Well, look at it this way: Boeing produced at aircraft that staggered up to maybe 25,000 ft when half the fuel was burned off (Douglas DC-4 couldn't cross the Atlantic with a full passanger load), and neither was pressurized above 6 psi.
DeHaviland produced a fully streamlined airframe (no flat windows) pressurised to 9.5 psi that had a range of 2500 miles or so at 40,000 ft six years before Boeing produced the EC-135. Yes, the Comet had some serious structural problems, but you get that when you are cutting edge. Note that BOAC rejected the 707 until it was fully reworked in 1960 as it was VERY unstable below 250 or so knots and would fall out of the air if you lost both engines on one side. The Comet 4 carried passengers until a few years back with a decent saftey record. The Avro Jetliner was designed in the 1940s, had just about the same capacity as a DC-9, and flew the first jet carried airmail into New York in 1951 -- killed by the Canadian Goverment for political reasons, not design problems. The Avro Arrow was at least as good as the F-15 on TEST engines, not the design engines, again killed by the Canadian government in 1961, at least ten years before the F15. With the Olympus engines intended for it (they ended up in modified form in the Concorde) it would have been spectacular. Politics.... There were some other notable designs, but they never got a chance (including some early supersonic designs) because the average time between inital design and production for British aircraft was 15 plus years. Sad. The Vicount (and Britannia) were very good aircraft, but by the time they got off the assembly line, they were outdated. The Viscount flew for quite a few years with Capital Airlines (later absorbed by US Air). The failure of the airline wasn't a result of the choice of aircraft as much as a market problem. Rolls Royce signing an exclusive supply contract with Vickers wasn't too smart, either, but that again is politics, not design.
