Why didn't Boeing or Douglas make a jet airliner before the British DH Comet?












7














I was looking at the history of commercial aircraft and was wondering why UK-based De Havilland was the first to produce a jet powered airliner (the DH 106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their Boeing 707 and DC-8 after the Comet was introduced.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    In the 40s and early 50s, the US were not as advanced as the British in all things concerning jet engines. After all, the jet engine was invented in Europe, in Britain and in Germany.
    – xxavier
    22 hours ago










  • The answer is totally self-evident, they were invented in the UK. (As stated in another comment.)
    – Fattie
    21 hours ago










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    A jet technology answer would need to be somewhat nuanced to account for the fact that the heavier B-47 flew a year and a half before the Comet. While not exactly easy to fly, it somewhat suggests that the issue was more believing something was a good business idea, than being unable to do it.
    – Chris Stratton
    15 hours ago


















7














I was looking at the history of commercial aircraft and was wondering why UK-based De Havilland was the first to produce a jet powered airliner (the DH 106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their Boeing 707 and DC-8 after the Comet was introduced.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    In the 40s and early 50s, the US were not as advanced as the British in all things concerning jet engines. After all, the jet engine was invented in Europe, in Britain and in Germany.
    – xxavier
    22 hours ago










  • The answer is totally self-evident, they were invented in the UK. (As stated in another comment.)
    – Fattie
    21 hours ago










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    A jet technology answer would need to be somewhat nuanced to account for the fact that the heavier B-47 flew a year and a half before the Comet. While not exactly easy to fly, it somewhat suggests that the issue was more believing something was a good business idea, than being unable to do it.
    – Chris Stratton
    15 hours ago
















7












7








7


1





I was looking at the history of commercial aircraft and was wondering why UK-based De Havilland was the first to produce a jet powered airliner (the DH 106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their Boeing 707 and DC-8 after the Comet was introduced.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I was looking at the history of commercial aircraft and was wondering why UK-based De Havilland was the first to produce a jet powered airliner (the DH 106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their Boeing 707 and DC-8 after the Comet was introduced.







aircraft-design jet-engine airliner aviation-history






share|improve this question









New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









David Moles

1315




1315






New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









Julian F.

386




386




New contributor




Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Julian F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    In the 40s and early 50s, the US were not as advanced as the British in all things concerning jet engines. After all, the jet engine was invented in Europe, in Britain and in Germany.
    – xxavier
    22 hours ago










  • The answer is totally self-evident, they were invented in the UK. (As stated in another comment.)
    – Fattie
    21 hours ago










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    A jet technology answer would need to be somewhat nuanced to account for the fact that the heavier B-47 flew a year and a half before the Comet. While not exactly easy to fly, it somewhat suggests that the issue was more believing something was a good business idea, than being unable to do it.
    – Chris Stratton
    15 hours ago
















  • 1




    In the 40s and early 50s, the US were not as advanced as the British in all things concerning jet engines. After all, the jet engine was invented in Europe, in Britain and in Germany.
    – xxavier
    22 hours ago










  • The answer is totally self-evident, they were invented in the UK. (As stated in another comment.)
    – Fattie
    21 hours ago










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    A jet technology answer would need to be somewhat nuanced to account for the fact that the heavier B-47 flew a year and a half before the Comet. While not exactly easy to fly, it somewhat suggests that the issue was more believing something was a good business idea, than being unable to do it.
    – Chris Stratton
    15 hours ago










1




1




In the 40s and early 50s, the US were not as advanced as the British in all things concerning jet engines. After all, the jet engine was invented in Europe, in Britain and in Germany.
– xxavier
22 hours ago




In the 40s and early 50s, the US were not as advanced as the British in all things concerning jet engines. After all, the jet engine was invented in Europe, in Britain and in Germany.
– xxavier
22 hours ago












The answer is totally self-evident, they were invented in the UK. (As stated in another comment.)
– Fattie
21 hours ago




The answer is totally self-evident, they were invented in the UK. (As stated in another comment.)
– Fattie
21 hours ago












The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
– Harper
16 hours ago




The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
– Harper
16 hours ago




1




1




A jet technology answer would need to be somewhat nuanced to account for the fact that the heavier B-47 flew a year and a half before the Comet. While not exactly easy to fly, it somewhat suggests that the issue was more believing something was a good business idea, than being unable to do it.
– Chris Stratton
15 hours ago






A jet technology answer would need to be somewhat nuanced to account for the fact that the heavier B-47 flew a year and a half before the Comet. While not exactly easy to fly, it somewhat suggests that the issue was more believing something was a good business idea, than being unable to do it.
– Chris Stratton
15 hours ago












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















15














So did Canada with the Avro Canada Jetliner, at exactly the same time pretty much. The Jetliner was complementary to the Comet, being a shorter range intercity airplane. It made a sales tour of the US in 1950 and was a huge sensation. Avro Canada was ordered to set the project aside for the CF-100 All Weather Interceptor program during the early 50s so Avro Canada had to decline US airline interest resulting from its sales tour (and a bizarre Howard Hughes/TWA subplot) and the program never really got traction after that as the company went on to put all its resources into the Arrow supersonic interceptor program by the mid 50s. Odd that the Jetliner had its legs cut out from under it by government politics (the Jetliner was initially designed to a state-owned Trans Canada Airlines specification, who later back out) and the Comet by a fatal design flaw, so in the end Boeing prevailed anyway.



The main reason for the US lag was that jet engines were considered by private US airlines to be too immature as a technology to be used for commercial travel in the late 40s, so there was little market interest in the US until an actual aircraft was demonstrated (one factor: first generation commercial turbojets with crude fuel controllers, like the Jetliner's RR Derwents, were very difficult to manage). On the other hand, both the Comet and Jetliner were developed as products for state owned airlines (BOAC and Trans Canada Airlines) wanting to be bold, so they were ostensibly private ventures but with a "guaranteed" state buyer for at least initial production, providing a huge leg up.



There was no US equivalent in the private airline sector in the late 40s/early 50s, only the US military, where the 707 actually got its start.






share|improve this answer























  • I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
    – Julian F.
    17 hours ago






  • 4




    Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
    – John K
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
    – reirab
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
    – John K
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
    – user71659
    14 hours ago



















10














The conventional wisdom at the time was that jet engines were too inefficient on fuel to be cost effective in commercial travel, especially over long distances. It was Geoffrey de Havilland who challenged this when he was on the Brabazon committee and championed the idea that a pure jet airliner should be on the list of required airliner types.



His motives aren't entirely clear - it could be that his experience with with the H-1/Goblin engine used in the Meteor and designed by his friend Frank Halford meant that he had a better understanding of the benefits jet engines could bring to airliners or you could take the cynical view that since he not only owned an aircraft design company but also had close ties to pretty much the only serious manufacturer of jet engines in Britain at the time (Halford Engines which would become de Havilland Engine company in 1943) that having a jet airliner on the list meant that his company would be essentially a dead certainty to get the contract. So he stood to make a great deal of money out the idea, he had certainly done well out of providing jet engines to the military and a jet-based passenger liner would be the way to ensure continued prosperity when the war came to an end.



As for why they "got there first" well there's lots of reasons - the British and the Germans had invented and patented turbojets first, American efforts didn't really start until GE built the W.1 (with the help of Whittle) and the early years of American jet power was all done using licensed British designs.



Secondly you're forgetting that at the time Boeing was primarily a military supplier, it wasn't until they developed the 707 that they had any significant presence in civil aviation. Douglas had grown rapidly during the War but found itself struggling after the WWII ended - the government orders stopped and they were left with a surplus of aircraft. Going into the jetliner business would have been very risky and very difficult for them at a time when they were struggling.






share|improve this answer





















  • I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
    – Julian F.
    17 hours ago






  • 1




    @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
    – motosubatsu
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
    – Mark
    12 hours ago










  • @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
    – motosubatsu
    1 hour ago



















3














For the same reason the Soviets put a satellite in space before the US -- someone will always be the first, and there's nothing anywhere that says it has to be the US.






share|improve this answer





















  • Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
    – Julian F.
    17 hours ago






  • 1




    @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
    – motosubatsu
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
    – jwenting
    6 hours ago



















2














Back in the late 1940‘s, Boeing made all of it’s money in military planes. The commercial side of their business was a distant third to the sales to Lockheed and Douglas. The last commercial plane they produced lost money. This was an area Boeing wanted to focus on to help offset times when military contracts ran dry. The problem was coming up with a plane that generated interest in the civilian market.



While de Havilland was busy building the Comet, Boeing was building the all-metal B-47 Stratojet and the B-52 Stratofortress bombers. Boeing tried to create a commercial version, which they presented as the Model 473-60C in 1950, but failed to generate any interest with airlines.



Boeing new for a certainty that the US Air Force would need a jet-powered tanker to refuel planes. They made the existing KC-97 tanker was piston-powered as well as the B-52 and realized that maximum air speed for the KC-97 was the minimum air speed for the B-52, which made refueling hazardous. So it stuck with the concept of an all-metal jet-powered commercial plane they could market along with a jet-powered tanker. This eventually became the Boeing 707 and the KC-135 Stratotanker, which both are fundamentally different, but were derived from a common prototype.



Douglas Aircraft had a commanding position in the commercial aviation market after World War II with the DC-3 and the DC-6. Unfortunately, it was in the same financial pinch Boeing was trying to avoid with the end of government aircraft orders after the war. This lead to laying off nearly 100,000 workers. Douglas had to scale back, but was in a great position filling orders for existing planes and felt no need to rush into anything new.



At Lockheed, things were extremely busy. Before World War II, it had a firm commitment from TWA to build the Constellation. When the war started, the existing plane became a military transport known as the C-69. After World War II, it introduced the plane to the civilian market and finished filling orders for TWA.



Sleek and powerful, the Constellation was fast, had the first widely available pressurized-cabin in the civil market and capable of transatlantic flight. At the end of World War II there truly was no plane that really match it and for the next 15 years, they sold over 800 variants of the Constellation. In fact, De Havilland based the layout of the cabin and the flight deck on the Constellation.



In addition, Lockheed had a very healthy military business. It was building the P-80 Shooting Star, America’s first jet-powered fighter and later, the F-104 Starfighter. There was no shortage of amazing planes being produced by Lockheed in this era. It just didn‘t focus on a commercial jet-powered airliner.



Unfortunately, jet-powered planes by Boeing and Douglas started taking over routes formerly run by piston planes. Since Lockheed did not have a civilian jet, it left the market in 1961. It didn‘t make a civilian plane until the the introduction of the L-1011 Tristar in 1968.



The Comet was the first to the marketplace, but being first is not always a guarantee of success. As we know, Boeing managed to dominate the jet-powered commercial market for decades, based on the success of the 707. One of the contributing factors to it‘s success was based on the failure of the Comet.



After a series of unexplained crashes, the entire fleet was grounded in 1954, the Comet didn‘t fly again until 1958. During this time, Boeing was developing the 707. Many of the Comet design failures that emerged helped Boeing avoid the same issues. The 707 had it‘s first flight in 1957 and entered service in October 1958. The loss of planes damaged the reputation of the Comet, the fact the 707 could fly farther, carry more passengers doomed the Comet. It simply could not compete.






share|improve this answer































    1














    Because the national commitment to build the Comet, along with the Brabazon and several other speculative aircraft, was part of the British War Plan. The goal was to win the economic postwar, and they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.



    Similarly, the Soviet and Canadian governments put a high priority on getting a jetliner in the air.



    In all cases, that priority included money, and those governments planned all along to pass any project losses on to their taxpayers.



    Whereas in the United States, aircraft design is largely driven by airline commitments, and that requires the approval of two groups of private Boards of Directors who are singularly concerned with the bottom line.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "528"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Julian F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58665%2fwhy-didnt-boeing-or-douglas-make-a-jet-airliner-before-the-british-dh-comet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      15














      So did Canada with the Avro Canada Jetliner, at exactly the same time pretty much. The Jetliner was complementary to the Comet, being a shorter range intercity airplane. It made a sales tour of the US in 1950 and was a huge sensation. Avro Canada was ordered to set the project aside for the CF-100 All Weather Interceptor program during the early 50s so Avro Canada had to decline US airline interest resulting from its sales tour (and a bizarre Howard Hughes/TWA subplot) and the program never really got traction after that as the company went on to put all its resources into the Arrow supersonic interceptor program by the mid 50s. Odd that the Jetliner had its legs cut out from under it by government politics (the Jetliner was initially designed to a state-owned Trans Canada Airlines specification, who later back out) and the Comet by a fatal design flaw, so in the end Boeing prevailed anyway.



      The main reason for the US lag was that jet engines were considered by private US airlines to be too immature as a technology to be used for commercial travel in the late 40s, so there was little market interest in the US until an actual aircraft was demonstrated (one factor: first generation commercial turbojets with crude fuel controllers, like the Jetliner's RR Derwents, were very difficult to manage). On the other hand, both the Comet and Jetliner were developed as products for state owned airlines (BOAC and Trans Canada Airlines) wanting to be bold, so they were ostensibly private ventures but with a "guaranteed" state buyer for at least initial production, providing a huge leg up.



      There was no US equivalent in the private airline sector in the late 40s/early 50s, only the US military, where the 707 actually got its start.






      share|improve this answer























      • I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 4




        Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
        – John K
        16 hours ago






      • 2




        @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
        – reirab
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
        – John K
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
        – user71659
        14 hours ago
















      15














      So did Canada with the Avro Canada Jetliner, at exactly the same time pretty much. The Jetliner was complementary to the Comet, being a shorter range intercity airplane. It made a sales tour of the US in 1950 and was a huge sensation. Avro Canada was ordered to set the project aside for the CF-100 All Weather Interceptor program during the early 50s so Avro Canada had to decline US airline interest resulting from its sales tour (and a bizarre Howard Hughes/TWA subplot) and the program never really got traction after that as the company went on to put all its resources into the Arrow supersonic interceptor program by the mid 50s. Odd that the Jetliner had its legs cut out from under it by government politics (the Jetliner was initially designed to a state-owned Trans Canada Airlines specification, who later back out) and the Comet by a fatal design flaw, so in the end Boeing prevailed anyway.



      The main reason for the US lag was that jet engines were considered by private US airlines to be too immature as a technology to be used for commercial travel in the late 40s, so there was little market interest in the US until an actual aircraft was demonstrated (one factor: first generation commercial turbojets with crude fuel controllers, like the Jetliner's RR Derwents, were very difficult to manage). On the other hand, both the Comet and Jetliner were developed as products for state owned airlines (BOAC and Trans Canada Airlines) wanting to be bold, so they were ostensibly private ventures but with a "guaranteed" state buyer for at least initial production, providing a huge leg up.



      There was no US equivalent in the private airline sector in the late 40s/early 50s, only the US military, where the 707 actually got its start.






      share|improve this answer























      • I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 4




        Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
        – John K
        16 hours ago






      • 2




        @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
        – reirab
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
        – John K
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
        – user71659
        14 hours ago














      15












      15








      15






      So did Canada with the Avro Canada Jetliner, at exactly the same time pretty much. The Jetliner was complementary to the Comet, being a shorter range intercity airplane. It made a sales tour of the US in 1950 and was a huge sensation. Avro Canada was ordered to set the project aside for the CF-100 All Weather Interceptor program during the early 50s so Avro Canada had to decline US airline interest resulting from its sales tour (and a bizarre Howard Hughes/TWA subplot) and the program never really got traction after that as the company went on to put all its resources into the Arrow supersonic interceptor program by the mid 50s. Odd that the Jetliner had its legs cut out from under it by government politics (the Jetliner was initially designed to a state-owned Trans Canada Airlines specification, who later back out) and the Comet by a fatal design flaw, so in the end Boeing prevailed anyway.



      The main reason for the US lag was that jet engines were considered by private US airlines to be too immature as a technology to be used for commercial travel in the late 40s, so there was little market interest in the US until an actual aircraft was demonstrated (one factor: first generation commercial turbojets with crude fuel controllers, like the Jetliner's RR Derwents, were very difficult to manage). On the other hand, both the Comet and Jetliner were developed as products for state owned airlines (BOAC and Trans Canada Airlines) wanting to be bold, so they were ostensibly private ventures but with a "guaranteed" state buyer for at least initial production, providing a huge leg up.



      There was no US equivalent in the private airline sector in the late 40s/early 50s, only the US military, where the 707 actually got its start.






      share|improve this answer














      So did Canada with the Avro Canada Jetliner, at exactly the same time pretty much. The Jetliner was complementary to the Comet, being a shorter range intercity airplane. It made a sales tour of the US in 1950 and was a huge sensation. Avro Canada was ordered to set the project aside for the CF-100 All Weather Interceptor program during the early 50s so Avro Canada had to decline US airline interest resulting from its sales tour (and a bizarre Howard Hughes/TWA subplot) and the program never really got traction after that as the company went on to put all its resources into the Arrow supersonic interceptor program by the mid 50s. Odd that the Jetliner had its legs cut out from under it by government politics (the Jetliner was initially designed to a state-owned Trans Canada Airlines specification, who later back out) and the Comet by a fatal design flaw, so in the end Boeing prevailed anyway.



      The main reason for the US lag was that jet engines were considered by private US airlines to be too immature as a technology to be used for commercial travel in the late 40s, so there was little market interest in the US until an actual aircraft was demonstrated (one factor: first generation commercial turbojets with crude fuel controllers, like the Jetliner's RR Derwents, were very difficult to manage). On the other hand, both the Comet and Jetliner were developed as products for state owned airlines (BOAC and Trans Canada Airlines) wanting to be bold, so they were ostensibly private ventures but with a "guaranteed" state buyer for at least initial production, providing a huge leg up.



      There was no US equivalent in the private airline sector in the late 40s/early 50s, only the US military, where the 707 actually got its start.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 21 hours ago

























      answered 21 hours ago









      John K

      14.5k11544




      14.5k11544












      • I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 4




        Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
        – John K
        16 hours ago






      • 2




        @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
        – reirab
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
        – John K
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
        – user71659
        14 hours ago


















      • I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 4




        Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
        – John K
        16 hours ago






      • 2




        @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
        – reirab
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
        – John K
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
        – user71659
        14 hours ago
















      I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
      – Julian F.
      17 hours ago




      I didn't realise that US airlines at the time were private whereas British and Canadian airlines were state-owned, which makes lots of sense now, thanks! However, is there any reason as to why there was this difference in the ownership of airlines by any chance?
      – Julian F.
      17 hours ago




      4




      4




      Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
      – John K
      16 hours ago




      Mostly cultural. The only federally run government transportation system in the US is Amtrak, which was set up to provide coach travel as the rail companies bailed to go all-freight. It's a money losing federal government expense basically, that exists for political reasons. State capitalism pretty much always ends up that way. Trans Canada Airlines became Air Canada in the 60s, was privatized in the 80s and is now a publicly traded private company.
      – John K
      16 hours ago




      2




      2




      @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
      – reirab
      16 hours ago




      @JulianF. Incidentally, most of the European countries eventually ended up going with something closer to the U.S. model of ownership. BOAC - now British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. are all private companies now (though, IIRC, the French government does still own a minority stake in Air France/KLM. Delta owns more of it now than France does, though, IIRC.)
      – reirab
      16 hours ago




      1




      1




      Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
      – John K
      15 hours ago




      Actually I was surprised to learn that the French and German gov'ts now own only small minority stakes in Airbus.
      – John K
      15 hours ago




      1




      1




      While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
      – user71659
      14 hours ago




      While US airlines were private, they still were regulated 1938-1978. They could only fly routes, set schedules, and charge fares set by the CAB. The CAB would ensure the airlines remained financially healthy. In order to ensure private airlines could compete against state-owned carriers in international airlines, Pan Am held a de facto monopoly on foreign flights.
      – user71659
      14 hours ago











      10














      The conventional wisdom at the time was that jet engines were too inefficient on fuel to be cost effective in commercial travel, especially over long distances. It was Geoffrey de Havilland who challenged this when he was on the Brabazon committee and championed the idea that a pure jet airliner should be on the list of required airliner types.



      His motives aren't entirely clear - it could be that his experience with with the H-1/Goblin engine used in the Meteor and designed by his friend Frank Halford meant that he had a better understanding of the benefits jet engines could bring to airliners or you could take the cynical view that since he not only owned an aircraft design company but also had close ties to pretty much the only serious manufacturer of jet engines in Britain at the time (Halford Engines which would become de Havilland Engine company in 1943) that having a jet airliner on the list meant that his company would be essentially a dead certainty to get the contract. So he stood to make a great deal of money out the idea, he had certainly done well out of providing jet engines to the military and a jet-based passenger liner would be the way to ensure continued prosperity when the war came to an end.



      As for why they "got there first" well there's lots of reasons - the British and the Germans had invented and patented turbojets first, American efforts didn't really start until GE built the W.1 (with the help of Whittle) and the early years of American jet power was all done using licensed British designs.



      Secondly you're forgetting that at the time Boeing was primarily a military supplier, it wasn't until they developed the 707 that they had any significant presence in civil aviation. Douglas had grown rapidly during the War but found itself struggling after the WWII ended - the government orders stopped and they were left with a surplus of aircraft. Going into the jetliner business would have been very risky and very difficult for them at a time when they were struggling.






      share|improve this answer





















      • I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
        – motosubatsu
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
        – Mark
        12 hours ago










      • @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
        – motosubatsu
        1 hour ago
















      10














      The conventional wisdom at the time was that jet engines were too inefficient on fuel to be cost effective in commercial travel, especially over long distances. It was Geoffrey de Havilland who challenged this when he was on the Brabazon committee and championed the idea that a pure jet airliner should be on the list of required airliner types.



      His motives aren't entirely clear - it could be that his experience with with the H-1/Goblin engine used in the Meteor and designed by his friend Frank Halford meant that he had a better understanding of the benefits jet engines could bring to airliners or you could take the cynical view that since he not only owned an aircraft design company but also had close ties to pretty much the only serious manufacturer of jet engines in Britain at the time (Halford Engines which would become de Havilland Engine company in 1943) that having a jet airliner on the list meant that his company would be essentially a dead certainty to get the contract. So he stood to make a great deal of money out the idea, he had certainly done well out of providing jet engines to the military and a jet-based passenger liner would be the way to ensure continued prosperity when the war came to an end.



      As for why they "got there first" well there's lots of reasons - the British and the Germans had invented and patented turbojets first, American efforts didn't really start until GE built the W.1 (with the help of Whittle) and the early years of American jet power was all done using licensed British designs.



      Secondly you're forgetting that at the time Boeing was primarily a military supplier, it wasn't until they developed the 707 that they had any significant presence in civil aviation. Douglas had grown rapidly during the War but found itself struggling after the WWII ended - the government orders stopped and they were left with a surplus of aircraft. Going into the jetliner business would have been very risky and very difficult for them at a time when they were struggling.






      share|improve this answer





















      • I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
        – motosubatsu
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
        – Mark
        12 hours ago










      • @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
        – motosubatsu
        1 hour ago














      10












      10








      10






      The conventional wisdom at the time was that jet engines were too inefficient on fuel to be cost effective in commercial travel, especially over long distances. It was Geoffrey de Havilland who challenged this when he was on the Brabazon committee and championed the idea that a pure jet airliner should be on the list of required airliner types.



      His motives aren't entirely clear - it could be that his experience with with the H-1/Goblin engine used in the Meteor and designed by his friend Frank Halford meant that he had a better understanding of the benefits jet engines could bring to airliners or you could take the cynical view that since he not only owned an aircraft design company but also had close ties to pretty much the only serious manufacturer of jet engines in Britain at the time (Halford Engines which would become de Havilland Engine company in 1943) that having a jet airliner on the list meant that his company would be essentially a dead certainty to get the contract. So he stood to make a great deal of money out the idea, he had certainly done well out of providing jet engines to the military and a jet-based passenger liner would be the way to ensure continued prosperity when the war came to an end.



      As for why they "got there first" well there's lots of reasons - the British and the Germans had invented and patented turbojets first, American efforts didn't really start until GE built the W.1 (with the help of Whittle) and the early years of American jet power was all done using licensed British designs.



      Secondly you're forgetting that at the time Boeing was primarily a military supplier, it wasn't until they developed the 707 that they had any significant presence in civil aviation. Douglas had grown rapidly during the War but found itself struggling after the WWII ended - the government orders stopped and they were left with a surplus of aircraft. Going into the jetliner business would have been very risky and very difficult for them at a time when they were struggling.






      share|improve this answer












      The conventional wisdom at the time was that jet engines were too inefficient on fuel to be cost effective in commercial travel, especially over long distances. It was Geoffrey de Havilland who challenged this when he was on the Brabazon committee and championed the idea that a pure jet airliner should be on the list of required airliner types.



      His motives aren't entirely clear - it could be that his experience with with the H-1/Goblin engine used in the Meteor and designed by his friend Frank Halford meant that he had a better understanding of the benefits jet engines could bring to airliners or you could take the cynical view that since he not only owned an aircraft design company but also had close ties to pretty much the only serious manufacturer of jet engines in Britain at the time (Halford Engines which would become de Havilland Engine company in 1943) that having a jet airliner on the list meant that his company would be essentially a dead certainty to get the contract. So he stood to make a great deal of money out the idea, he had certainly done well out of providing jet engines to the military and a jet-based passenger liner would be the way to ensure continued prosperity when the war came to an end.



      As for why they "got there first" well there's lots of reasons - the British and the Germans had invented and patented turbojets first, American efforts didn't really start until GE built the W.1 (with the help of Whittle) and the early years of American jet power was all done using licensed British designs.



      Secondly you're forgetting that at the time Boeing was primarily a military supplier, it wasn't until they developed the 707 that they had any significant presence in civil aviation. Douglas had grown rapidly during the War but found itself struggling after the WWII ended - the government orders stopped and they were left with a surplus of aircraft. Going into the jetliner business would have been very risky and very difficult for them at a time when they were struggling.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 21 hours ago









      motosubatsu

      57318




      57318












      • I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
        – motosubatsu
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
        – Mark
        12 hours ago










      • @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
        – motosubatsu
        1 hour ago


















      • I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
        – motosubatsu
        16 hours ago






      • 1




        @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
        – Mark
        12 hours ago










      • @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
        – motosubatsu
        1 hour ago
















      I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
      – Julian F.
      17 hours ago




      I understand exactly where you're coming from in terms of the conventional thoughts of the time regarding the inefficiency of jet engines, however I wasn't aware that Douglas were struggling after the war - I would've thought that the tremendous success of the DC-3/C-47 and even the DC-4 would've kept them afloat easily! Also, I'm unsure about your statement that Boeing was primarily a military supplier as they were definitely producing civil aircraft at the time, such as the 247 and the 377?
      – Julian F.
      17 hours ago




      1




      1




      @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
      – motosubatsu
      16 hours ago




      @JulianF. Boeing certainly had civilian products but it was a small part of what they did at the time, the 247 was retired before the war (and less than a hundred were built), the 307 production was halted by the war (they only made 10) and the 377 wasn't built until 1947 and wasn't exactly a resounding success. Between 1950 when that finished and the 407 in '56 they didn't make any commercial aircraft at all it was all Military
      – motosubatsu
      16 hours ago




      1




      1




      @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
      – Mark
      12 hours ago




      @motosubatsu, comparing numbers is difficult because many of the Boeing 247's competitors got adapted as military transports, but the pre-war civilian airliner market was small. "Less than a hundred built" is a reasonably successful aircraft for the era.
      – Mark
      12 hours ago












      @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
      – motosubatsu
      1 hour ago




      @Mark Indeed the numbers aren't hugely relevant.. my main point was that the 247 had already been out of production for some time by the point we are talking about so isn't really an example of Boeing's civil aviation presence at the time of the Comet
      – motosubatsu
      1 hour ago











      3














      For the same reason the Soviets put a satellite in space before the US -- someone will always be the first, and there's nothing anywhere that says it has to be the US.






      share|improve this answer





















      • Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
        – motosubatsu
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
        – jwenting
        6 hours ago
















      3














      For the same reason the Soviets put a satellite in space before the US -- someone will always be the first, and there's nothing anywhere that says it has to be the US.






      share|improve this answer





















      • Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
        – motosubatsu
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
        – jwenting
        6 hours ago














      3












      3








      3






      For the same reason the Soviets put a satellite in space before the US -- someone will always be the first, and there's nothing anywhere that says it has to be the US.






      share|improve this answer












      For the same reason the Soviets put a satellite in space before the US -- someone will always be the first, and there's nothing anywhere that says it has to be the US.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 23 hours ago









      Juan Jimenez

      2,596423




      2,596423












      • Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
        – motosubatsu
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
        – jwenting
        6 hours ago


















      • Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
        – Julian F.
        17 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
        – motosubatsu
        15 hours ago






      • 1




        @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
        – jwenting
        6 hours ago
















      Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
      – Julian F.
      17 hours ago




      Sure, I understand that someone has to be first, but looking at the situation after the war, with the US having a much larger presence in the civil aviation industry compared to Britain whose presence was almost nonexistent, it seems a bit strange that Britain beat the US to the jet age, doesn't it?
      – Julian F.
      17 hours ago




      1




      1




      @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
      – motosubatsu
      15 hours ago




      @JulianF. With Germany out of the running for obvious reasons that left only Whittle and Halford making any real headway in jet development, both British. It wasn't about presence in Civil aviation.. It was about the engineering of jet engines. Everyone was looking to repurpose the tech gains from wartime, one of Britain's was the aviation jet engine so its not strange at all really.
      – motosubatsu
      15 hours ago




      1




      1




      @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
      – jwenting
      6 hours ago




      @JulianF. and that larger presence was one reason why new airliner designs were slower to take off in the US. There were so many discarded military transports in the US that were converted into civilian airliner and cargo aircraft there was no real need for new aircraft for quite a few years, whereas the European airlines were pretty much defunct after the war and needed all new aircraft to start up again, which weren't available cheaply in bulk.
      – jwenting
      6 hours ago











      2














      Back in the late 1940‘s, Boeing made all of it’s money in military planes. The commercial side of their business was a distant third to the sales to Lockheed and Douglas. The last commercial plane they produced lost money. This was an area Boeing wanted to focus on to help offset times when military contracts ran dry. The problem was coming up with a plane that generated interest in the civilian market.



      While de Havilland was busy building the Comet, Boeing was building the all-metal B-47 Stratojet and the B-52 Stratofortress bombers. Boeing tried to create a commercial version, which they presented as the Model 473-60C in 1950, but failed to generate any interest with airlines.



      Boeing new for a certainty that the US Air Force would need a jet-powered tanker to refuel planes. They made the existing KC-97 tanker was piston-powered as well as the B-52 and realized that maximum air speed for the KC-97 was the minimum air speed for the B-52, which made refueling hazardous. So it stuck with the concept of an all-metal jet-powered commercial plane they could market along with a jet-powered tanker. This eventually became the Boeing 707 and the KC-135 Stratotanker, which both are fundamentally different, but were derived from a common prototype.



      Douglas Aircraft had a commanding position in the commercial aviation market after World War II with the DC-3 and the DC-6. Unfortunately, it was in the same financial pinch Boeing was trying to avoid with the end of government aircraft orders after the war. This lead to laying off nearly 100,000 workers. Douglas had to scale back, but was in a great position filling orders for existing planes and felt no need to rush into anything new.



      At Lockheed, things were extremely busy. Before World War II, it had a firm commitment from TWA to build the Constellation. When the war started, the existing plane became a military transport known as the C-69. After World War II, it introduced the plane to the civilian market and finished filling orders for TWA.



      Sleek and powerful, the Constellation was fast, had the first widely available pressurized-cabin in the civil market and capable of transatlantic flight. At the end of World War II there truly was no plane that really match it and for the next 15 years, they sold over 800 variants of the Constellation. In fact, De Havilland based the layout of the cabin and the flight deck on the Constellation.



      In addition, Lockheed had a very healthy military business. It was building the P-80 Shooting Star, America’s first jet-powered fighter and later, the F-104 Starfighter. There was no shortage of amazing planes being produced by Lockheed in this era. It just didn‘t focus on a commercial jet-powered airliner.



      Unfortunately, jet-powered planes by Boeing and Douglas started taking over routes formerly run by piston planes. Since Lockheed did not have a civilian jet, it left the market in 1961. It didn‘t make a civilian plane until the the introduction of the L-1011 Tristar in 1968.



      The Comet was the first to the marketplace, but being first is not always a guarantee of success. As we know, Boeing managed to dominate the jet-powered commercial market for decades, based on the success of the 707. One of the contributing factors to it‘s success was based on the failure of the Comet.



      After a series of unexplained crashes, the entire fleet was grounded in 1954, the Comet didn‘t fly again until 1958. During this time, Boeing was developing the 707. Many of the Comet design failures that emerged helped Boeing avoid the same issues. The 707 had it‘s first flight in 1957 and entered service in October 1958. The loss of planes damaged the reputation of the Comet, the fact the 707 could fly farther, carry more passengers doomed the Comet. It simply could not compete.






      share|improve this answer




























        2














        Back in the late 1940‘s, Boeing made all of it’s money in military planes. The commercial side of their business was a distant third to the sales to Lockheed and Douglas. The last commercial plane they produced lost money. This was an area Boeing wanted to focus on to help offset times when military contracts ran dry. The problem was coming up with a plane that generated interest in the civilian market.



        While de Havilland was busy building the Comet, Boeing was building the all-metal B-47 Stratojet and the B-52 Stratofortress bombers. Boeing tried to create a commercial version, which they presented as the Model 473-60C in 1950, but failed to generate any interest with airlines.



        Boeing new for a certainty that the US Air Force would need a jet-powered tanker to refuel planes. They made the existing KC-97 tanker was piston-powered as well as the B-52 and realized that maximum air speed for the KC-97 was the minimum air speed for the B-52, which made refueling hazardous. So it stuck with the concept of an all-metal jet-powered commercial plane they could market along with a jet-powered tanker. This eventually became the Boeing 707 and the KC-135 Stratotanker, which both are fundamentally different, but were derived from a common prototype.



        Douglas Aircraft had a commanding position in the commercial aviation market after World War II with the DC-3 and the DC-6. Unfortunately, it was in the same financial pinch Boeing was trying to avoid with the end of government aircraft orders after the war. This lead to laying off nearly 100,000 workers. Douglas had to scale back, but was in a great position filling orders for existing planes and felt no need to rush into anything new.



        At Lockheed, things were extremely busy. Before World War II, it had a firm commitment from TWA to build the Constellation. When the war started, the existing plane became a military transport known as the C-69. After World War II, it introduced the plane to the civilian market and finished filling orders for TWA.



        Sleek and powerful, the Constellation was fast, had the first widely available pressurized-cabin in the civil market and capable of transatlantic flight. At the end of World War II there truly was no plane that really match it and for the next 15 years, they sold over 800 variants of the Constellation. In fact, De Havilland based the layout of the cabin and the flight deck on the Constellation.



        In addition, Lockheed had a very healthy military business. It was building the P-80 Shooting Star, America’s first jet-powered fighter and later, the F-104 Starfighter. There was no shortage of amazing planes being produced by Lockheed in this era. It just didn‘t focus on a commercial jet-powered airliner.



        Unfortunately, jet-powered planes by Boeing and Douglas started taking over routes formerly run by piston planes. Since Lockheed did not have a civilian jet, it left the market in 1961. It didn‘t make a civilian plane until the the introduction of the L-1011 Tristar in 1968.



        The Comet was the first to the marketplace, but being first is not always a guarantee of success. As we know, Boeing managed to dominate the jet-powered commercial market for decades, based on the success of the 707. One of the contributing factors to it‘s success was based on the failure of the Comet.



        After a series of unexplained crashes, the entire fleet was grounded in 1954, the Comet didn‘t fly again until 1958. During this time, Boeing was developing the 707. Many of the Comet design failures that emerged helped Boeing avoid the same issues. The 707 had it‘s first flight in 1957 and entered service in October 1958. The loss of planes damaged the reputation of the Comet, the fact the 707 could fly farther, carry more passengers doomed the Comet. It simply could not compete.






        share|improve this answer


























          2












          2








          2






          Back in the late 1940‘s, Boeing made all of it’s money in military planes. The commercial side of their business was a distant third to the sales to Lockheed and Douglas. The last commercial plane they produced lost money. This was an area Boeing wanted to focus on to help offset times when military contracts ran dry. The problem was coming up with a plane that generated interest in the civilian market.



          While de Havilland was busy building the Comet, Boeing was building the all-metal B-47 Stratojet and the B-52 Stratofortress bombers. Boeing tried to create a commercial version, which they presented as the Model 473-60C in 1950, but failed to generate any interest with airlines.



          Boeing new for a certainty that the US Air Force would need a jet-powered tanker to refuel planes. They made the existing KC-97 tanker was piston-powered as well as the B-52 and realized that maximum air speed for the KC-97 was the minimum air speed for the B-52, which made refueling hazardous. So it stuck with the concept of an all-metal jet-powered commercial plane they could market along with a jet-powered tanker. This eventually became the Boeing 707 and the KC-135 Stratotanker, which both are fundamentally different, but were derived from a common prototype.



          Douglas Aircraft had a commanding position in the commercial aviation market after World War II with the DC-3 and the DC-6. Unfortunately, it was in the same financial pinch Boeing was trying to avoid with the end of government aircraft orders after the war. This lead to laying off nearly 100,000 workers. Douglas had to scale back, but was in a great position filling orders for existing planes and felt no need to rush into anything new.



          At Lockheed, things were extremely busy. Before World War II, it had a firm commitment from TWA to build the Constellation. When the war started, the existing plane became a military transport known as the C-69. After World War II, it introduced the plane to the civilian market and finished filling orders for TWA.



          Sleek and powerful, the Constellation was fast, had the first widely available pressurized-cabin in the civil market and capable of transatlantic flight. At the end of World War II there truly was no plane that really match it and for the next 15 years, they sold over 800 variants of the Constellation. In fact, De Havilland based the layout of the cabin and the flight deck on the Constellation.



          In addition, Lockheed had a very healthy military business. It was building the P-80 Shooting Star, America’s first jet-powered fighter and later, the F-104 Starfighter. There was no shortage of amazing planes being produced by Lockheed in this era. It just didn‘t focus on a commercial jet-powered airliner.



          Unfortunately, jet-powered planes by Boeing and Douglas started taking over routes formerly run by piston planes. Since Lockheed did not have a civilian jet, it left the market in 1961. It didn‘t make a civilian plane until the the introduction of the L-1011 Tristar in 1968.



          The Comet was the first to the marketplace, but being first is not always a guarantee of success. As we know, Boeing managed to dominate the jet-powered commercial market for decades, based on the success of the 707. One of the contributing factors to it‘s success was based on the failure of the Comet.



          After a series of unexplained crashes, the entire fleet was grounded in 1954, the Comet didn‘t fly again until 1958. During this time, Boeing was developing the 707. Many of the Comet design failures that emerged helped Boeing avoid the same issues. The 707 had it‘s first flight in 1957 and entered service in October 1958. The loss of planes damaged the reputation of the Comet, the fact the 707 could fly farther, carry more passengers doomed the Comet. It simply could not compete.






          share|improve this answer














          Back in the late 1940‘s, Boeing made all of it’s money in military planes. The commercial side of their business was a distant third to the sales to Lockheed and Douglas. The last commercial plane they produced lost money. This was an area Boeing wanted to focus on to help offset times when military contracts ran dry. The problem was coming up with a plane that generated interest in the civilian market.



          While de Havilland was busy building the Comet, Boeing was building the all-metal B-47 Stratojet and the B-52 Stratofortress bombers. Boeing tried to create a commercial version, which they presented as the Model 473-60C in 1950, but failed to generate any interest with airlines.



          Boeing new for a certainty that the US Air Force would need a jet-powered tanker to refuel planes. They made the existing KC-97 tanker was piston-powered as well as the B-52 and realized that maximum air speed for the KC-97 was the minimum air speed for the B-52, which made refueling hazardous. So it stuck with the concept of an all-metal jet-powered commercial plane they could market along with a jet-powered tanker. This eventually became the Boeing 707 and the KC-135 Stratotanker, which both are fundamentally different, but were derived from a common prototype.



          Douglas Aircraft had a commanding position in the commercial aviation market after World War II with the DC-3 and the DC-6. Unfortunately, it was in the same financial pinch Boeing was trying to avoid with the end of government aircraft orders after the war. This lead to laying off nearly 100,000 workers. Douglas had to scale back, but was in a great position filling orders for existing planes and felt no need to rush into anything new.



          At Lockheed, things were extremely busy. Before World War II, it had a firm commitment from TWA to build the Constellation. When the war started, the existing plane became a military transport known as the C-69. After World War II, it introduced the plane to the civilian market and finished filling orders for TWA.



          Sleek and powerful, the Constellation was fast, had the first widely available pressurized-cabin in the civil market and capable of transatlantic flight. At the end of World War II there truly was no plane that really match it and for the next 15 years, they sold over 800 variants of the Constellation. In fact, De Havilland based the layout of the cabin and the flight deck on the Constellation.



          In addition, Lockheed had a very healthy military business. It was building the P-80 Shooting Star, America’s first jet-powered fighter and later, the F-104 Starfighter. There was no shortage of amazing planes being produced by Lockheed in this era. It just didn‘t focus on a commercial jet-powered airliner.



          Unfortunately, jet-powered planes by Boeing and Douglas started taking over routes formerly run by piston planes. Since Lockheed did not have a civilian jet, it left the market in 1961. It didn‘t make a civilian plane until the the introduction of the L-1011 Tristar in 1968.



          The Comet was the first to the marketplace, but being first is not always a guarantee of success. As we know, Boeing managed to dominate the jet-powered commercial market for decades, based on the success of the 707. One of the contributing factors to it‘s success was based on the failure of the Comet.



          After a series of unexplained crashes, the entire fleet was grounded in 1954, the Comet didn‘t fly again until 1958. During this time, Boeing was developing the 707. Many of the Comet design failures that emerged helped Boeing avoid the same issues. The 707 had it‘s first flight in 1957 and entered service in October 1958. The loss of planes damaged the reputation of the Comet, the fact the 707 could fly farther, carry more passengers doomed the Comet. It simply could not compete.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 7 hours ago

























          answered 12 hours ago









          gwally

          819410




          819410























              1














              Because the national commitment to build the Comet, along with the Brabazon and several other speculative aircraft, was part of the British War Plan. The goal was to win the economic postwar, and they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.



              Similarly, the Soviet and Canadian governments put a high priority on getting a jetliner in the air.



              In all cases, that priority included money, and those governments planned all along to pass any project losses on to their taxpayers.



              Whereas in the United States, aircraft design is largely driven by airline commitments, and that requires the approval of two groups of private Boards of Directors who are singularly concerned with the bottom line.






              share|improve this answer


























                1














                Because the national commitment to build the Comet, along with the Brabazon and several other speculative aircraft, was part of the British War Plan. The goal was to win the economic postwar, and they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.



                Similarly, the Soviet and Canadian governments put a high priority on getting a jetliner in the air.



                In all cases, that priority included money, and those governments planned all along to pass any project losses on to their taxpayers.



                Whereas in the United States, aircraft design is largely driven by airline commitments, and that requires the approval of two groups of private Boards of Directors who are singularly concerned with the bottom line.






                share|improve this answer
























                  1












                  1








                  1






                  Because the national commitment to build the Comet, along with the Brabazon and several other speculative aircraft, was part of the British War Plan. The goal was to win the economic postwar, and they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.



                  Similarly, the Soviet and Canadian governments put a high priority on getting a jetliner in the air.



                  In all cases, that priority included money, and those governments planned all along to pass any project losses on to their taxpayers.



                  Whereas in the United States, aircraft design is largely driven by airline commitments, and that requires the approval of two groups of private Boards of Directors who are singularly concerned with the bottom line.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Because the national commitment to build the Comet, along with the Brabazon and several other speculative aircraft, was part of the British War Plan. The goal was to win the economic postwar, and they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.



                  Similarly, the Soviet and Canadian governments put a high priority on getting a jetliner in the air.



                  In all cases, that priority included money, and those governments planned all along to pass any project losses on to their taxpayers.



                  Whereas in the United States, aircraft design is largely driven by airline commitments, and that requires the approval of two groups of private Boards of Directors who are singularly concerned with the bottom line.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 16 hours ago









                  Harper

                  2,750618




                  2,750618






















                      Julian F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Julian F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Julian F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Julian F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58665%2fwhy-didnt-boeing-or-douglas-make-a-jet-airliner-before-the-british-dh-comet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      William S. Burroughs

                      Eda skans

                      1924