The de Havilland Comet

I <i>still</i> think the Comet manages to look more futuristic than other civil planes. Something about the look of those engines in the wing roots with not a nacelle in sight.<p>Such a shame it turned out to be doomed due to being first and the now well known metal fatigue story.<p>The article, as with everything Comet related, ends with noting that lesson is why airliners now have very rounded windows. Yet none ever wonder or look at why cockpit windows remain decidedly rectangular. :)

One amazing story about this is that the film &#x27;No Highway in the Sky&#x27; [1], which (almost) predicts this exact problem, was made a couple of years <i>before</i> these actual events took place.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.imdb.com&#x2F;title&#x2F;tt0043859&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.imdb.com&#x2F;title&#x2F;tt0043859&#x2F;</a>

The foreshadowing was obvious when they called out the square windows in the first few paragraphs. Everyone who&#x27;s ever slept through an engineering class knows corners cause stress risers.

Chester Wilmot, author of &quot;The Struggle for Europe&quot; who was an Australian War Correspondent during the Second World War was one of the passengers who sadly lost their lives in the crash of the Comet over the Mediterranean Sea.<p>I can recommend &quot;The Struggle for Europe&quot; - he wasn&#x27;t just writing about the history, he was actively taking part.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chester_Wilmot" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chester_Wilmot</a>

One story I heard was that one of the production engineers added a rivet in the skin near the corners of the window. This was added because he thought it would strengthen the structure. Unfortunately it actually acted as an additional stress concentrator. I&#x27;m not entirely sure there wouldn&#x27;t have been an issue without that extra rivet. The guy that made that change thought he was doing the right things but in fact made things much worse.

Such a shame Nimrod is no longer flying. But it replacement(Rivet Joint) makes a mockery of regulations introduced because of Nimrod. Basically the MAA would like more information on adhering to regulations at time of production, they&#x27;d like an idea of when things start to fail. The RAF may not have even fully qualified for to fly because they were built in the 60s! They don&#x27;t want the same mistakes like Nimrod because of fatigue

I wonder why all the planes were names in some variation of Yoke [name, including Yoke]? Maybe:<p>yoke: NOUN; Irish informal; A thing whose name one cannot recall, does not know, or does not wish to specify.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.oxforddictionaries.com&#x2F;definition&#x2F;us&#x2F;yoke" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.oxforddictionaries.com&#x2F;definition&#x2F;us&#x2F;yoke</a>

When I first saw the headline I was thinking it was this Komet :-) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet</a><p>Also an interesting aircraft.

My Dad was a riveter in the Vickers Viscount factory in the 50s&#x2F;60s. Ok, not Comets, but close.