Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3072 posts, RR: 57 Posted (4 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 6651 times:
I just did a search on this topic, but didn't come up with anything, so apologies if this has been discussed before.
I was talking with some friends recently about the revised Virgin livery, and its 'metallic' paint. Initially I wasn't a fan of the bigger titles and the revised look (e.g. losing the Union Flag on the winglets), but now I am not so sure. It does look great in the sunshine.
Which of these relatively recent schemes do you prefer? I have looked for examples from a similar vantage point to make the direct comparisons easy.
Given the relatively minor alterations to the livery we can see above, I would be interested to learn more from anyone as to the reasoning behind the changes, and also how much it would actually cost to repaint an aircraft such as G-VXLG above.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3562 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6519 times:
I think the concern is that what are relatively young B747s based at LGW / MAN with the beach fleet are falling apart on the inside. Even some of the B744s painted in the middle scheme above look like c**p already on the outside and the insides are unloved.
I flew EWR-LHR on a Virgin A340 of the same age and the A343 fleet seems to be in way better shape IMHO.
The new colours look "slutty" with that shade of red
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3072 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6105 times:
There is a excellent quality time lapse video on a 'well known video-sharing' website of G-VROC being transformed recently at Air Livery, Manchester from livery No. 3 in the photos above to livery No. 1 over 15 days apparently. An interesting watch.
Interesting to see how much work goes into it.
Having had the chance to photograph a few examples in the new livery, one thing that is notable is how different the colour looks in different lighting and different angles - very significant.
Do any other liveries have similar metallic paint?
sasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6019 times:
The Union Jack is a must, IMO as I've come to associate it with Virgin. I am a big fan of the metallic red as captured by some of the Manchester spotters/photogs....I'm not sure if they caught the light 'just right' or if it really looks that well in person, but I'm liking it.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11195 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5985 times:
The scheme introduced in 1999 (the first of the silver ones) is the most distinctive. Red and purple together I´ve never seen before on an airplane and I must say I liked it.
I like the metallic red on the new scheme bcause its unique, but the titles are awful. Too big and too thin. Also the disposal of the Union Jack isnt a change for the better.
ryand36 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5954 times:
I personally prefer the new metallic red, and really like the tail.
I HATE the fact that the union jacks are gone... It is a very virgin thing IMO to fly the flag as it competes against BA. Bland V's on a winglet are just like the ryanair bland white ones.
I like the larger titles but i think they are too big and should be wider. Billboard style looks great but this looks stretched...
Also the underside writing to me offers no advantage and just wastes money.... Maybe just the Virgin logo on the underbelly would look better. But having Virgin Atlantic in thin writing is hardly striking from the ground.
I think they would have been better keeping the 2006 livery already painted on most the 747's and just making the titles larger....
Simpler... Cheaper.... Still a good brand image
I don’t see the need to keep chagrin the airlines logo! It adds no real value when it comes to customers choosing to fly with the airline. Most of us care more about the seat we'll sit in, not how shiny and new the airline name looks....
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3072 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5886 times:
Quoting sasd209 (Reply 7): I'm not sure if they caught the light 'just right' or if it really looks that well in person, but I'm liking it.
I can only speak for my own photos, but I can assure you they are an accurate representation of how the aircraft looks.
To illustrate the way the colour looks different, here are two images of 'Lima Golf' landing at Manchester, separated by a matter of seconds. Same exposure, no change in the lighting. The only difference is the angle of the light relative to the fuselage:
FlyNWA727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5879 times:
I hate the livery when it first debuted, but after flying an aircraft with the new livery in FS2004, I think I've fallen in love with it. It looks really elegant, as simple as it is. I love the Emirates-like underbelly titling. But I do agree with others... the Union Jack on the winglets is a must. Deleting it makes no sense.
First flight aboard a Northwest B727-251ADV out of BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, my hometown airport.
aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2877 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
The metallic red has definitely grown on me.
I think an improvement would be the reduction in size of the titling so that the letters fit between the windows of the upper and lower decks. I'm not sure how this was missed as it looks messy overlapping the windows and out of proportion.
Also, I think they should carry the red from the tail back over the APU. Again, looks clumsy leaving it the fuselage colour.
The middle livery shown by the OP was good, but the application of the purple to the tail was very clumsy. the white shading looked much more professional and it's a shame they couldn't find another way of integrating purple in there.
I think the oldest livery shown above had the best fuselage colour, but I was never a fan of the "patch" design for the tail that's been carried over to other Virgin-branded airlines. Clumsy.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2766 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5768 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting mhodgson (Reply 2): I saw the metallic paint in the flesh at MAN on Saturday, and have to admit I like it. Would like to see the Union Flag winglets retained, but overall the new livery has grown on me!
That's pretty much the way I look at it was wel - I love the metallic shiny red in VS's new livery, but I miss the Union Flag winglets. The new font for the VS titles, however, is ugly. Bring back the old font, and it'd be better.
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2918 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5730 times:
Love the metallic red. I miss the silver fuselage which would have looked great with this metallic red. The billboard titles is where I am not liking this. The font is not right, too thin or something, can't tell. I'm also mising the Union Jack on the winglets. As far as the belly titles go...while I don't mind belly titles, I am thinking they should have stuck with the wing box area, it's just too much, maybe done the tail logo underneath or something.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"