Is the 787 a failure ?

On 28/01/13 08:13, wrote:

When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.

In 10 years time the B787 will still be flying with the same unit on
board and the pundits will be moaning about the inadequacies of the new
airliner coming into service

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get
it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an
event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration,
clearly this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how
potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it
takes to destroy it.

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
**** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.

Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.

Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
simple.

Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
prattle.

You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
thinking you know something.

So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?

LOL!

On Jan 27, 2:19*am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:54*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

* *Irrevelant.

* *It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
* *dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:19:51 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

wrote:
...
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.
...

I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
tweak."

You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced
with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed -
and you will be safe to bet it will be a "relatively minor tweek" to
the system. It will not be a total re-design of the APU system. The
batteries do not overheat if they are not abused. The charge control
system is abusing the battery, causing it to overheat. They may need
to redisign the battery pack to add cooling to prevent damage IF they
overheat - but the first thing is to fix the charging system so they
do NOT overheat.

I also question why they used lithium Cobalt batteries - slightly
higher energy density than the safer Lithium Iron Phosphate or Lithium
Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide batteries, at the expense of a higher
danger of thermal run-away. Perhaps a change to one or the other of
these chemistries instead of the Lithium Cobalts will be required as
well.
|
| MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
| ...
| In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
| the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
| 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
| technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
| metal-hydride (NiMH).

Anything with a potassium Hydroxide electrolyte is a poor choice in
aircraft with aluminum structure. The 787 has a lot of high strength
composite, but aluminum is still a structural component. The 2
materials do not peaceably co-exist - in case of a leak there are
risks - which have been managed so far with Ni-Cads in aircraft use -
but they are NOT benign. NiCad and NimH both ose pottassium Hydroxide.

They are also not immune to overheating - they just boil the
Pottassium Hydroxide out, damaging the plane instead of burning. Not
quite as serious, in the short term - but perhaps just as damaging in
the long term?

In my opinion, going back to NiCad or Nimh would be a big step
backwards - as well as requiring a complete recertification of the
system.
|
| If Boeing opts to substitute NiMH for lithium-ion,
| certification could result in delays of up to a year --
| effectively grounding the 787 until 2014.
| ...
| When Sadoway got a look at the lithium-ion battery used in
| the 787, he was surprised by "the seeming absence of a
| cooling apparatus."
| ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/

--bks

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get
it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an
event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration,
clearly this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how
potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it
takes to destroy it.

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
**** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.

Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.

Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
simple.

Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
prattle.

You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
thinking you know something.

So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?

LOL!
Just because the tweek will be minor does not mean figuring it out
will be simple. And getting it signed off will not be a simple matter
either - we ARE dealing with certified aircraft.
I suspect there will be some reprogramming of the charging system and
a possible switch to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiPo ) cells from the LCo
(Lithium Cobalt Oxide) batteries that caused a lot of consternation in
portable devices, like laptops, a few years ago. I cannot understand
why LCo batteries were spec'ed instead of LIPo or LNMC cells. The
relatively minor power density advantage is hard to balance against
the known issues with LCO cells. The LCO cells CAN be safely used
with proper controls - but the risk is still there.

wrote:
...
You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced
with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed -
...

|
| U.S. investigators examining the battery charger from a
| Boeing Co. (BA) 787 that caught fire this month in Boston
| have found no evidence of flaws that could have caused the
| incident.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-27/battery-charger-aboard-787-cleared-in-fire-investigation

--bks

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

snip
Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
system.
snip

Which ignores the fact that the plane was three years late
in delivery, giving ample time to have constructed a
prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system
with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive
cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a
verity of GPUs. This would appear to have been highly
prudent given the news items of electric cars with the same
or similar power storage bursting into flames, and the loss
of an entire factory when a prototype cell under test
exploded.

Indeed, with the advantage of hindsight, the type of lithium
cells used should have been retrofitted to some existing
aircraft (cargo to start) and tested under actual
operating/flying conditions after these were proven "safe."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...120872184.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ar-safety.html

http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal20...aPaper2007.pdf


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On 1/27/2013 5:39 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
giving ample time to have constructed a
prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system
with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive
cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a
verity of GPUs.

Do you actually have a reference that says they never did any of that
stuff? Or are you just blowing smoke?

|
| Washington - Further testing still has not found the cause
| of a battery fire aboard a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston
| earlier this month, the National Transportation Safety
| Board said on Sunday.
|
| In a statement released on Sunday, the safety regulator
| said "no obvious anomalies were found" in its initial
| investigation of an undamaged battery aboard the plane and
| that a more detailed examination would follow.
| ...
| Oliver McGee, an aerospace and mechanical engineer who was
| a deputy assistant secretary of transportation for
| technology policy under President Bill Clinton and a former
| consultant to Boeing, described the challenge facing the
| investigators as a "megascale engineering puzzle".
| ...
http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/cause-of-boeing-fire-eludes-team-1.1459385

Redesign, recertify, redeploy.

--bks

On 1/27/2013 3:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get
it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an
event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration,
clearly this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do with how
potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap. That's ALL it
takes to destroy it.

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
**** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.

Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.

Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
simple.

Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
prattle.

You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
thinking you know something.

So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?

LOL!
Just because the tweek will be minor does not mean figuring it out
will be simple. And getting it signed off will not be a simple matter
either - we ARE dealing with certified aircraft.
I suspect there will be some reprogramming of the charging system and
a possible switch to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiPo ) cells from the LCo
(Lithium Cobalt Oxide) batteries that caused a lot of consternation in
portable devices, like laptops, a few years ago. I cannot understand
why LCo batteries were spec'ed instead of LIPo or LNMC cells. The
relatively minor power density advantage is hard to balance against
the known issues with LCO cells. The LCO cells CAN be safely used
with proper controls - but the risk is still there.


Fairly easy answer. The LCO has the highest power density of all
the Lithium batteries. And it can sustain the highest discharge
rate. Unfortunately, it also has the narrowest range of
operating temperatures and creates the nastiest fire when it ignites.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.