A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is the 787 a failure ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old February 27th 13, 09:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 2/27/2013 2:52 PM, Richard wrote:
the structure of the airplane will be tested “in service.”


You could say that the structure of every totally new airliner is tested
"in service". The manufacturer can only afford to build a handful of
conforming prototypes. When the first examples of the plane start
carrying passengers, those prototypes are still very young and have low
hours (by airline standards.)

At least it's now possible for every part on the plane to have it's own
computer structural analysis.

Vaughn
  #162  
Old February 28th 13, 03:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Bradley K. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

|
| Boeing Co. and the Japanese company that makes lithium-ion
| batteries for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner are at odds over what
| should be included in the final package of fixes intended
| to get the jets back in the air, according to government
| and industry officials familiar with the details.
|
| GS Yuasa Corp. has told the Federal Aviation Administration
| that while it supports engineering and design changes
| Boeing has proposed to try to end the six-week-old
| grounding of 787s, it believes the proposed package is
| inadequate to mitigate all potential 787 battery hazards,
| the officials said.
| ...
| Yuasa's primary argument, according to the officials, was
| that its own laboratory tests strongly suggest that an
| external power surge--or another problem originating
| outside the eight cells of the battery--kicked off the
| sequence of events on the 787s that experienced burning
| batteries. Yuasa told the FAA that temperatures and current
| fluctuations recorded on those planes weren't consistent
| with short-circuits originating inside its batteries.
|
| As a result, Yuasa is urging the FAA to require
| installation of a sophisticated voltage regulator intended
| to prevent current from flowing into 787 batteries at the
| first sign of a problem. Boeing's package of proposed
| battery enhancements doesn't add such a feature to existing
| safeguards, people familiar with it say. Boeing is arguing
| that its overall package--which includes sturdier and
| better separated cells and a new fireproof container around
| the batteries--is adequate to prevent any internal or
| external malfunctions from causing fire or smoke.
| ...
| In congressional testimony Wednesday, FAA chief Michael
| Huerta said he expects to receive an internal agency report
| on the proposed fixes next week, but he didn't indicate
| when he expects to act on them.
| ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330480004073900.html

--bks

  #163  
Old February 28th 13, 04:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:51:15 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

|
| Boeing Co. and the Japanese company that makes lithium-ion
| batteries for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner are at odds over what
| should be included in the final package of fixes intended
| to get the jets back in the air, according to government
| and industry officials familiar with the details.
|
| GS Yuasa Corp. has told the Federal Aviation Administration
| that while it supports engineering and design changes
| Boeing has proposed to try to end the six-week-old
| grounding of 787s, it believes the proposed package is
| inadequate to mitigate all potential 787 battery hazards,
| the officials said.
| ...
| Yuasa's primary argument, according to the officials, was
| that its own laboratory tests strongly suggest that an
| external power surge--or another problem originating
| outside the eight cells of the battery--kicked off the
| sequence of events on the 787s that experienced burning
| batteries. Yuasa told the FAA that temperatures and current
| fluctuations recorded on those planes weren't consistent
| with short-circuits originating inside its batteries.
|
| As a result, Yuasa is urging the FAA to require
| installation of a sophisticated voltage regulator intended
| to prevent current from flowing into 787 batteries at the
| first sign of a problem. Boeing's package of proposed
| battery enhancements doesn't add such a feature to existing
| safeguards, people familiar with it say. Boeing is arguing
| that its overall package--which includes sturdier and
| better separated cells and a new fireproof container around
| the batteries--is adequate to prevent any internal or
| external malfunctions from causing fire or smoke.
| ...
| In congressional testimony Wednesday, FAA chief Michael
| Huerta said he expects to receive an internal agency report
| on the proposed fixes next week, but he didn't indicate
| when he expects to act on them.
| ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330480004073900.html

--bks

Typical McDonnell Douglas military thinking - don't avoid (solve) the
problem, contain (hide) it.

They have not found the cause of the problem yet. SOMETHING caused
the batteries to overheat. I'm still betting it's outside the battery
system itself. The Dreamliner is a hodgepodge of outsourced
assemblies designed by third world engineers - which in itself is not
necessarily a problem - but the whole final product needs better than
average engineers to make sure all the subassemblied are designed to
work with each other - and to ensure that the thing is properly
assembled. I still think the battery pack itself is OK. I also think
the APU is OK - but I strongly supect there is an issue with the
interface between the two. An issue which, when it is finally found,
will, in hindsight, be just a "minor tweek" in the grand scheme of
things.
  #164  
Old March 1st 13, 10:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Ramsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 317
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC


Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.
http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy
--
Peter
  #165  
Old March 1st 13, 06:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Transition Zone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Mar 1, 4:06*am, Ramsman wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:









On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC


Turbojet, but maybe this one?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet


They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy


I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI
  #166  
Old March 1st 13, 06:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Richard[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:06 am, wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:









On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC


Turbojet, but maybe this one?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet


They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy


I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI



This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
service.

But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of google
returns.

Bah!

  #167  
Old March 2nd 13, 09:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Transition Zone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Mar 1, 12:08*pm, Richard wrote:
On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:









On Mar 1, 4:06 am, *wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:


On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
*wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC


Turbojet, but maybe this one?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet


They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy


I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. *Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.


--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI


This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
service.

But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of

google
returns.

Bah!


Right, thanks for that. That aircraft is supposed to scour the water
for enemy craft. That is its specialty. So crashing in a friendly
lake full of civilians on a bright sunny day isn't exactly the first
think you'd expect from that "service".
  #168  
Old March 2nd 13, 10:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:16:30 -0800 (PST), Transition Zone
wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:08*pm, Richard wrote:
On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:









On Mar 1, 4:06 am, *wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:


On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
*wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC


Turbojet, but maybe this one?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet


They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy


I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. *Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.


--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI


This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
service.

But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of

google
returns.

Bah!


Right, thanks for that. That aircraft is supposed to scour the water
for enemy craft. That is its specialty. So crashing in a friendly
lake full of civilians on a bright sunny day isn't exactly the first
think you'd expect from that "service".

It was an "air show" - the MOST dangerous aviation activity, short
of all-out war.
  #169  
Old March 7th 13, 02:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Bradley K. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

NTSB update, 11 am Eastern, Thursday:
|
| The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will issue
| an interim report Thursday on the lithium ion battery fire
| in January aboard a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner at Logan
| Airport in Boston.
| ...
| The NTSB has been trying to establish what caused the short
| circuit, but experts have expressed doubt whether that will
| ever be known for sure, given the level of damage to the
| battery.
|
| There's no indication that the interim report will provide
| an answer, though it may make clearer whether or not a
| definitive cause is likely to be identified later.
|
| The report is "factual in nature and does not provide any
| analysis," the NTSB said in a statement Wednesday.
| ...
| Boeing has proposed a fix for the battery problem -- which,
| in the absence of a known root cause, attempts to address
| all possible battery system malfunctions. The company is
| awaiting approval from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)
| to implement that fix.
|
| The FAA is expected to give its initial response late this
| week or early next.
|
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020500473_ntsb787xml.html

--bks

  #170  
Old March 7th 13, 02:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Bradley K. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

|
| (Reuters) - U.S. safety regulators are poised to approve
| within days a plan to allow Boeing to begin flight tests of
| the 787 Dreamliner with a fix for its volatile batteries, a
| critical step towards returning the grounded aircraft to
| service, two sources familiar with the matter said on
| Wednesday.
|
| The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to sign off
| on a "certification plan" allowing Boeing to carry out the
| flight tests to determine if authorities can lift a flight
| ban that sent shockwaves around the airline industry seven
| weeks ago.
| ...
| Aboulafia estimated that it would take at least four months
| for the 787 to get cleared to fly if the FAA approves
| flight tests soon. If flight testing approval takes longer,
| it could take six to nine months before the 787 is back in
| the sky.
| ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/boeing-faa-idUSL1N0BYK8Y20130307

--bks

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ATC failure in Memphis Mxsmanic Piloting 77 October 11th 07 03:50 PM
The Failure of FAA Diversity FAA Civil Rights Piloting 35 October 9th 07 06:32 PM
The FAA Failure FAA Civil Rights Instrument Flight Rules 0 October 8th 07 05:57 PM
Failure #10 Capt.Doug Piloting 7 April 13th 05 02:49 AM
Another Bush Failure WalterM140 Military Aviation 8 July 3rd 04 02:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.