Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-26 Thread Peter Frederick
Actually, the Comet fuselage failure was somewhat more complex than just bad
design.  First, there was a paperwork error that mislocated a rivet in the
windowframe by about 1/4 toward the outside, virtually certain to cause a
fatigue failure.  This was NOT a design error, it was an error introduced
during drafting.

Second, the particular window frame affected just happened to be at a very
high stress point as it was directly below the corner of the fiberglass panel
in the roof for the internal radio antenna system, so that a window failure
resulted not in a blow out window but a massive failure of the entire row of
windows, resulting in the complete disintegration of the airframe.

Progressive failure of a fuselage like the original Comet design has been
prevented in all latter aircraft by a rip reistant design pioneered by the
Comet design team.

You should note that the Comet in it's original form had four 5000 lb static
thrust de Havilland Ghost engines, grossly underpowered even in the
featherweight structure  -- the functional equivlanet of one engine on a
Boeing 707-200.  Later models had about twice the engine power and better
structure.  The Comet was also pressurized to 9.5 psi, about a third higher
than current aircraft, and flew at 40,000 plus ft altitude fully loaded.  A
contemporary DC-6 could stagger all the way up to 25,000 ft, was pressurized
to 4.5 psi, and was almost 200 mph slower.

The Comet was already slated for complete replacement due to structural
inadequacy before the fuselage failures -- there was at least one, probably
two, crashes of the original design traced to wing fatigue greatly acclerated
by turbulence (and severe turbulence shortly before the failure was a factor
in both fuselage failures).  De Havilland was in the process of reworking the
whole design inside the company to greatly increase capacity (only 40
passengers in the original design) and to carry much more fuel and heavier
engines.

All this was done by hand with slide rules -- massive failures in cutting edge
aeronauitical designs were more or less the rule in those days of puny engines
and fairly primitive understanding of modern aerodynamics.

So far as I know, no Comet 4 every suffered a severe structural failure, and
corrosion problems are NOT a design defect so much as a maintenance or
ignorance problem.  Ditto for the tail icing crashes that brought down some
Viscounts (and was a problem on Brittanias, too, I think) -- to be a design
defect the problem has to be known and understood during the design phase, and
no aluminum plane has lasted long enough prior to WWII to develop fatigue
problems -- they were all destroyed by unrealted crashes or fires or obsoleted
before the accumulated enough hours of use to show fatigue.  Bad drawings are
a technical deffect, but hardly a design problem.  I don't know what would
have happened if the rivet had been correctly placed, but having where it was
reduced the fatigue resistance upwards of 90 %, and the test airframe had a
minor failure there before the side blew out in testing.

The Nimrod the RAF used up until very recently (if it isn't still in use for
antisubmarine work) was a Comet 4, not a refitted Comet I or II -- the only
Comet I or II airframes built were for commerical customers, and there weren't
more than 25 assembled before the fuselage failiures became known.  All were
scrapped post-haste.  The Comet 4 entered service in 1956.

After all, anybody who ever flew a Curtis Commando will tell you about design
defects -- electrical, hydraulic, and pnematic lines all going through the
same hole in the frame where the control stick could rub on them is one
examplealmost gaurenteed a massive fire someday.

The Avro Jetliner was a wonderful plane, killed by the American aircraft
manufacturers via the Canadian goverment.  It had much the same operational
characteristics as a DC-9/737 minus the short feild capability, and if the
Rolls Conway had been available, would have eaten Boeing's lunch in short haul
jet transport.  Brilliant design, but due to political shenanigans was
blowtorched and landfilled, blueprints burned.  Ship one rolled off the line
in 1949, almost a decade before the US builders popped out a jet passenger
plane.

Ditto for the Arrow in 1961.

The DC-3 was known as a very reliable aircraft in WWII, but it had been
carrying passengers since 1934 and all the infant mortality had been  worked
out -- like a cover over the control column pivot so a pilot's headphones
couldn't slide down and jam the column in full down or up position.
External gust locks for the fabric tail crashed any number of DC-3, etc etc.

Peter






Re: [MBZ] OT Brit aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread Peter Frederick
Well, look at it this way:

Boeing produced at aircraft that staggered up to maybe 25,000 ft when half
the fuel was burned off (Douglas DC-4 couldn't cross the Atlantic with a
full passanger load), and neither was pressurized above 6 psi.

DeHaviland produced a fully streamlined airframe (no flat windows)
pressurised to 9.5 psi that had a range of 2500 miles or so at 40,000 ft
six years  before Boeing produced the EC-135.

Yes, the Comet had some serious structural problems, but you get that when
you are cutting edge.  Note that BOAC rejected the 707 until it was fully
reworked in 1960 as it was VERY unstable below 250 or so knots and would
fall out of the air if you lost both engines on one side.  The Comet 4
carried passengers until a few years back  with a decent saftey record.

The Avro Jetliner was designed in the 1940s, had just about the same
capacity as a DC-9, and flew the first jet carried airmail into New York
in 1951 -- killed by the Canadian Goverment for political reasons, not
design problems.

The Avro Arrow was at least as good as the F-15 on TEST engines, not the
design engines, again killed by the Canadian government in 1961, at least
ten years before the F15.  With the Olympus engines intended for it (they
ended up in modified form in the Concorde) it would have been
spectacular.  Politics

There were some other notable designs, but they never got a chance
(including some early supersonic designs) because the average time between
inital design and production for British aircraft was 15 plus years.  Sad.

The Vicount (and Britannia) were very good aircraft, but by the time they
got off the assembly line, they were outdated.  The Viscount flew for
quite a few years with Capital Airlines (later absorbed by US Air).  The
failure of the airline wasn't a result of the choice of aircraft as much
as a market problem.

Rolls Royce signing an exclusive supply contract with Vickers wasn't too
smart, either, but that again is politics, not design.







Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread l02turner
I had the pleasure of flying on a Super Connie from San Diego to Hawaii in 
the 50s -- like seeing a *huge* swan - very few airplanes compare to the 
Connie in the looks dept!  IMHO if course.


Sincerely,
Larry T ('74 911, '67 MGB)
A Blood Test for your oil - www.youroil.net
For Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil
Weber Carb Stuff http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs
http://members.rennlist.com/my_911/Index.htm For my Paint Job Info
- Original Message - 
From: frederick w moir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Mercedes mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:27 PM
Subject: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft



Do you mean the Comet 4? Along with the American Super Constellation, two
of the most beautiful aircraft in the world, IMNSHO!
Viscounts corroded and failed in flight, one on finals at Heathrow, 
(anyone

remember the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof?) and Comet Two's
suffered catastrophic fatigue failures whilst pressurized, introducing the
world of aviation to ROUND or OVAL windows with no stress risers. Please,
if you are going to take shots at British Aviation,  be specific!
Fred Moir
Ex RAF Radio Fitter
Lynn MA
Rant Off (you hit a nerve)



___
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net







Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread TimothyPilgrim
I've been bombarded with images of that the last few days on the
Discovery Channel. They're about to air a special show about that
flight.

Tim
1982 300TD Moby

On 11/24/05, frederick w moir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Viscounts corroded and failed in flight, one on finals at Heathrow, (anyone
 remember the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof?) and Comet Two's



Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread David Brodbeck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 very few airplanes compare to the 
 Connie in the looks dept!  IMHO if course.

I think it's the most gorgeous airliner ever built.  The curvy fuselage
profile reminds me of a dolphin.



Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread George Gregory
Whats the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof got to do with British
aircraft?

Connie= beautiful
Comet= ugly shitbox that couldn't take the pressure

 
___
Deneal Schilmeister
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of frederick w moir
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:28 PM
To: Mercedes mailing list
Subject: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

Do you mean the Comet 4? Along with the American Super Constellation, two 
of the most beautiful aircraft in the world, IMNSHO!
Viscounts corroded and failed in flight, one on finals at Heathrow, (anyone 
remember the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof?) and Comet Two's 
suffered catastrophic fatigue failures whilst pressurized, introducing the 
world of aviation to ROUND or OVAL windows with no stress risers. Please, 
if you are going to take shots at British Aviation,  be specific!
Fred Moir
Ex RAF Radio Fitter
Lynn MA
Rant Off (you hit a nerve)



___
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net





Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread George Gregory
Correction.. Connie L749 ugly
 SuperConnie L1049 beautiful

 
___
Deneal Schilmeister
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of George Gregory
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 11:38 AM
To: 'Mercedes mailing list'
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

Whats the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof got to do with British
aircraft?

Connie= beautiful
Comet= ugly shitbox that couldn't take the pressure

 
___
Deneal Schilmeister
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of frederick w moir
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:28 PM
To: Mercedes mailing list
Subject: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

Do you mean the Comet 4? Along with the American Super Constellation, two 
of the most beautiful aircraft in the world, IMNSHO!
Viscounts corroded and failed in flight, one on finals at Heathrow, (anyone 
remember the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof?) and Comet Two's 
suffered catastrophic fatigue failures whilst pressurized, introducing the 
world of aviation to ROUND or OVAL windows with no stress risers. Please, 
if you are going to take shots at British Aviation,  be specific!
Fred Moir
Ex RAF Radio Fitter
Lynn MA
Rant Off (you hit a nerve)



___
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net



___
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net





Re: [MBZ] OT Brit Aircraft

2005-11-25 Thread frederick w moir

Deneal.
I suggest that you READ what was written. Viscounts corroded, mostly in the 
belly area, and it was not checked, found or fixed until there were a 
number of failures. The Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof  was a 
victim of corrosion and poor maintenance.
To re-state:- Comet Two's with square windows failed at the rear toilet 
windows, fatigue. RAF Transport Command bought quite a few retrofitted with 
round windows and they saw many years of good service. Come 4's were a much 
improved aircraft and also saw many years of service, esp. in Africa. 
Public opinion was against them, even though they were a different bird.

Fred Moir
Ex British Nutter.
Lynn MA
It's Tommy this and Tommy that and Throw 'im out, the brute  RK.


Whats the Hawaiian airliner that lost its' roof got to do with British
aircraft?

Connie= beautiful
Comet= ugly shitbox that couldn't take the pressure


___
Deneal Schilmeister
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500