Grab Cheap Air Deals is the Blog that provide the latest and lastest info about the cheap air deals and the cheap tickets for your travel plan, Just Mar
18th
Author: admin |
Files under Air Deals Video
Comet Air Crash
Related posts:
- Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 1/4
- Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 3/4
- Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 4/4
- Air Crash Investigation – Air Inter Flight 148 HD Part 1/5
- Plane Crash Tribute to flight 5055 air disaster
- the Hijack and Crash of Ethiopia Flight 961
- Flight El Al 1862 (Amsterdam Air Crash) – 1/3
- Flight El Al 1862 (Amsterdam Air Crash) – 2/3
- Flight El Al 1862 (Amsterdam Air Crash) – 3/3
- Flight UA-232 (Crash Landing at Sioux City) – 1/3
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
@bubby963 Totally unfair comparison. I am not leaning toward either country but how many planes have the British built and the americans? How many passengers travel in british vs american planes?
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
Are you british? Im not american or british so im just wondering.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
I’m just laughing at the thick Americans saying how the British can’t engineer.
Total deaths from British built planes: under 1000 perhaps under 500
Total deaths from American built planes: over 10,000 perhaps over 20,000
Who sucks now?
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
Some of the Ilyushin designs were very good.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
I agree however You have to remember England was still oweing war money this problem was going to make or break them which you know the rest But many designers and sister ship companys ended up coming to canada Avro and made the Arrow only to have the USA come in and buy them out at the time canada had the leading fighter of its time and restored the british name look at the arrow and the Vulcan ..then look at the F-14 20 years later they look the same
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
@Frankly747 I know, I was kidding.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
8:54 – 9:04 has to be the most ridiculous, deceptive, misguided and irresponsible statement I have ever had the misfortune of hearing ! How in the world would one give a “vote of confidence” as pertains to an issue that is yet unresolved beyond any doubt ? BOAC’s haste to make money without settling the comet issue ultimately led to the demise of the aircraft making industry in England. Had they waited, perhaps they would be bigger than Boeing today; if only.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
There was no crash video — what you saw in the documentary was a re-construction, a simulation if you will.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
I know; I was kidding.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
I don’t think they had videos back then, and even if they did, the plane already crashed. Furthermore, it was the fact that fatigue failures developed as a result of the square windows. That is why modern jets have rounded corners on the windows.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
Those British dumbasses: only if they had paid attention to the video of the crash (as shown in this documentary), they would have realized that the problem was a mechanical failure on the roof in the forward section of the aircraft, leading to structural disintegration.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
Perhaps he means that the communist sabotage theory was not true. If the soviets had already developed a plane with similar technology, there was no reason to sabotage a Comet one. In general, soviets had represented very nice and efficient designs in airplanes.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
and yet, you managed to spell the word ‘captain’ wrong…
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
i am a captian and i know better than you do !
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
@canamwing
But the Tu104 didn’t even do it’s first flight until 1955 – well after the Comet, and a year after this particular accident – your point was?
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
Thanks for your answer. It’s sad they had to find out about the windows among other defects the hard way.
It seems the new Airbus jets are having their trials and errors too.
I think I’ll just keep my feet on the ground thank you.
Thanks again.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
The communists had an aircraft far superior to this thing. The Tu-104 served until 1980.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
The pod design has a number of safety advantages, the main reason boeing stated was that in the event of an engine fire pod mounted engines were less likely to cause structural damage to the wing. After boeing used pods on their 707 it became the standard engine mounting.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
It pretty much invented the science of modern aircraft crash investigation.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
They are inefficient by modern standards, yes, but for the time they compared pretty well against piston-engined aircraft.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:29
The main reason is that engines in pods under the wings are easier to access for maintenance and replacement. Additionally as they’re further away from the fuselage they are less likely to puncture it should they explode.
The in-wing engines do have aerodynamic advantages though, there’s far less drag with this design. Also, as the engines are higher up, there’s less chance of forign object ingestion while taxiing
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:30
In Volume 1 of “Air Disasters,” by MacArthur Job, this disaster is well-examined. The Comet was in trouble from early on, with a number of incidents plaguing the plane, not just the two crashes previous to 781. Very interesting, but as someone wrote here, it changed the industry.
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:30
Knew not new you idiot..
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:30
Why did the celtic fan hang himself? cos he new he was a nobhead…lol…lol…lol
Mar 18, 2010 at 04:59:30
speed kills