Those were entire outer wing sections folding up. To park at LGA IIRC.
This time it's more like just the raked wingtips folding (no moving parts in the folding section).

CFD has improved dramatically so things may change soon, but traditionally the final loads required for the ultimate load tests are only available after test flights.
All tests which clear the aircraft for first flight are purely based on calculated loads, and traditionally those required adjustment through flight testing.

Speculation
 

I believe every aircraft goes through a "High blow" test prior to leaving the hangar it's at 12.1 psid, the first 777 a seal failed and was redesigned, in March of 2006 China Airlines 747-400F blew the nose door open it opened with so much force it went over the limit and smashed the cockpit windows, China Airlines tried and failed to reject the aircraft, Boeing repaired it and delivered it as required, however China Airlines never painted it, it was white, interestingly the pressure wasn't high at the time the door opened. The test is usually done late at night with minimal employees in the hangar, the aircraft is then released to the flight line.

The fatigue airframe was most likely well above normal and abnormal limits so don't think it will cause any delay perhaps a modification to extend the airframe life and a cycle limitation on pre modified aircraft until modified.

It was eventually painted in CAL livery after about 8 years in service.

I was right with you up until that last snide sentence.

I'm also fed up with the Airbus bashing. It's no less a fine company than Boeing, and its professionals are no less fantastic than Boeing's, from the CEO to the guys that clean the floors at Toulouse and all the places where Airbuses are made.

[Declaration of non-interest: I have no stake in either Airbus or Boeing.]

How different are 777 and 777X fuselages? I take it no substantial changes were done to the new model other than lengthening. Could FAA, who is very "vigilant" of anything Boeing at the moment, dig deeper into this and demand additional testing of the current 777? And, a more pressing question I suppose, can the current 777 be affected?

The pendulum is picking speed, it must be on the downward swing by definition? Welcome to the world of non boeings, yet goings.

WHOA! My trolldar just went off.

I'm sure the cleaners and many of the folks above them are "fantastic professionals", but the CEO's public performance these last few months suggests he, at least, may not actually stand up to scrutiny.

pittsspecialguy : joined today , 2 posts . one praising BCAL, (agree fully it was a very fine airline), the other saying
.
and
Nice way to start winning friends here , but welcome nevertheless.
And there is nothing wrong with side-sticks, as the first side-stick controlled aircraft was a Boeing one, just flew in it in OSH a few weeks ago. ;)

No, we want Boeing to produce first class planes that do not fall from the sky, because Boeing did not tell the pilots what it built into them. And we want Boeing to communicate honestly, openly and transparently, what many of us did not feel in the past 9 months. And we want Boeing to return to a safety conscious collaboration mode with the certifiers.

As a long time Boeing pilot, who spent his last years flying with a side stick...I really don't care either way.

But, I have a neighbour who was a passenger on a Boeing flight out of Hawaii to NZ which ended because of some rather suss Boeing engineering. He's also an engineer, though not the aviation type, but he was astounded at the design of your cargo door locks.

Well I'll be glad to welcome him as is

He neither downed Boeing nor Airbus and just told why we need both.

The 777 seems to be about the most crash worthy aircraft flying; the little Asiana incident at SFO certainly drove that home.

"Be careful what you wish for"...;)

Some want some don't. So far I haven't seen a rush to the profession. I ended there almost by accident. Bloody dull work at times, like XMM telescope tube with a zero thermal coefficient of expansion ...

While I tend to believe that the guys that clean the floors at Renton are fantastic professionals, I am also sure that they are not Boeing employees.
Without the MAX it would have for sure been a side note to special intrest groups. However the MAX crisis is entirely home made and so is the scruntity BA is facing now. Nothing to be frustrated about.
I would hope other entities would learn from that but I'm sceptical.
I'm not sure how the side stick is related to that though. However I am sure that a competitor for AB will be found with or without side stick.

Intermediate testing is done to weed out design and materials issues.

This was the FINAL ground test for certification...no learning here, this is to show the ac meets specs. It blew on the blow test and as Boeing stated, they had to stop the test.
The final test for cert is to show that all of the other testing and design assumptions have passed, and the ac is ready to be cert to fly.

This reads that they stopped the test before it was completed, correct?

On the blow test, there are 3 parts..static, working load, and ultimate.

Static tests the normal pressure
Working load tests the assumes highest pressure the fuselage will have ONCE in its service.
Ultimate load tests the working load by 1.5 times.

Boeing claims it had to stop the test...at which point did it stop?
The wording, failed under much higher that normal operations, stil could mean the working load test.

Think about it, if it had failed under ultimate, 1.5...that could be understood, because ultimate at 1.5 is the assumed failure pressure.

Given all of the secrecy, lack of disclosure, and other issues, I tend to believe it failed before working load....

As noted by the "ex-VP" videos are online and the ground testing was usually a media event....this one was closed doors to regulators. (and it failed with all of the regulatory agencies present, )

Time for Boeing to start telling the truth.