Live data from Hacker News

The de Havilland Comet changed aviation for good

bbc.com

1–10 of 61 posts

Re: The de Havilland Comet changed aviation for good

#3
post #2

It's indeed a beautiful aeroplane. But what's striking, and indeed rather UFO-like, are the small engine intakes. Anyone know what's up with that?

Compact turbojet engines rather than high-bypass turbofans like modern airliners. Blended into the wing for less drag compared to underslung wing pods like the contemporary rival 707.

Re: The de Havilland Comet changed aviation for good

#4
post #2

It's indeed a beautiful aeroplane. But what's striking, and indeed rather UFO-like, are the small engine intakes. Anyone know what's up with that?

They're turbojet engines, not the turbofans that you see today.

Turbojets have a smaller intake and the entire thing produces thrust. Unlike today's much more efficient turbofans, where a small turbojet turns the larger fans to produce most of the thrust.

Re: The de Havilland Comet changed aviation for good

#6
post #2

It's indeed a beautiful aeroplane. But what's striking, and indeed rather UFO-like, are the small engine intakes. Anyone know what's up with that?

There's a course on edX, Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering, that explains quite nicely why engines have these huge intakes these days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2PBOdTk3vE

https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:DelftX+AE1110x+3T2...

Re: The de Havilland Comet changed aviation for good

#9
post #4
post #2

It's indeed a beautiful aeroplane. But what's striking, and indeed rather UFO-like, are the small engine intakes. Anyone know what's up with that?

They're turbojet engines, not the turbofans that you see today. Turbojets have a smaller intake and the entire thing produces thrust. Unlike today's much more efficient turbofans, where a small turbojet turns the larger fans to produce most of the thrust.

OK, I get it. Thanks :)

They are very cool looking.

Re: The de Havilland Comet changed aviation for good

#10
My biggest "surprise" always is how little we have progressed if you just look at how the planes look and how fast they fly (6h11m NY->London in 1958, that's pretty much what they do today, not?). It seems like the airline industry got a lot of stuff just right the first time and since then just has been doing performance tweaks (where I take "performance" to be very broad to include things like safety, economy, ...).
Post reply on HN