Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Virgin 787-9 hit by engine fire during ground test

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Virgin 787-9 hit by engine fire during ground test

Old 12th Mar 2016, 22:06
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
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.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2016, 22:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
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.

Last edited by barit1; 12th Mar 2016 at 23:22.
barit1 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2016, 06:40
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,116
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.
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2016, 09:17
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,907
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.
Groundloop is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2016, 16:12
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by barit1 View Post
Sunamer:

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



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.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2016, 15:31
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
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.
barit1 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2016, 01:16
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,738
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
megan is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2016, 01:28
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 73
Posts: 1
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...
CONSO is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2016, 04:13
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO
Posts: 21
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.
simon001 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.