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

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

You are ignorant that is clear, and can't read either:

Am I? What have I written that you believe is incorrect?

Have you a few weeks?

The Brabazon 1 had a 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.

All eventually adopted by all planes.

It wasn't the first with a pressurized cabin or powered flight controls,
and
100% powered flight controls isn't such a good idea. It wasn't the first
aircraft with hydraulic systems, using a higher pressure than it's
predecessors is hardly ground-breaking. As for electric engine controls
and
AC electric systems, so what?

It was the first with all in one plane, which is was the norm after. Do you
understand?

Even if it was the first aircraft to have
them

It was.

there was nothing ground-breaking
in putting them in an aircraft.

It was then.

Boeing designed an airplane with skin four and one half times as thick as
the Comet's to resist tearing. It had titanium tear stops welded to the
interior skin. They specified round windows and spot welds reduced the
use
of rivets. The Boeing board approved this design on April 22, 1952, ten
days before the Comet began passenger service and a year and ten days
before
the first Comet disintegrated over India.

So, if the lessons of the Comet with regard to metal fatigue influenced
the
design of the 367-80, it means de Havilland and BOAC knew about the
Comet's
flaws even before the first one entered service.

Any design Boeing had was more luck than judgment. When the results came
out it was simple to avoid the problems. It was more than just a frame
design, it was metallurgy too.

See above.

I saw above. Who operated an airliner similar to the Brabazon?

All of them, even American.

Yet you cannot identify a single type.

All of them means all types. Duh!