Virgin 787-9 hit by engine fire during ground test

[airman1900]

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]

Batteries, undercarriage, engines.

Hmm.....

[Contact Approach]

Worth a watch.

http://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os

[underfire]

It is called the 'Firebird" for a reason.....

[megan]

When head office is thousands of miles from the worksite, it's to be expected.

[Huck]

Yes but the workers are cheaper......

[Sunamer]

Worth a watch.

Hardly. This piece is full of innuendo. For example (and there are plenty of examples in that sensationalist-bullshit 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]

For example (and there are plenty of examples in that sensationalist-bullshit 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"?

[ExDubai]

Nice pice of craftsmanship

[Contact Approach]

Yes, yes it is the pinnacle of craftsmanship indeed! That is why it is always broken.

C.A

[Sunamer]

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)?

[Groundloop]

It is in response to YOUR assertion that the claims that the aircraft was not ready for roll-out were BS!

[barit1]

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]

Originally Posted by Sunamer

Hardly. This piece is full of innuendo. For example (and there are plenty of examples in that sensationalist-bullshit 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]

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]

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]

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]

[tdracer]

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...

[barit1]

Sunamer:

747 used the same tech as 707, only was bigger.

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

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.