FAA Orders Review Of Boeing 787 Dreamliner

So the batteries are not being charged at to high a voltage. Does that mean the charge rates are to fast?

Lithium-ion recharging can be tricky. Also the use of these types of batteries in applications such as airplanes is not old hat. Lithium-ion batteries have known safety issues.

http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/sum/sum12/sum12_p035.pdf

 

This piece suggests Boeing might have made the wrong choice among types of Li-on batteries:
http://news.investors.com/business/...y-design-in-787-dreamliner.htm?ven=OutBrainCP

 

Even laptop batteries aren't all that safe outside a laptop. There are special regulations regarding carrying them as air cargo. I always put my spares in used anti-static bags (tons @ work) to prevent the contacts from being shorted when I was flying.

 

There is some discussion of not allowing lithum type batteries on airplanes at all. Wouldn't make a mess of things.

Edit to add..........as cargo............

 

I don't know if by "modern" you mean highly outsourced, just-in-time, production. In this case not only the production but the design was outsourced to suppliers. (After FAA had outsourced the oversight over design to Boeing).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...is-outsourcing-to-blame-for-boeings-787-woes/

In this model, the suppliers have no incentive to report problems to Boeing.

 

The 787 could be the undoing of Boing. The next few weeks are critical for the airplane.

 

I look at it as a replay of the B-707 vs. the DC-8. With the A-350 in the wings, Boeing could come out of this one with the DC-8 this time.

If the 707 had flopped, it would not have been nearly as conspicuous, since to help keep it under wraps it was billed as 367-80, an upgrade of the propliner based on the B-29.

 

Part of Boing's problem this time around is compensating airlines for lost use of their shinny new jets. Not to mention how far behind the program has slipped.

 

Great little piece by a management guru on the results of pseudo-Toyota style outsourcing, poor contracts, poor oversight:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing/

 

Not a lot of detail but the news seems bleak for a quick return of the Dreamliner to the air.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/01/22/boeings-787-crisis-important-new-links/
Boeing's 787 Crisis: No End in Sight

 

Good story about the batteries in the Seattle Times, with lots of comments from engineers:
787 battery blew up in ’06 lab test, burned down building

 

Link disabled.

 

Link fixed. She actually had it right -- twice, apparently did a double-bounce on the paste operation.

 

It seems pilots don't appreciate Boeing's approach of containing it and let it burn itself out in mid-air:

​

“If I’ve got an unexplained source of smoke or smell and messages indicating an overheat or a fire has been detected, frankly, I’m not going to pull out the book,” said veteran airline captain and aviation expert John Nance. “I’m just going to get the ship on the ground.”​

 

No fire suppression in the apu compartment. Idiot engineers or accountants?

 

Which Ford had the gas tank that exploded when rear-ended?

 

C'mon, RB, the system (when it works) IS supposed to vent the smoke to the exterior of the cabin.
As one of the comments in the ST story said regarding the batteries, "Couldn't they have found another way to save 100 lbs?"

 

Yeah, it doesn't seem to be working so well.

In my former life as a Navy Flight Crewman one of our biggest fears was an aircraft fire. Picture being out to sea a thousand plus miles over the far North Atlantic and the only chance of living would be to either ditch or bailout into water that without a good survival suit would render a person unable to function in just a few minutes. That is how we saw events in the case of fire. I had a Canadian Air Force pilot on exchange duty who told the crew if we ever reached the point of ditching in such conditions that he would split S the aircraft into the water. Possibly a human answer to a serious event.

The 787 will be used for both trans-atlantic and trans-pacific and a fire could be devastating. I can't see letting the airplane fly again until this problem is sorted out.

 

Fire suppression works by removing oxygen. The reaction that occurs when lithium ion batteries overheat generates LOTS of oxygen.

The Boeing engineering concept might be sound (contain the fire until it burns out), but they overlooked the human aspect of that -- no pilot wants to stay airborne while his plane is on fire!!!! And perhaps no pilot will want to fly a plane, part of which is designed to burn!!!! Pilots expect combustion in the turbines and nowhere else.

I'm betting that these batteries are going byebye.

 

Where is your pioneering spirit of adventure?
What do you think about this comment?: