# Talk:De Havilland Comet

Comet (aircraft) redirects here, and we have a dab note to de Havilland DH.88 Comet (and vice versa). But the Japanese dive bomber Yokosuka D4Y also was called "Comet" (in Japanese, but also sometimes in translation). Should we create a suitable disambiguation page? I was looking for the Japanese Comet, and only found it via Google... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You can add the other aircraft to the dab hatnote, much more effective than setting up disambig. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC).
There is also the Cessna Comet, Hockaday Comet, Ireland Comet, Whitehead Comet, Wedell-Williams Model 44 Ring Free Comet and with variations in spelling, the Dornier Komet, Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet and Grigorovich Kometa, and I am sure I missed a few.  - NiD.29 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
That changes the situation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Most of these are already at Comet (disambiguation), so a link there would cover most of them. BilCat (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
And done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good spot now fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
If recent events in 2018-2019 are any indication it would appear the Americans learnt very little.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
This is an article about the De Havilland Comet. Also, the American NTSB makes all its incident and accident reports public. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The investigative report, so far as I could discern, makes no mention of a problem with the riveting method used on the Comet. With regards to construction methods, one reads on page 20 that:

"I do not consider it possible to establish with certainty the point at which the disruption of the skin first began. But I consider that it is probably that it started near the starboard aft corner of the rear A.D.F. window, at a point where examination by experts showed that fatigue had existed, at the edge of the countersunk hole through which a bolt had passed."
Otherwise, the report focuses overwhelmingly on the phenomenon of metal fatigue and unrepaired cracks, though again, when discussing the latter it doesn't make reference to riveting techniques. It references a dissenting opinion by a Mr. Jablonsky to the effect that the Redux may have weakened and sheared under fatigue; again, nothing to do with rivets.
Is there a source for this claim, aside from other articles referencing this article? It seems dubious especially since there is no technique called "drill riveting." What this is likely meant to reference is the technique called bucking, where one drills a hole in the skin and installs the rivet with an air hammer and bucking bar, but again, "drill riveting" does not refer to anything specifically. This claim about punch riveting and "drill riveting" appears in several articles referencing the Comet and in each cites a different source, none of which seem to mention riveting as a problem.
Wannabe rockstar (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

An official 1954 RAE film about the Comet accident investigation on YouTube here: [1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! And the video says the same thing (from c. 28:00 onwards) as the report: the failure was caused by metal fatigue around the A.D.F. windows in the roof of the fuselage. It doesn't mention riveting techniques at all. Those sentences entered the article via an unsourced IP edit in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Havilland_Comet&oldid=159923961
Going through the history of this article, it started out as a very poorly-written opinion piece and there's still a lot of confusing and incorrect information in it. As for other articles online talking about a riveting problem, it seems likely to me that those are cases of citogenesis originating from this article. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)