DH.118 Comet 5

[kiwithrottlejockey]

I found an interesting PDF file that can be downloaded from Flight Global. It is an archive of a page from “Flight and Aircraft Engineer” dated Friday 2nd November 1956, and it is about the proposed Comet 5, which was supposed to be powered by Rolls-Royce Conway engines.

www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201537.html

I understand TEAL were seriously looking at the DH.118 Comet 5, but were over-ruled by their Australian part-owners, then the DH.118 project never got off the drawing-board, anyway.

[graeme]

Interesting.

I wonder how much better the 5 series would have been compared to the 4 series?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEAL

Comet 4 Vs Electra.

According to one source the cost per seat mile for both aircraft were similar (based on a 85 passenger layout) but the total operating cost of the Electra was around 40% cheaper than the Comet 4.

I also wonder, as did this 1954 'diplomatic' comment and your caption above, if by this stage the concept of completely buried engines was in fact "dead and buried?"

[flyjoe180]

In the 'Making of the 747' (the story of Joe Sutter the famous Boeing design engineer), discussion about the merits of mounting engines was covered. Boeing believed that engines would become larger and more powerful as time went on (the new P&W high bypass turbofan engines used on the 747 and C5 Galaxy) and designed airframes to adapt to new engine developments. There was also the safety concern over an out-of-control engine fire or disintegration. The theory was that a wing-mounted engine would cause less damage to the rest of the aircraft than a fuselage or rear-mounted engine.

The British of course preferred internal mounting (Comet), while Douglas went with both wing-mounted (DC8) and rear-engined (DC9) jetliners. The problem with rear mounting engines was the limit to which an airframe could be stretched in the future, as well as the Boeing theory that a catastrophic engine event could damage the aircraft.

[shorty]

Yeah but the buried engines look nicer!

[FlyingKiwi]

That tail has shades of the original 787 design in it doesn't it? It's a shame the Comet was never a massive success, it must be one of the best looking jet airliners ever. They got it right the first time! (at least from an aesthetics point of view!)

[Bruce]

The Comet 5 looks startlingly similar to the Vickers V1000, which also had 4 buried Conway engines. The first prototype V1000 was started but the project was dropped as a result of the inevitable BOAC indecisiveness. The design did however provide the starting point for the excellent VC10. The V1000 did have the potential to be a "707 Beater" but yet another missed opportunity by the postwar UK aviation industry.I wonder whether the V1000 drew on the Comet 5?