From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pete Coe) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:59 References: 1 2 3 4 5 6
View raw article or MIME structure
Steve Lacker <email@example.com> writes: >Graham Glen <Graham@irving.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>In article <airliners.1996.1342@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Don Stokes >> >>Your quite right, I'm sorry I was going from memory rather than >>checking. Series 1 & 2S Comets had Ghosts. >> >>>I don't believe the preferred engies were Conways -- they didn't turn up >>>until the 707 era. The RR engines proposed for for the Comet 1 were pure >>>turbojets like the Ghosts; Conways are fans. >>>I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways. >> >>No, they had Avons as well. Mk 117 (7,300lb st) for the series 2 Comets, >>Mark 502 (10,000lb st) for series 3 and Mark 524 (10,500lb st) for >>series 4. (I did check this time!) >My 1989 issue of "Jane's World Aircraft" lists the Nimrod (military development >of the Comet) as having Spey engines. Were the Nimrods built with Speys, or was >this a re-engining operation? The Nimrod, whilst based on the Comet is actually quite a bit bigger. It's certainly longer and also has a double-bubble fuselage, whilst the Comets' all had an oval one. Apart from the need for a more modern power plant, the Nimrods also probably needed more power. I have a 1964 Jane's at home, so if you want the full data on the Comet I can find it eventually.