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












6














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 DH106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their B707 and DC8 after the Comet was introduced.









share







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
    8 hours ago










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










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    3 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
    2 hours ago


















6














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 DH106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their B707 and DC8 after the Comet was introduced.









share







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
    8 hours ago










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










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    3 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
    2 hours ago
















6












6








6


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 DH106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their B707 and DC8 after the Comet was introduced.









share







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 DH106 Comet) when the US had a much bigger civil aviation industry at the time, such as Boeing and Douglas? They only produced their B707 and DC8 after the Comet was introduced.







aircraft-design jet-engine airliner aviation-history





share







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







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



share






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 11 hours ago









Julian F.

336




336




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
    8 hours ago










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










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    3 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
    2 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
    8 hours ago










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










  • The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
    – Harper
    3 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
    2 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
8 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
8 hours ago












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




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












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




The Soviets also had an advanced program, and as usual with Societ aircraft, they were not beset by safety problems.
– Harper
3 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
2 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
2 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















12














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.
    4 hours ago






  • 2




    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
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    @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
    3 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
    2 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
    1 hour ago



















7














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.
    4 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
    2 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.
    4 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
    2 hours ago



















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

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    12














    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.
      4 hours ago






    • 2




      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
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      @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
      3 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
      2 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
      1 hour ago
















    12














    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.
      4 hours ago






    • 2




      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
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      @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
      3 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
      2 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
      1 hour ago














    12












    12








    12






    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 8 hours ago

























    answered 8 hours ago









    John K

    14.4k11544




    14.4k11544












    • 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.
      4 hours ago






    • 2




      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
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      @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
      3 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
      2 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
      1 hour 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.
      4 hours ago






    • 2




      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
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      @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
      3 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
      2 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
      1 hour 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.
    4 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.
    4 hours ago




    2




    2




    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
    3 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
    3 hours ago




    1




    1




    @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
    3 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
    3 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
    2 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
    2 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago











    7














    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.
      4 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
      2 hours ago
















    7














    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.
      4 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
      2 hours ago














    7












    7








    7






    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 8 hours ago









    motosubatsu

    54317




    54317












    • 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.
      4 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
      2 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.
      4 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
      2 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.
    4 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.
    4 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
    2 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
    2 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.
      4 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
      2 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.
      4 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
      2 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 10 hours ago









    Juan Jimenez

    2,586423




    2,586423












    • 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.
      4 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
      2 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.
      4 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
      2 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.
    4 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.
    4 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
    2 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
    2 hours ago











    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 3 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

            宮崎県

            濃尾地震

            シテ島