No it was fuselage rupture under pressurization.
Fatigue cracks developed because the Brits used square passenger window frames. The cracks propagated from the apex of the square window frames and allowed the cabin to explosively depressurize.
The design fix was to reshape the window openings as ovals eliminating the stress points.
It was more than just that: the skin of the original Comet I’s were also too thin. As such, when Boeing built the 367-80 prototype, the skin of the plane was a bit thicker for structural integrity reasons.
Quote:
“The Brits, not wanting to loose their lead kept the comet flying instead of grounding it until the problem could be identified and corrected which by the way was wing fatigue.
No it was fuselage rupture under pressurization.
Fatigue cracks developed because the Brits used square passenger window frames. The cracks propagated from the apex of the square window frames and allowed the cabin to explosively depressurize.
The design fix was to reshape the window openings as ovals eliminating the stress points. “
De Havilland had made the aircraft’s skin too thin, and the rupture started from the square shaped ADF aerial cutout panel. The passenger windows themselves were not the problem, but were at risk should the aircraft keep flying as it was. The fix to this was to use thicker gauge material for the aircraft skin and redesign the window shape. By the time those fixes were made, the damage to the Comet’s reputation was done, and just like with the DC-10 issues, I suspect that the 737 Max series will have a short run after this fiasco.