Virgin 787-9 hit by engine fire during ground test
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 83
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunamer,
A rather uninformed comment.
If so, this is a good book to start with:
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.
Besides, 747 used the same tech as 707, only was bigger.
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)
by Joe Sutter (Author), Jay Spenser (Author)
There are plenty of books about the creation and history of the Boeing 747 that counters your assertions.

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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; 13th Mar 2016 at 00:22.

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.
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.

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?

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.

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.

You do know that the Boeing head office is in Chicago, right?
That means Charleston is closer to the head office than Puget Sound...
That means Charleston is closer to the head office than Puget Sound...


Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
