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
  #201  
Old March 22nd 13, 08:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
GunnerAsch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:

GunnerAsch wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:40:50 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:

GunnerAsch wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:23:17 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:


The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.

Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries

Why havent they converted over to NmH?

They have a relatively high self discharge rate and can lose
up to 20% of the energy stored in the first 24 hours. This is
acceptable for hybrid vehicles where the battery is primarily a
temporary buffer to capture the energy from regenerative
braking but not good for a system intended to initiate an
aircraft startup sequence after a week in the hangar.

Keith

Thats not true anymore. Since Sanyo developed the Enerloop NiMH
battery..they are being shipped charged from the factories. All the
makers are using the new tech and have been doing so for at least 3
yrs. Ive got NiMH batteries that I only need to put on the charger
ever 6 months, just to top them off.

Gunner


Trouble is they are not available in the size or capacity to be used
in an electric vehicle, last time I checked the largest was a D size.

Keith

D batteries are what they use in some of the electric vehicles as I
recall. Some 300 of them

Or was it 3000?

Gunner

  #202  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Jim Wilkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

"Keith W" wrote in message
news
Jim Wilkins wrote:

At 2h 12m ~15s the Pilot Flying made a pitch-down input that
brought
their forward speed above the stall warning's lower limit of 60 Kts
and it sounded again, confusing them.

Page 44 of the final report:
" If the CAS measurements for
the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of
the
three ADR are
invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative."

My real point is to remind Bill Black that he lives in a glass
house
and shouldn't throw stones at Boeing.
jsw


The real point is that the aircraft clearly

1) Indicated that it had reverted to direct law (manual input)
2) Sounded the stall warning
3) Showed that the aircraft was falling at a high angle of attack
and low speed

The pilot flying seems to have been fixated on keeping the
wings level and disregarded the angle of attack which at
2 minutes 12 seconds was 40 degrees ! During the entire
crisis it was never less than 35 degrees.

Keith


"When the calculation of the Vsw speed is not available, this speed is
no longer
displayed on the PFDs. No visual information is then displayed that is
specific to the
approach to stall."

"The angle of attack is the parameter that allows the stall warning to
be triggered. Its
value is not directly displayed to the pilots."

They knew their small nose-up angle, but not the large relative wind
direction component of AoA.

Speculation based on similar non-fatal incidents:
"The reappearance of the flight directors on the PFD when two
airspeeds are calculated
as similar may prompt the crew to promptly engage an autopilot.
However, although
the magnitude of these speeds may be the same, they may be erroneous
and low,
and could cause the autopilot to command flight control surface
movements that are
incompatible with the aircraft's actual speed.

They dance around the possibility that the Flight Director crossbars
on the Primary Flight Display might have misled the crew. The PFD is
on page 39. The reconstructon of information available to the crew
begins on p.93.
jsw


  #203  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Jim Wilkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"The angle of attack is the parameter that allows the stall warning
to be triggered. Its
value is not directly displayed to the pilots."

They knew their small nose-up angle, but not the large relative wind
direction component of AoA.

jsw


If that's unclear, they were pitched up 5 degrees and descending at 35
degrees for a combined AoA of 40 degrees.
jsw


  #204  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:43 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 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:55:46 -0400, Mr. B1ack
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
| out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
| (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
| Board spokesman said.
|
| Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
| Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
| within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
| said today in response to questions about the issue.
| ...
| Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
| the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
| flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
| indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
| battery failure.
|
| A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
| inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
| battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
| temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
| preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery

--bks


Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

Yes, the 787 is a failure.

Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
NEVER fly on one - ever.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

How about driving in a ford?
  #205  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:50 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 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:22:49 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Daryl" wrote in message
...
...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl


Then you haven't looked very hard.

http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewt...60ab1 12d039d
"Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "


VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as some
cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.

  #206  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:52 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 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:05:23 -0600, Daryl
wrote:

On 3/22/2013 6:09 AM, Keith W wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 3/22/2013 3:23 AM, Keith W wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?

Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
(9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
Board spokesman said.

Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
said today in response to questions about the issue.
...
Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
battery failure.

A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery

--bks

Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

Yes, the 787 is a failure.

Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
NEVER fly on one - ever.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....


The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries.

Modern passenger aircraft normally use Nickel Cadmium batteries

Which are prone to a lot of problems. And it's old tech. Now for the
real negatives. If you overcharge them, they overheat. If you let
them go down below 20% they will need to be taken out and charged
very, very slowly with a special charger. They are very susceptible
to temperature ranges. They are the heaviest of the Non Lead Acid
batteries, their life span is almost equal to the sealed lead acid if
you don't count the fact they damage easy. The cost is more than the
AGM.
The AGM is just now finding it's way into the aircraft industry. Of
course, it has been somewhat over looked because of the Lithiums. But
it appears that small aircraft that are worried about initial building
costs are not overlooking them.

What they are looking at is the replacement hours on the Lithiums. They
start out at 800 charges and go to 2000 charges depending on the
type of Lithium. The weights in comparison to the AGM is anywhere 3
times to 5 times lighter. But the cost is at least 5 times the cost.



Less time between
replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying,
it's a pretty simple fix.


Not necessarily as that may need recertification which is a complex
and lengthy since the batteries would be heavier and take up more
space.

They are going to have to be re certified anyway. The AGM isn't that
much larger and it's pretty well proven in the Electric Vehicles to
day.


Most electrical vehicles do not use AGM's, their energy density is
too low as is their charge rate

examples
Toyota Prius - NiMH batteries
Nissan Leaf - Lithium ion batteries
Chevvy Volt - Lithium ion batteries
Tesla - Lithium ion batteries
Fisker - Lithium ion batteries
VW Electric - Lithium ion batteries
Renault - Lithium ion batteries


Battery energy density MJ per kilogram

Lithium-ion battery 0.720
Alkaline battery 0.671
Nickel-metal 0.28
Lead-acid battery 0.17


The reason the AGM isn't used in larger applications is that it cannot
be recharged as it is being discharged. You left out a slew that use
Deep Cells.



IT does the job if you keep it over 50% just like clockwork and
can last at least 2 to 5 years without going below 50% charge if you
keep them above freezing and below 100 degrees (the same as the
Lithiums). I use AGMs on a daily basis and my battery provider says
I am the hardest on batteries he's ever seen. I am getting ready to
do another build that uses the heavier Deep Cell which is designed to
put up with my punishement. But the AGMs are more rugged than the
Lithiums that I also use.

Nacads also work but for about one run into town before they overheat.
Ever seen a Nacad blow up? IT's pretty anticlimatic. They burst and
make a mess out of everything around it. And it's caustic. Same goes
for a Lithium except they will go into flame and feed the flame until
all the liquid is used up. I have never had a case break open on an
AGM. I've crashed em, dump em, drop em, used them for Rocky Mountain
Offroad, and more.

I can see that the Deep Cell Sealed Lead Acid should be as tough and
have a longer run time but they are twice as heavy.


Which is something of a problem for aircraft


Just leave out that 1 six pack of Tomato Juice to make up the
difference. It's not a real problem where an extra 10 pounds is really
going to make a difference for something the size of the 787. An added
10 pounds for safety sake is very important.


But it is a LOT more than 10 lbs!!!!!


The lifespan of
the Deep Cell the way I use batteries should be as high as the
Lithium and cost less. But the weight means only my 3 wheelers will
use them. They just don't make 10 to 15 amp deep cells. But they do
make a very solid 35 amp at twice the weight and size of a 12 amp AGM.

I am just not sold on Lithiums and I am certainly not sold on Nicads.
The Airline Aircraft Industry can use the AGMS and have less problems,
almost the same run time as the lower Lithium Mag batteries and save a
bunch of money.


Airbus use NiCads ,the Boeing 737, 747 (pre-800) and 777 use NiCads , they
disagree
with you.


Nicads are old technology. The AGM batter is much newer. When they
were designing the 737, 747 and 777 the AGMs weren't available. Single
Airplanes use the AGMs and that is more critical for weight and safety
than the big birds are.

I use all these batteries in transporation every day. I am a dealer in
the AGMs and the Lithiums as well as the motors and kits. I can also
get you a good deal in Deep Cells but the shipping would be a killer. I
used to handle Nicads but their output amps were just too low for any of
the transport applications. They would get hot and burn out the
controller after only a few miles of operation.

I'll say it again, after a decade of actually using these batteries,
using nicads is too problematic to depend on for safety. And the LiCo
battery they used has yet to have an application in transportation
because it's just too prone to problems as well. Unlike the Nicad that
just gets hot or ruptures with no fire, the LiCo battery bursts into a
very nasty bonfire. The safest and most dependable battery for them is
still the AGM.

Daryl





  #207  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:54 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 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:07:19 -0600, Daryl
wrote:

On 3/22/2013 7:22 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Daryl" wrote in message
...
...I have never had a case break open on an AGM. Daryl


Then you haven't looked very hard.

http://nissandiesel.dyndns.org/viewt...60ab1 12d039d
"Problem: APC UPSs sometimes have a float charge voltage that is too
high and tends to cook batteries. Here's a pair of gel/AGM batteries
from a SUA1000 (not an XL) that have swollen so badly that I had to
disassemble the case and pry the batteries out of the metal cage: "


And you haven't seen a burst case either. Bulging, deformed, etc. case
but the juice is contained in the case.

DAryl


I've had them split from top to bottom on both ends - but they are a
"dry" battery. All of the liquid is absorbed in the mat - and by the
time they split they are generally baked dry anyway.
  #208  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:56 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 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:39:07 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mr. B1ack" wrote in message
...

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
inform the pilots that it had stalled.


Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.

Keith


Because they believed the air speed indicator that was lying through
it's teeth.

  #209  
Old March 22nd 13, 09:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Jim Wilkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

wrote in message
...

VERY common problem on "A Piece of Crap" UPS systems (as well as
some
cheaper ones) but when they split they don't leak.

The acid in an AGM battery is Absorbed in the Glass Mat.
jsw


  #210  
Old March 22nd 13, 10:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Jim Wilkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

"GunnerAsch" wrote in message
...

D batteries are what they use in some of the electric vehicles as I
recall. Some 300 of them

Or was it 3000?

Gunner



http://www.insightcentral.net/encycl...enbattery.html



 




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 02:34 AM.


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