COME "T"

@LonelyAustrianUhlan the fatigue was indeed highest at the windows (and doors), but my point is that it wasn’t the shape that was the problem.
From this article:

”Many readers familiar with the Comet disasters might be wondering why, with this article drawing to its close, I have yet to utter the phrase “square windows.” But the truth is that “square windows” never had anything to do with the Comet crashes. The windows were not and never were square — in fact, you can see for yourself in the above image, which shows a Comet 1 window next to a modern Boeing 737 window. Can you tell which is which? You probably can, but not because one is any more “square” than the other.
The cause of the Comet’s difficulties was not the shape of its windows, but de Havilland’s failure to predict the complex load pathways and stress concentrations in the material. And in terms of fundamental design deficiencies, the most significant fact was that the fuselage skin was simply too thin, leaving it unable to withstand the local stresses generated around its perfectly normal-shaped windows. The lessons of the twin disasters were therefore much more profound than the oft-repeated concluding line, “and no one ever built a jet with square windows again.” In reality, no one was ever that stupid! But the Comet crashes did fundamentally alter the process of designing airliners, bringing about a more thorough and regimented approach to the problem of metal fatigue. And the inquiry was a milestone of its own, establishing many of the techniques which form the basis of modern investigative practice, from mathematical modeling to underwater recovery. The story of the Comet, then, is a tale of firsts, both the positive kind, and the dangerous kind — the perils of pushing into the unknown. The solution to the Comet mystery was not reckoned in money or manpower, but neither was its creation. The only thing that would have saved the Comet was knowledge, but in the history of human innovation, seldom have we learned what we must do without first learning what we must not.”

@RepublicOfCursedPlanes So yes they were caused by metal fatigue, which was caused by the windows.

@RepublicOfCursedPlanes “ The square windows were the cause of high stresses. The bolt hole which failed on "YP" had a defect in the chamfer which indicated the potential for manufacturing defects on all skin holes.”

@RepublicOfCursedPlanes yes but the metal fatigue was specifically around the windows, and their shapes had a large part in it.

@RepublicOfCursedPlanes hmm, the widows of the Comet 1s were the cause of the fatal decompressions, the one with the round widows were the latter versions, like the Comet 4.

Contrary to popular belief, the Comets didn’t crash because they had square windows; their windows weren’t even square, and actually have the exact same shape as those on modern airliners. Instead, the crashes happened because the engineers had underestimated the amount of load tha the metal used would experience, leading to metal fatigue in the Comet occurring at a much higher rate than initially anticipated.
Just a fun fact! :) And also T