Comet Air Crash
Posts Related to Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) - 4/4
Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 1/4
Comet Air Crash
Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 2/4
Comet Air Crash
Flight BOAC 781 (Comet Air Crash) – 3/4
Comet Air Crash
The good ‘ol days of commercial air travel
1950. A British film about post war commercial air travel in the UK. Some interesting aircraft are featured including the Brabazon and Comet
Flying Heavy Metal Episode Five: Watch This Space-Part 3 HQ
Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden presents the history of jet travel from his perspective as a Boeing 757 pilot for the UK airline Astraeus. A ...
The 737′s had design flaws with the rudder servo valve which could cause it to do rudder movements on it’s own and cause a strange reversal
That’s also true. THough that was not at the top of my head at the time.
@Epica124
Aloha 243 also had a lot of short flights in a very humid and salty aired environment. Plus, maintenance done to improve strength/rigidity was not done according to Boeing’s manuals…
I don’t disgree with that. I was just point out that with Aloha Airlines Flight 243 there was more then just the metal fatigue.
Perhaps my wording came off as too harsh concerning the -200 series. The point I was making was that by “today’s” technology standards the metal fatigue issue in the 737 would be considered to be bad design.
Also the 737-200 was also mired in controversy surrounding its rudder.
This is not at all surprising. Many aircraft have had handling/maintenance issues that were only considered to be quirks in their own time (the Tupolev 154 comes to mind) that would be considered unacceptable today.
Comet Air was metal fatigue do to a really bid design flaw that they did not know about back then. The older the plane the more it has to be worked on and when a plane is hitting 19 years old it’s getting up there.
Aloha Airlines Flight 243 there was a lot more that lead into that metal fatigue. It was 19 years old and had a takeoff-landing cycle of 89,090. Yes I understand that it was metal fatigue. But it was metal fatigue do to age and number of take offs.
It was a metal patch kit that would be applied to key points on the exterior skin. If you look at 737-200 series in museums you can clearly see the patches riveted onto the exterior skin in front of the wings.
Actually the 737-200 series also had the fatal flaw of metal fatigue in several high stress areas, much like the Comet. This was made apparent when the whole roof of a 737 peeled off. Amazingly the pilot was able to land the plane and the only loss of life was an air hostess who was standing and did not have her seat belt on like everyone else.
This was a potential catastrophy for the entire industry, as so many of these aircraft were deployed. Fortunately Boeing came up with a solution….
Most of the Boeing 737′s accidents were do to pilot error. In fact most accidents these days are more do to pilot error then flaws in the plane. That’s not to say they don’t happen though. But you also have to look at the airlines to. Exmaple look up Adam Air.
the Comet design did, however, surface later on in the RAF as the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod … a very good aeroplane for maritime patrol.
the B707 is better
I wish the show had followed up on the airplane inspector who did pre-flight on both Comets out of Rome.
He seemed so kind. Clearly there was nothing he could have seen to prevent any of it. Hope he knows that.
As I recall, it was a weight concern – also the reason that the Comets were sparsely painted, as apparently being fully coated in paint would make the plane too heavy. IF that’s true, then I reckon it’s quite a narrow safety margin they were working to.
Do you think that they want to save money by making the plane’s parts thinner, or there was not enough aluminium on the 50s? As I observe the first older cola cans were thicker, but they make them thinner today for saving money (and for environmental reasons). Except if they say that they made this in order for the plane not to be heavy.
The rivets also made the fatigue crack grow
It was unsafe. It still has the highest number of passenger deaths per passenger mile of any western made jetliner in service (although its now only in service with dodgy airlines).
The cargo door incidents in particular were unforgivable.
Yes, the square windows caused stress concentrations at the corners and accelerated the fatigue cracking. That’s why all modern airliners have rounded windows.
Er… this accident happened in perfect flying weather!
they were so stupid back then!!! duh everyone knows gremlins attach themselves to wings of flying aircraft and they tear at the metal with there 6 inch claws!!!!! Metal fatigue so stupid lol
wat a sexy looking plane
It’s amazing how many small details, defects and design flaws can add up to a model being effectively doomed from the beginning. 1) Trying to ‘get away’ with using as thin a skin as possible, 2) Manufacture differing from design (punched rivets obviously being quicker than drilled rivets to install), 3) And amazingly, ignoring well-known data from shipping (ie, expansion joints) that square holes fatigue far quicker than round ones – even the Titanic’s ‘newer’ sister ship learned that one!
OMG…it was not even water proof…lol
snap crackle pop
Dude your freakin lungs explode because of depressurization – if the metal rips apart, what the heck do you thing happens to your body?!
And also you need training to use parachutes.
If the plane is landed (even Hudson style), you live. If it breaks apart in the air, or crashes on the ground / sea at 500 mph, it’s pretty much game over.