had to felt booties not to scratch. Engine placement on B-707 dynamically distributed power + thrust became the wing of the future. Comet wing was heavy + inflexible. Next time U want to badmouth a plane find another Limey Hunk of Junk. The 707 established speed + saftey while the Comet had real issues when it came to crashing VS De Havillands Tombstone Technology!
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral BTW swept wing Boeing was very flexible and the most functional aerodynamic wing of its time. Your making trash talk to put down the Boeing-707 the worlds greatest American Airliner that established the best speed and saftey record in history and proved the Boeing build the Airliners to this day.
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 I don't quite know where you have gotten all these 'bad mouth comments' I have made against the 707 I do love it.
The Comet's tail was stumpy because of where the engines were. With the engines being there (yes it was a silly mistake to put them near the fuel tanks) there was less risk of debris flying in the engine during takeoff. The crashes were purely down to metal fatigue and had NOTHING to do with engines as far as I know.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral I know all that and the workers hammered the screws in vital spots and the windows caused it to but it amazing that they put a cheap alloyed skin on when Lockheed built the 1937 Constellation or the Boeing B-29 and Boeing-B-47 they had no problems with pressurerization. Boeing and Lockheed establsihed safe pressurized aircraft what happened with De Havilland to make such a obvious mistake?
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 Hoestly, I couldn't tell you that. I'm guessing it was something to do with the materials the fuselage was made out of possibly or even due to DH rushing the Comet to production and not testing it properly.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@freethoughtmusic It has largely to do with the laminar-flow, supercritical wings that the latest generation of airliners all use. These wings have higher aspect-ratio and lift distribution characteristics different from the wings of the early jet liners. Great for airline economics, but bad for ride quality.
flygweilo 1 year ago
Except for the unstylish and old fashioned tail fin! Should have been swept back like that of the later Boeing. But I agree that the 707 was a beauty in aeronautical elegance, outshining in looks many that came after it. But Comet got there first, if only briefly.
FrederickDelarge 1 year ago
@FrederickDelarge Yes, however I do believe the tail of the Comet was like that because of the position of the engines. But yes the 707 is pretty good looking, the engines were beautiful and they were further away from the fuselage than aircraft of today (as in further to the edge of the wings).
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@FrederickDelarge If you look it up, you'll find that the initial designs for he DH.106 (what was to become the Comet) included a swept-back vertical stabiliser, much the same as he 707.
The fin design with which the Comet ultimately equipped, came as a result of aerodynamic research and testing, and had nothing to do with appearance.
flygweilo 1 year ago
The trouble was that it was the rectangular windows, with their failed corner points, that initially got the blame. Their replacement with rounded versions, in the supposition that the problem had been cured, was an abdication of the responsibility that had originally specified an inadequate skin thickness for pressurised flight.
But the Comet had other serious aerodynamic shortcomings also.
FrederickDelarge 1 year ago
@FrederickDelarge Yes, the windows were a flaw as well as the skin. It's a shame about the low passenger capacity and underpowered engines but the Comet was pretty good looking!
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
On the main tack of this thread, the Comet disasters were a direct result of the type's hasty rush into service to (groundlessly) pre empt perceived American competition. The underpowered DeHavilland engines necessitated a lightweight and fatally thin fuselage skin that wasn't up to repeated pressurisation/depressurisation cycles.
FrederickDelarge 1 year ago
@FrederickDelarge All relivant points, but saying that if it were not for De Havilland to make the Comet with all those faults then we might not have known about the pressurisation/depressurisation until it came too late and killed yet more people.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
Not much point in arguing this further except to say that graceful images surely demand graceful audio pairing. Off the top of my head the orchestral opening of Mozart's piano concerto No.23 would be a candidate. But there is much more to choose from than this, not only from Mozart but from many other composers.
FrederickDelarge 1 year ago
No direct offence meant - but you have to admit that these beautiful machines deserve a rather more appropriate accompaniment than the noise which so readily seems to be reached for. Surely Mozart is out of copyright?
FrederickDelarge 1 year ago
@FrederickDelarge I have no idea about Mozart, most of the music that is on here is like what you see here, noise! I am however more careful with my music as it is more up to date.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
Why do so many of these uploads have to be accompanied by shit noise which the uploaders suppose to be music?
FrederickDelarge 1 year ago
@FrederickDelarge Because I think you will find that any music we may actually choose to put on rarely stays due to copyright so we have to suffice for these. If your issue is so large then maybe contact YouTube directly so they can upload new, more 'likeable' music!
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
Both very significant aircraft
N330AA 1 year ago
@N330AA yeah, the comet was a great way to start the jet age, but the 707 was pure brilliance!
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
everybody forgets that while the 707 was more successful than the comet, the comet paved the way for the jet age and taught boeing and douglas lots of lessons (not less about the square windows). if the 707 was before the comet and it's knowldege... then maybe de havilland would still rule the skies today
jeffhardylysia 1 year ago
@jeffhardylysia yeah thats what i have been trying to say, you need aircraft like the comet to come in and 'mess up' (so to speak) so we can learn from the mistakes, just like when a plane crashes the faa can find out what went wrong and train pilots how to control the situation if it hapens to them
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
jet aviation im sure would not be where it is today if it wasnt for the Comet and Concorde. Britain at it best !
dubkat 1 year ago
@dubkat not fogetting the trident also with its ability to use reverse thrust in the air or the vc-10 which was mega fast! britain has produced wonderful aircraft
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
i m taking nothing away from the great 707...but it was designed many years later than the original comet and had all the benefit of hindsight and experience ...and of course it had the full might of the US govt funding it as a military tanker aircraft!
tim60s321 1 year ago
they take all from the messerschmitt ME 262!!!
Abschluss2014 1 year ago
The Comet looks like it was designed by 7 year old kids, Big wheels, Square windows, an out of proportion tail and wings, in contrast the 707 looks just like an airplane should look. it radiates confidence and elegance.
matatan69 1 year ago
@matatan69 i understand where you are coming from but i believe the tail is that size due to the engines being in the place they are. I think De Havilland wanted to redesign the way aircraft of the future will look but obviously they didn't do too well especially with the windows
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral I agree that the Boeing Aircraft are way out ahead of all passenger designs. In fact, they are so proven that the Airbus of today are essentially copies of Boeings in their basic designs, slight differences in the Air Foils of the wings-
But remember: The Comet was just evolving from an "AIRPLANE" Design after WW2, and to make note of what you said about the windows-
It was those "OVERSIZED" Windows that caused so many of the Comets to Crash at Depressurization during descent
poitrenaud 1 year ago
@poitrenaud yeah im saying they probably wanted to revolutionalise the way the windows are designed
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@poitrenaud Your comment is pure bullshit, because Copying means that you make aircraft that is just like other one, of course Airbus aircrafts basic design looks same as every manufacturer tries to make aircraft as economical as possible, and thats what makes basic outside design same, but still none of Airbuses looks like any Boeing model.
Also Airbus used fly by wire first on commercial jet, now Boeing uses it too but with different computer system. Anyway from inside they are different.
Pvjinflight 1 year ago
I would fly on the "revised" version of the comet. The ones with the picture (square) windows were known to be susceptible to in flight disintegration. No lie, that's one of my worst fears.
Redden08 1 year ago
@Redden08 yeah it would be nice for a revised comet design to hit the drawing boards, obviously make it able for fly long/medium haul flight and fly at around mach 0.8, even if it is just one aircraft or even a biz jet it would be great!
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral There was in fact several revised Comets designed and manufactured and of course went on to commercial use. But by that time, the 707 had entered production and soon after the DC-8. The Comet never caught up.
itsmegp46 1 year ago
@itsmegp46 Yeah, it is a shame as the design was wonderful. But alas even the Comet 4 couldnt carry many passengers.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral I'm not so sure it was such a great design. It was smaller, slower, and was way too small. Even the subsequent revisions were too small.
itsmegp46 1 year ago
@itsmegp46 Yes, well I am talking about the engines being in the wing so there is a slimer chance of debris entering the engine during takeoff.
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral Yes U don't want the Comet to suck in debrish from one its decompressive explosions cuz it might cause an engine failure. Comet put the engines like that cuz it was cheaper. The Comet was pooply engineered + rushed N2 production to capure Jet Airliner Maket. Notorius Comet crashes delayed Jet Airliners for years becuase it had so many crashes. The Comets engine congiguration was dangerous since its better to distribute thrust + power than to much heat near fuel tanks + lines..
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
@LottoWinner999 The engines of the Comet were placed in the wing root because it allowed for a 'clean' wing, thus improving lift characteristics. Boeing slung the engines under the wing because this made the aircraft cheaper to build and maintain. And these are the reasons that engines are slung in pods under the wings of modern airliners, to this day.
The Comet was a pioneer, and led the way. The design of all subsequent jet airliners benefitted from lessons learned from the Comet.
flygweilo 1 year ago
@flygweilo The Comet was a Total Aviation Disaster + never led the way + Boeing 707 derived from the most tested plane in USAF the KC-135 was the basic Boeing 707. Comet engineers +De Havilland was pressured 2B 1ST Commerical Jet Airliner. De Havviland knew Comet had compression cabin problems + Boeing, Lockheed + Douglas most expereinced aircraft manufacturers in pressurized planes offered to help + were snubbed so allot of innocent people died cuz of Brtish pride + made the Comet a failure.
LottoWinner999 1 year ago
So, out of all Boeing's commercial aircraft, only the 707 and 747 use 4 engines?
ParasiteQueen1 1 year ago
@ParasiteQueen1 i have never thought about it like that, but yes! unless you count the old prop planes :)
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
Unfortunately by the time De Havilland made the comet safe it was obsolete. Boeing had the right plane at the right time. That nose on the comet made for one handsome aircraft though. No wonder Sud purchased them to put on the front of the Caravelle.
binaway 1 year ago
@binaway yes but i cant help but see a resemblence in the 787's nose
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
B707 Its been flying sence the 50s and will still be flying for years into the future.
humdrum17 1 year ago
@humdrum17 yep, especially with john travolta having one himself
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral Airforce still flies them. KC-135 FTW!!
humdrum17 1 year ago 2
@humdrum17 yep, a couple of years left in those birds yet!
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@humdrum17 The KC-135 came first. The -8o[707 prototype] was based on the KC-135.
klesmer 1 year ago
0:46 VC-10:LOL
CeilingFans4UrLife 1 year ago
@CeilingFans4UrLife well the picutre is supposed to be focusing on the 707, but yes it looks like a VC-10
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
I agree, the Comet disaster, probably benefited the jet age because engineers better understood the effects of stress and pressurisation. For example window shapes were changed to prevent stress propagation.
The British in the early 50's had many private companies, and probably could never compete on mass producing and carrying out expensive on research jet aircraft compared to companies in the USA. British industry has always been dogged by lack of money.
LOCOMOTIONNUMBER1 1 year ago
@LOCOMOTIONNUMBER1 yeah, its a shame that British aircraft never really 'took off' so to speak. like you said there was a lack of money! maybe it wasnt meant to be
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral I agree with you. Concorde was doomed to failure after the oil crisis in 1973/4. In the 60's oil was relatively cheap. By 1976 when Concorde went into airline service, no other airline could ever make a profit with it with such inflated oil prices.
Probably there is a niche market for a new 40-50 seat supersonic aircraft if the passengers were prepared to pay $10,000 return to New York!
LOCOMOTIONNUMBER1 1 year ago
@LOCOMOTIONNUMBER1 yeah, well nobody could afford $10k for a plane ticket apart from business men/women or the rich
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
Although the Comet was a disaster, it did give CONSIDERABLE information into how planes are built today due to information collected on metal fatigue. Hadn't it been for those uneventful disasters, we wouldn't have known about them today. Both planes are sexy in my eyes, its unfortunate we didn't know about fatigue early on to prevent those accidents.
musico81986 1 year ago
@musico81986 yes, precisely what i was trying to say, the comet was good because if u look at it now it kinda seems to be like a test aircraft
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
FYI to Undead114 - actually the 1st "production airliner" to have a pressurised cabin, was the Boeing model 307 Stratoliner, introduced and 1st flown in 1938. It was put into use by the airlines in the summer of 1940. I believe the 1st flight of the Comet wasn't until 1949 and a couple years after that before it was put into service.
Shubba2529 1 year ago
I'd choose the 707. - The Comet may have been 1st, but I tend to base my choice on reliability, safety and life of service. Although I will admit, once Hawker-Siddeley made some major modifications, the military Nimrod has made for a great, long service life Maritime Patrol A/C for the RAF and I believe it's still in service. But, if one is going to go by civilian to military type offspring A/C, variants of the KC-135 are projected to be in use until 2030 and beyond.
Shubba2529 1 year ago
The Boeing 707 because the Comet was poorly built..... althought it was the first plane to incorporate a pressurized cabin it would only last a few hundred flights until the airplane would start to develop cracks and fall apart.
Undead114 1 year ago
@Undead114 yeah in a way it was kinds good though because it was able to be developed on
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
the comet cause its steamlined sexy and was the base for the nimrod
class37trash 1 year ago
@class37trash yeah its nose kinda reminds me of the 787
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
comet cos it was first, best looking and cos its BRITISH! a symbol of 60s airtravel
flonogorida 1 year ago
@flonogorida yeah 60's airtravel must have been a lot better than it is today
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
hmmm, correct me if wrong, if the 707 did not took off the skies, there will be no airbus a380, boeing 787 and 747-8 flying today because the 707 itself was a revolutionary of a jet liner. although boeing was convinced that the airliner will be powered by jet in future that time, they develop their own tech rather than copy the comet by upscale the B47 stratojet. I think the structure failure of comet allowed boeing to drive them out of business.
josephtan1818 1 year ago
@josephtan1818 yeah the 707 and comet were both important in the development in jet airliners
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
707 by a long shot. Comet crashed too much.
SoloWingF16 1 year ago
@SoloWingF16 yes, in a way the crashes were good because it helped the manufacturers know how to aviod it happening in the future
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
I vote for 707 because maintenance to the engine was easy, engine changing also easy. as for 707 case, if the engine explode/ripped apart it just drop off the engine and make emergency landing but for comet, any engine explode/riped apart, it break the whole wings off and crashed. look at the Japan Airlines Cargo Flight 46E and Cape Town 737 incident, engine ripped apart but landed safely
josephtan1818 1 year ago
oh yeah, the aircraft type for JAL Cargo Flight 46E was Boeing 747-100
josephtan1818 1 year ago
Boeing 707 is Better
Postbus22 1 year ago
@Postbus22 thanks for your comment
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
The Comet because it's British!!!!
SinclairisCool 1 year ago
@SinclairisCool fair enough
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral
Thats right! DAMN YOU AMERICA! you and your planes and car and what not. one day, Britain will rise again!
SinclairisCool 1 year ago
@SinclairisCool yeah, even though it was also a french project, the concorde being retired was a real kick in the teeth
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral
The Comet wasn't a French project :P
SinclairisCool 1 year ago
@SinclairisCool i was actually refering to concorde
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
Boeing > Dehavilland
Trevorpilot123 1 year ago
@Trevorpilot123 i dont understand what you are trying to say, is it that boeing is better than dehavilland?
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral yeah, it's like math. 2>1. Boeing is better than dehavilland.
Trevorpilot123 1 year ago
@Trevorpilot123 yeah i just never understood what way it went around
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
the comet is the best lookin out of the two :)
glenw89 1 year ago
@glenw89 yes, but i prefer the 707 for range etc
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@ConcordeCentral fair point ;)
glenw89 1 year ago
Boeing Rulez
sopetado 1 year ago
@sopetado yeah and i also prefer it compared to the comet for safety reasons
ConcordeCentral 1 year ago
@TombstoneAnnieOakly You really are a tool aren't you. I suppose next you'll be saying that america came up with the all moving tailplane. So how much technology did america learn from the Germans? I'll not bother commenting on this anymore, this tripe has gone on long enough.
RortyCorty 1 year ago
@TombstoneAnnieOakly I suggest you do a little more research. The Comet first flew in 1948 and many new lessons were learnt from the outset. I'm not saying that the 707 isn't any good, far from it, that would be stupid. What I have said is that the Comet very much paved the way for the larger jet.
RortyCorty 1 year ago