PDA

View Full Version : Virgin 787-9 hit by engine fire during ground test


airman1900
5th Mar 2016, 01:15
From the "All things 787" website:

substitute b for X in the below URL to get to the All things 787 website:

URL: nyc787.Xlogspot.com

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Update on 787-9 for Virgin Atlantic

I just got a tentative update on ZB036 (LN377, G-VDIA) which is a 787-9 for Virgin Atlantic. The aircraft is still in 88-30 and will be there until March 6 to the Charleston flightline. The aircraft will presumably under a mini gauntlet ground tests prior to conducting a functional check flight (FCF) on March 11th and a C-2 flight on March 12th. The new tentative delivery date to Virgin Atlantic is now March 17th.


Friday, February 26, 2016

Virgin 787-9 hit by engine fire during ground test

To follow up something I mentioned in my last post regarding ZB036 (LN 377, G-VDIA) a 787-9 that was supposed to be delivered to Virgin Atlantic last month.
For the past few weeks it had been inside building 88-30 undergoing repairs to the wing in an area near the engine.

Apparently the wing was damaged by an engine fire while the engine was running during a test on the flightline at Charleston. I don't have details about what started the fire, the extent of the damage or any NTSB/FAA investigation, if any.

It is unknown when the aircraft will complete repairs and delivered to Virgin.

glad rag
5th Mar 2016, 10:40
Batteries, undercarriage, engines.

Hmm.....

Contact Approach
11th Mar 2016, 03:45
Worth a watch.

http://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os

underfire
11th Mar 2016, 04:28
It is called the 'Firebird" for a reason.....

megan
11th Mar 2016, 05:38
When head office is thousands of miles from the worksite, it's to be expected.

Huck
11th Mar 2016, 06:00
Yes but the workers are cheaper......

Sunamer
11th Mar 2016, 06:34
Worth a watch.
Hardly. This piece is full of innuendo. For example (and there are plenty of examples in that sensationalist-bull**** video), where they claim that the airplane wasn't ready for the first roll out. They claimed that the doors were made of plywood and it was implied that the whole model was a shell from plywood (as I said, innuendo).

AJ tried to make a case that Boeing was once such a good company and then corporate people took over and ruined everything.
But how was it different from 747 program when the first 747 was rolled out?
AFA I recall, it wasn't. The chief engineer said about 747 that there was nothing inside of that first 747 which still makes that 747 a shell..
So, why to make it as if something new, when in fact Boeing did the same thing before?

Groundloop
11th Mar 2016, 08:16
For example (and there are plenty of examples in that sensationalist-bull**** video), where they claim that the airplane wasn't ready for the first roll out.

Have you never seen the images of how the fuselage was put together to roll-out "on time"?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1202/774678579_7c9620ad72_o.jpg

ExDubai
11th Mar 2016, 08:27
Nice pice of craftsmanship :}

Contact Approach
11th Mar 2016, 08:40
Yes, yes it is the pinnacle of craftsmanship indeed! That is why it is always broken. :D

C.A

Sunamer
11th Mar 2016, 08:52
Have you never seen the images of how the fuselage was put together to roll-out "on time"?

How is that relevant to the production quality (something that AJ surmised was really bad)? :ugh:

Groundloop
11th Mar 2016, 12:05
It is in response to YOUR assertion that the claims that the aircraft was not ready for roll-out were BS!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

barit1
11th Mar 2016, 12:07
Sunamer
The chief engineer said about 747 that there was nothing inside of that first 747 which still makes that 747 a shell..

THIS seems to underpin the planning of the DC-10 rollout, which was in fact a taxi-out.

Gu to Youtube, then search: Q2UnykgWYPE

CONSO
11th Mar 2016, 13:50
Hardly. This piece is full of innuendo. For example (and there are plenty of examples in that sensationalist-bull**** video), where they claim that the airplane wasn't ready for the first roll out. They claimed that the doors were made of plywood and it was implied that the whole model was a shell from plywood (as I said, innuendo).

AJ tried to make a case that Boeing was once such a good company and then corporate people took over and ruined everything.
But how was it different from 747 program when the first 747 was rolled out?
AFA I recall, it wasn't. The chief engineer said about 747 that there was nothing inside of that first 747 which still makes that 747 a shell..
So, why to make it as if something new, when in fact Boeing did the same thing before?
But the 747 went from project staart 1965- to first orders in 1966- to build new factory and rollout in 1969 and first flight in 1969.

So three to four years from start to first flight. few robots, no desktop computers, mainframe computers with fortran and sliderules. And a lot fewer $$$$

Sunamer
11th Mar 2016, 14:08
And a lot fewer $$$$
And with much lower fuel economy. :=
Besides, 747 used the same tech as 707, only was bigger.
You can't say the same about 777->787 transition, though. Too much change was made in order to proceed with 787.

Sunamer
11th Mar 2016, 14:13
It is in response to YOUR assertion that the claims that the aircraft was not ready for roll-out were BS!

Okay, I will try one more time - when was it the case that any big airplane was READY to fly on the day of the roll out?

Sunamer
11th Mar 2016, 14:18
which was in fact a taxi-out.
That would have been a good example, if not for the fact that DC10 wasn't a terribly safe A/C, though...

If some guys today react the way they do a small number of 787 problems, they would have hanged themselves over DC10 safety and reliability record.

Contact Approach
11th Mar 2016, 14:51
:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{

tdracer
11th Mar 2016, 17:18
When head office is thousands of miles from the worksite, it's to be expected.
You do know that the Boeing head office is in Chicago, right?
That means Charleston is closer to the head office than Puget Sound...:ugh:

barit1
12th Mar 2016, 13:14
Sunamer:747 used the same tech as 707, only was bigger.

Huh? High-bypass engines? INS? A spot of Whitcomb's area rule too? :rolleyes:

If some guys today react the way they do a small number of 787 problems, they would have hanged themselves over DC10 safety and reliability record.

That must be the reason DC-10 outsold rival TriStar 2:1. :)

Turbine D
12th Mar 2016, 22:06
Sunamer,
Besides, 747 used the same tech as 707, only was bigger.
A rather uninformed comment.

If so, this is a good book to start with:
747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation Paperback May 1, 2007
by Joe Sutter (Author), Jay Spenser (Author)

Joe Sutter was the Engineer in charge of this bet the farm project. Not only will you learn about the 747 and Boeing, you will learn about some other interesting things back in the good old days, do you remember the good old days?

There are plenty of books about the creation and history of the Boeing 747 that counters your assertions.

barit1
12th Mar 2016, 22:33
I'll see Joe Sutter's book and raise him another one:

The Sporty Game: The High-Risk Competitive Business of Making and Selling Commercial Airliners
Hardcover – July 12, 1982
by John Newhouse (Author)

Newhouse follows the development in the 60s & 70s of four widebody airliners - their target markets, technical innovations, successes and failures. A really great book IMHO. :ok:

Rwy in Sight
13th Mar 2016, 06:40
Sunamer,

The requirement back then (for the 747) was to move a lot of people around to a greater distance than the 707. The requirement for the 787 was to have a great fuel efficiency. The difficulties were similar.

Back when the 787 was running in difficulties I firmly believed that Boeing paid for its effort to kill two birds with one stone - new construction materials (and techniques) and bring a number or partners in a new base bearing full responsibility for their final input.

Groundloop
14th Mar 2016, 09:17
Okay, I will try one more time - when was it the case that any big airplane was READY to fly on the day of the roll out?

But it is not NORMAL to have to take the fuselage APART again after roll-out and severely damage it in the process - because it was held together with ridiculously large temoprary bolts in the first place. All just to meet some idiotic marketing deadline.

Sailvi767
14th Mar 2016, 16:12
Sunamer:

Huh? High-bypass engines? INS? A spot of Whitcomb's area rule too? :rolleyes:



That must be the reason DC-10 outsold rival TriStar 2:1. :)

You are correct that was the reason. The Tristar had far more redundancy built into the airframe. It was a lot safer. It also had a higher empty weight with those extras. Payload and revenue generation tops safety every time in the airline business.

barit1
15th Mar 2016, 15:31
Well, I see 6 fatal DC-10 accidents:

NA ABQ 1973
TK Paris 1974
AA O'hare 1979
ANZ Mt. Erebus 1979
WA Mexico City 1979
UA Sioux City 1989

I read the second and last of these as airframe design-related, the others were either engine-, operator-, or maintenance-caused accidents. After the 1979 crashes there was a lot of passenger resistance, but this had died down within a few years. Overall, not a bad safety record.

And the 1011 was awful noisy (hydraulic or other machine noise) in the cabin, and you had to book an extra 10 minutes on the departure stand while you started three 3-spool RB211's.

megan
16th Mar 2016, 01:16
You do know that the Boeing head office is in Chicago, right?
That means Charleston is closer to the head office than Puget Sound...

910 miles is still a long way to walk, nearly half the distance of 2,063 to Seattle

CONSO
16th Mar 2016, 01:28
Back when the 787 was running in difficulties I firmly believed that Boeing paid for its effort to kill two birds with one stone - new construction materials (and techniques) and bring a number or partners in a new base bearing full responsibility for their final input. Actually, having built major sections of the B-2 ( body, major wing structure, etc ) of similar composites, plus the A-6 composite rewing program- and using catia and other computer design stuff, followed by major catia useage on 777- BA had the experience and knowledge to do the 787 in reasonable fashion. What was lacking was competent management- having been taken over by MDC mis- management. And to ' save' money they offloaded way to much design and manufacturing issues. So it wasn't so much the technology issues, but major major mis- management. Those who had experience with 777 and B-2 were rapidly shuffled out when they tried to say ...no no dont give away the wing, do not overload or off load the design stuff...

simon001
16th Mar 2016, 04:13
THIS seems to underpin the planning of the DC-10 rollout, which was in fact a taxi-out. Gu to Youtube, then search: Q2UnykgWYPE It's an impressive taxi-out. Taxi tests up to 100 knots, lifting the nose gear. Another taxi at 100 knots with full flaps. Then it took it's first flight 5 weeks later.

It also received it's type certificate and entered commercial service less than a year after that.

Roll Out: Jul-23-70
First flight: Aug-29-70
Type Certificate: Jul-29-71
First Commercial Flight: Aug-5-71

These days on a rollout, you'd be lucky to see inside let alone see it moving or doing 100 knots. Then years before certification.