Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
De Havilland Comet And The 4 Musketeers  
User currently offlineLuisinho From Portugal, joined Nov 2000, 229 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Hii FOLKS!!!  Big thumbs up

I was serching old fotos from this database... i love oldies  Big grin

And then... i realise that we had 5 magnifics.... the 5 wonders...

First one... The pioneer... the De Havilland Comet...

Then... Boeing 707, breaking new ground!
Later the DC-8, the old reliable!
Much Later... the Vickers VC-10... The bad loved...!
And... the last but not least.... Convair CV-990 Coronado - the Maserati of the skys.

I was seeing some pictures and caracteristics of this birds, and... the 60's what a fantastic decade... i think would love to live in that time... to see this fantastic birds.

The Comet was the First... started the jet era... then... the 707 came and broke new ground... gave inovation, changed the air travel, replacing the BIG oceanliners, like the Queen Mary, Queen Elisabeth, the France, and some others... Later the DC-8... the old reliable... a fantastic aircraft, that still working today as freighter. Some airframes have records of hours of operation. No one aircraft reached this sheet of service. The last to enter in service...
The Vickers VC-10 had one of the most advanced system os gestion, one of the most modern airframes, and the quietest and confortable cabin. Loved by passengers and crew, but for reasons that i don't know, the airlines didn't liked him to much.
The Convair CV-990, still today the fastest non supersonic airliner ever built. The President of SPANTAX named it the Maserati of the Skys, because of his speed, confort and luxury... like a Maserati automobile!

So... guys... tell me your opinion about this great airliners... let's pay a tribute to them!

Best regards... Luis....

Here some photos of the Musketeers:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence


De havilland Comet


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard Chaloner


Boeing 707


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Vincent


Douglas DC-8


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell nilsson



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kristof Jonckheere


Vickers VC-10


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jerome Zbinden



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Söderström


Convair CV-990

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1560 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

707: barrel roll, nuff said?


It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

I always thought that the reason the VC-10 flopped was because it burned more fuel and carried less payload than its American rivals.

The 880/990 is definitely a "should-have-been" classic. It had the innovations and the performance that far exceeded the specs of the other planes of its era. There was a great tribute/article in Airliners magazine several years ago that basically said that Howard Hughes was the one man who essnetially was to blame for the 880 disaster. Apparently he insisted on exclusivity for the first 30 or 40 airframes built, which shut everyone else out from early operation of the plane. Many airlines were interested in the 880, but because they could not get a competitive sevice entry, they bought DC-8's and 707's/720's instead.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2556 times:






User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

I always thought that the reason the VC-10 flopped was because it burned more fuel and carried less payload than its American rivals.

Correct. The VC-10 was designed primarily for BOAC/BUA for exceptional field performance service to Southen Africa/South America....a very limited market. The VC-10 was notably less efficient than the 707/DC-8. Indeed BOAC reduced their VC-10 orders in lieu of more 707's. Vickers/BAC also likely mis-marketed the VC-10 by focusing primarily on "Commonwealth" markets. The lack of Pratt & Whitney power was also likely a detriment to sales.







Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Later BOAC admitted that operating costs of the VC-10 were broadly similar to their 707s, but the VC-10 was much more popular with customers.
(As well as crews and engineers).
However, BOAC had form for this sort of thing, in 1956 they lost interest in the Vickers 1000 jet saying it was too soon to use jets on much of their route network, killing the project, then months later ordered 707s, which was in the same class as the V1000.
But it's true that the VC-10 was too closely designed for limited airfields, the Super version was more optimized for the North Atlantic, though it was originally to be longer still, up to 212 pax, that would have needed some engine development but none of this was going to happen with BOAC being so unreliable. This was an aircraft built to their requirements.
BOAC originally badmouthing the VC-10 also killed some prospective deals with Aerolinas Argentina, MEA, Kuwait Airways, Nigeria Airways, Misair to name a few.
BOAC, and BEA with the interference with the Trident, did more damage to the industry than the Luftwaffe ever managed.



User currently offlineLuisinho From Portugal, joined Nov 2000, 229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

Hummm quite interesting GDB  Big grin

And about the Vickers Vanguard, the HS Trident, etc, why this aircraft had a limited sucess? They were very good aircraft and in many cases superior to the rivals from boeing and Douglas.

And Why Vickers stoped the Vickers 1000, and later BOAC ordered Boeing 707-400? Political reasons? American influences?

An Old engineer from De Havilland told me if the Vickers 1000 will be out for market will kill all the concorrence. THey have learned a lot with the comet and this new aircraft will be just a marvell.

What you think about this?

Regards  Big thumbs up
LUIS



User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

BEA Insisted on scaling back the Trident, substituting the original R/R Medway engines for smaller Speys, thus limiting it's potential.
A few years later, BEA said the Trident was too small, they wanted 727-200s, quite rightly the government told them to order a lengthened (but badly compromised) Trident 3, after all who's fault was it that the Trident was too small?

Vanguard had the same problems market wise as the L-188, too late to market, quite a few airlines made that mistake in specifying a new large turboprop.

V1000 and BOAC was probably sheer incompetence on BOAC's part, they axed the V1000, realized within months they had made a bad mistake so ordered jets that were available.

A more developed VC-10 would have been competitive with 707-320B/C and DC-8-50, the original planned Super VC-10 would have been in the DC-8-63 class.

The standard version was always going to be closely designed for limited airfields, but the developments that happened as well as the planned ones were always under the shadow of BOAC constantly changing their minds.




User currently offlineUTA_flyinghigh From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

and how about the cockpit of the aforementioned Musketeer :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Ronciere
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Ronciere


UTA  Laugh out loud



Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
User currently offlineBritmex From Mexico, joined Nov 2000, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

Hello:

Nice topic, indeed one of may favourites if you mind my nickname. My love for British aviation is the reason for that.
Sadly, the British killed their own industry, not only with aircraft but their automobiles also. The Mini Mk 1 is the best example, a car that should have sold much more than the 5 million mark it got in more than 30 years and it only made money during its last years in production. Also many other brilliant products were killed by a combiantion of bad management, marketing or simply bad timing.
The Comet was a very good aircraft and it gave remarkable service in Mexicana during the 60`s, being Mexico one of the pioneering countries introducing jet service in Latin America. The Comets could have given more but the design itself was dated and the VC 10 could have worked nicely in Mexico, being a very good "hot and high" operations aircraft but sadly, it was killed in its own country by its own people. The VC 10 was a really advanced machine, and even its basic design could be resurrected in a two engine (maybe with 757`s RB211`s) configuration, with digitalized cockpit, controls and a redesigned wing.
I`m still wondering why British Aerospace didn`t think about it and market it as an A320/21, 757 alternative. It even could be used for transatlantic thin routes. I know they are now part of Airbus but anyway, it could have produced a family of narrowbody aircraft with many applications and kept the British alive on their own as traditional aerospace manufacuters and designers.

Anyway, LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!!!

Britmex



Aeromexico, la linea aerea que va para arriba
User currently offlineLuisinho From Portugal, joined Nov 2000, 229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2331 times:

humnm... Big grin

thanks UTA... and what about all the musketeers?

here they are... ehee

Boeing 707

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm Bezzina



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nik Deblauwe



Douglas DC-8

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manuel Marin - IBERIAN SPOTTERS



Vickers VC-10

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Graf - VAP



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Styles



Convair CV-990

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © José Ramón Valero - IBERIAN SPOTTERS



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © José Ramón Valero - IBERIAN SPOTTERS



here it is... all the 4 Musketeers!  Big thumbs up


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DH Comet And The North American Connection... posted Fri Aug 4 2006 11:43:33 by CV990
De Havilland Comet Question posted Sun Jul 4 2004 20:10:52 by Dbo861
KLM And The A-310 posted Tue Nov 21 2006 02:03:24 by Scalebuilder
F9 And The 318 posted Mon Nov 20 2006 19:54:55 by ORDagent
Gulf Air And The Future? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 15:01:34 by BA1985
Lufthansa And The 777 posted Sat Nov 18 2006 15:16:06 by LHStarAlliance
Regional Airlines RFPs And The Future Of Them posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:39:34 by Apodino
Aviation And The Amazing Race Asia posted Fri Nov 10 2006 12:23:32 by 9MMAR
Crazy Low Fares Between India And The UK posted Fri Nov 10 2006 11:06:10 by TheDiplomat
BA Connect - Flybe: BA's 15% Stake And The Future posted Sat Nov 4 2006 19:20:15 by Concorde001