"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

The 707 was built on the back of its fatigue findings.


Well, if it was, then they designed and built the 707 prototype
in
less
than
a month.

Long time from prototype to final plane, of which one of the first
dropped
engines. The results of the Comet investigation were being drip
fed
as
it
was progressing. before the final reports many of its finding
were
being
implemented in virtually all western aircraft, especially fast
filchers
and
bombers.

The first airliner with a pressurized cabin for high-altitude
flights
was
a
Boeing S-307 Stratoliner which took flight on 31 December 1938 and
was
subsequently flown by TWA BEFORE the Second World War. By the time
the
de
Havilland Comet I was ready to fly with a pressurized cabin equal to
the
reliability of the 1938 Boeing airliner, the Boeing B-707 was ready
to
take
flight with the commercial airlines almost two decades after the
Boeing
S-307 was flying with a pressurized cabin. So, the de Havilland
Comet
was
almost two decades too late to teach Boeing how to build pressurized
cabins
for commercial airliners. Spiv, go teach your own grandmother how to
suck
eggs.

Who is debating pressurised cabins? The plane that set the scene for
most
modern airliners was the Bristol Brabazon: pressurised cabin,
hydraulic
power units to operate the giant control surfaces, the first with 100%
powered flying controls, the first with electric engine controls, the
first
with high-pressure hydraulics, and the first with AC electrics. The
Brabazon was a project of three parts. The Brabzon 111 ended up being
the
Bristol Britannia, which was the finest prop airliner of the time, and
many
say ever. It took all the lessons of the larger Brabazon prototype
which
was scrapped. The larger Brabazon was said to have been too early.
the
plane was very big, and few saw a role for immediately post WW2.

You were talking about pressurized cabins when you claimed Boeing had to
learn to build them without metal fatigue by stealing the idea from the
De
Havilland Comet I. Boeing and Lockheed were building commercial
airliners
which had pressure cabins without metal fatigue problems by 1936-1938,

They were slow prop jobs, not fast jets. Do you know the difference?

The problem with the De Havilland DH106 Comet I was reputed to be metal
fatigue problems resulting from the design of the pressurized cabin, and the
American companies had already demonstrated a prior ten years of experience
in constructing such high altitude pressurized cabins for military jet
aircraft and civilian propellor driven aircraft which were not subject tot
he metal fatigue problems reported for the Bristol Barbazon, De Havilland
DH106 Comet I, and other British aircraft. Consequently, the British
experience with failure had nothing to offer in design to the American
experience with success.

It is also worthwhile to note that the shorter range of the De Havilland
DH106 Comet I sometimes permitted the slower but longer-ranged American
propellor driven airliners to arrive at their destination after a non-stop
flight before the arrival of the De Havilland DH106 Comet I which had to
make a lengthy stopover for refueling. Obviously, you didn't know this
difference where the low endurance hare, the Comet I, is actaully slower in
delivery than the high endurance turtle, the prop airliner.


while
the De Havilland Comet I metal fatigue reports and re-design occurred in
the
period from 1954-1958. Obviously, the huge fleets of American airliners
and
bombers were built for the prevous ten to twenty years without the metal
fatigue problems experienced by the Bristol Barbazon and the De
Havilland
Comet I.

The Brabazon was "huge" and the Comet a jet. Both pioneering planes.


Boy, you can say that again. They pioneered their way straight into the
scrap heap and the air disaster headlines.

Obviously, the Americans did not need British advice on how to
construct aircraft without metal fatigue problems, but the British
certainly
did need the American advice.

What garbage. The lessons of the Comet were taken notice of by all.

Yes, everyone took notice of what a beautiful and disastrous aircraft it
was. Then they went on designing their own aircraft their own way, which had
already been prohibiting De Havilland's design errors anyway.

That
is does not mean the same design of cabin/frame. You are obviously not
from
an engineering background. Were you a pay clerk?


Obviously, you are a demonstrably clueless fool and a liar.

The De Havilland design attempted to use a custom guage of metal skin to
save weight and improve performance, but their calculations ignored standard
practices regarding metal fatigue which were in common use by American and
other manufacturers besides De Havilland.

Yes, the Bristol Brabazon did "set the scene for most modern airliners"
by
demonstrating what not to do to become the most colossal failure in
airliners.

More garbage. It was the forerunner of "every" modern airliner.

Yes, the Bristol Barbazon was "More garbage" and the single existing
prototype quickly ended up on the garbage heap after only 400 hours of
flight without earning an air worthiness certificate, because it was subject
to metal fatigue and could never be certified as safe. Since "'every' modern
airliner in use today has an air worthiness certificate and are built
entirely differently than the Bristol Barbazon, your comments are obvious
lies.


Only one prototype of the aircraft was completed, and it never
flew more than 400 hours in experimental flights, before it was
scrapped.
It
was scrapped because it failed to earn an air worthiness certificate.
The
Bristol Brabazon failed to earn an air worthiness certificate because it
suffered metal fatigue cracks with less than 400 hours of experimental
flight operation. Go teach your own grandmother to suck eggs.

The wisdom of our resident redneck.

You have no facts, so you substitute an insult. I must be doing something
right.

I advise you to look into the Brabazon
project instead of babbling balls.

Even the most starry eyed British sources often cite the Bristol Barbazon as
a classic example of how to not design a white elephant aircraft by
committee.

It was the forerunner of "every" modern
airliner and too far ahead of its time, being too big.

The Bristol Barbazon was a forerunner only by virtue of being so worthless
to the avaiation industry, it was immediately consigned to the scrap heap as
a worthless aircraft decades before its contemporaries were scrapped.

Any problems seen
were rectified and/or noted for future planes.

Yeah, it was rectified by immediately scrapping the aircraft and never again
using its design.