This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De Havilland Comet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The article could probably do with a bit more on the service of Comet C2s and C4s in the RAF. For instance, the first jet non-stop transatlantic crossing was not made by BOAC's Comet 4s in autumn 1958 but by 216 Squadron's C2s a year earlier, flying from Belfast Aldergrove to Gander in about five hours. https://www.cometra.uk/?page_id=19802 It's of some interest that the Comet cruised 10,000 feet higher than the all-conquering Boeings and that RAF crews were able to stretch the Comet's range considerably on occasion, not only by operating at lower payload than commercial airliners but, even with 86 troops on board, using an unorthodox 'cruise-climb' technique, with climb power applied only to a certain altitude (around 35,000) according to air temperature on the day, then cruise power with climb trim, so that the Comet naturally ascended to its 42,000ft ceiling as the fuel weight burned off, the engines attaining greater efficiency all the time. The 'VIP pack' which could be installed on 216 Squadron's aircraft at short notice for Royal or Prime Ministerial trips is also of some interest, with twin beds, a dining area and four 'first-class' reclinable sleeper chairs, plus a wardrobe and dressing area, replacing much of the normal seating towards the front. https://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/fa57bc46c09a48f01079159d125485b3-98.html This would allow, for instance, the PM and a few ministers to travel up front, with secretaries, assistants and press further back in 'steerage'. Presumably Prime Minister Macmillan flew to the Nassau Conference of December 1962, at which he got the historic Polaris missile agreement out of a reluctant Kennedy (leading to the Trident agreement still in place), aboard one of 216 Sqn's new Comet C4s. This would have required a fuel stop at Bermuda after 3,500 miles with 1,000 still to go, meaning a flight time around ten hours including an hour's stopover, but it's hard to see how else it could be done. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "2000 lb" in this References/Notes entry doesn't make sense:
"with 2,000 lb (910 kg) pressure applications at 9 psi ..."
Taken literally, it's giving the weight of a pressure application.
My guess is that "2000" should be a count (cycles), without units. BMJ-pdx (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When developing their own aircraft, manufacturers in the United States came to benefit from the lessons learned because of the Comet crashes. For while the UK handed over important details about the tragic events, US manufacturers did little to repay the British for their help and advice. Might not this point be addressed in the Article? 2.29.103.18 (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accident reports are published openly so that lessons learnt can be shared across national boundaries - I have never heard any reports of hiding accident reports by the US authorities.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, over and above the crash reports, did not the British hand over a great deal of useful data about their modern aircraft? For what did US plane makers do in return to help the British aircraft industry? 91.110.75.38 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to the extent that it had consequential effects. British sources always blame the americans for "stealing" all their ideas and information, but that is just a matter of making excuses for their own inability to compete, and their failures. Having a great idea and doing nothing with it is just doing nothing. They also blame the Japanese for "stealing" the motorcycle industry, and the Japanese, Americans, and Europeans for "stealing" the automotive industry. When in fact all of these were just due to central planning, which is always going to fail. 2601:647:6480:B640:752C:4D3:AF88:70A4 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
