Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Kingfish, thanks for your post. I think you really nailed it.
And Chalo, don't you think that if one of those concept planes were drastically better than the current airliner design, Airbus or another competitor would have designed a fancy looking plane and beat Boeing at their game?
 
fizzit said:
And Chalo, don't you think that if one of those concept planes were drastically better than the current airliner design, Airbus or another competitor would have designed a fancy looking plane and beat Boeing at their game?

No, because all the other outfits with enough resources to make it happen are also corrupted corporations, just like Boeing.

The ancestor of the 787 was a fancy-looking plane that beat the rest of the world at its game. It was a product of impressive innovation and a large financial risk. Evidently we can't afford impressive innovation anymore, because instead we have to fund the highest-paid executives in history. And those guys want things to work just exactly like they work right now, because that's what works for them.

Call it coincidence if you like, but the year the Boeing 367-80 flew and defined what an airliner has been ever since, the top marginal tax rate in the USA was 91%. So there was plenty of incentive to build robust productive assets rather than greedy people's personal fortunes. There was more focus on advancing the game than on winning all the marbles.
 
A couple of points about innovative designs vs status quo, if one is designing a new commercial airliner:

--it has to fit within existing airport structures and paths and runways.
--it has to be able to use existing "docking", terminal, and ramp structures, which are usually shaped to allow the present design--something with for instance a full delta-shape might not fit at airports' present terminals. Even the Concorde was (AFAICR) a compromise partly to allow it's use at such terminals (but I am not certain as it's been a long time since I read up on that).

If it is a radically different design, and can't use all the existing airport structures, then it doesn't have a place to go to, or from, until someone invests an awful lot of money to build new structures just for it (which might not be usable by existing planes), or to modify existing structures to work with both types.

Then, if someone else comes up with a new radically different design that can't use either of those types of structures, then it runs into the same problems.

Without actually knowing about the decision end of the industry, I have a feeling that those are some of the primary reasons aircraft manufacturers stick with the basic tube-with-wings design--it can be made so that it's doors line up with existing terminal capabilities, and fit within the dockng spaces available, and fit on existing runways, etc.


Personally, I would love to see some very different designs out there in the sky, but I don't find it likely to happen anytime soon. I still think dirigibles are a good idea, too, but there arent' very many of htem around, and not likely to be until it becomes impossible or unaffordable to use present airliner technology, if even then.
 
amberwolf said:
A couple of points about innovative designs vs status quo, if one is designing a new commercial airliner:

--it has to fit within existing airport structures and paths and runways.
--it has to be able to use existing "docking", terminal, and ramp structures, which are usually shaped to allow the present design--something with for instance a full delta-shape might not fit at airports' present terminals. .

the A 380 was too big and heavy for many major airports, but that didnt stop its manufacture.
Many of those airports had to extend and re enforce runways and modify terminal facilities to accommodate the 380.

and..Yes , bring back the airship !!
 
Hillhater said:
and..Yes , bring back the airship !!

Yes, yes, yes. That's a place where advances in materials tech could really deliver. I bet a new kind of airship built with materials that weren't available in the 1930s could be as effective with helium as the old dirigibles were with hydrogen. And our better understanding of lifting bodies and monocoque construction could yield a slightly-heavier-than-air craft that would operate at higher speeds with less noise than the Zeppelins of yore.

Dreamliner and Kingfish's dreams of a glorious future in Washington State notwithstanding, there is no way to make 550-600mph travel remotely energy efficient. You don't have to travel very far by airplane to have consumed your weight, and your luggage's weight, in jet fuel. Plastic airplanes and high bypass turbofans can only do so much. No matter the details, you are hurtling a very large, very heavy object very quickly through the air, and that takes a lot of energy. For example, the "revolutionary", "50% more efficient", "Prius of the skies" 787 Dreamliner is claimed to get about 100 mpg per seat. Which sounds great, until you realize that the Chevy Suburban gets 144 mpg per seat.

Turn down the airspeed by a factor of five to ten, and the energy requirement becomes more reasonable. Traveling also becomes more gracious, more comfortable, and much quieter on an airship. I'd go by airship if I could, even if it were as slow as a bus. But it need not be that slow.

Developing airships would require old-fashioned visionaries rather than today's corporate vampires, though.
 
Hillhater said:
and..Yes , bring back the airship !!


They already are back: http://www.zeppelinflug.de/technik-356.html

Zeppelin LZ N07 – an airship with new technology
Maiden flight: September 18, 1997
Engines: Lycoming IO-360 with 147 kW/197 hp each
Length: 75 m (246 ft)
Max. width: 19.5 m (64 ft)
Height: 17.4 m (57 ft)
Envelope volume: 8,425 m³ (297,526 cu ft)
Max. take-off weight: 8,040 kg (17,725 lbs)
Payload: 1.900 kg (4,188 lbs)
Max. speed: 125 km/h (78 mph)
Max. flight altitude: 2,600 m (8,530 ft)
Max. endurance: ca. 24h
Range: 900 km (486 NM)

The very stable primary structure is a lightweight with a weight of approx. 1,000 kg (approx. 2,200 lbs). It consists of carbon-fibre trusses in a triangular arrangement and three aluminum longerons that are tightly wound by aramid ropes. All main components, such as the gondola, tail unit and the propulsions, are mounted on this rigid structure. Thus, even in case of pressure loss, an optimal maneuverability is guaranteed.
Non-flammable helium provides the required lift within the envelope that is made of high-strength multilayer laminate. The envelope has a slight superpressure of 5 mbar. Air bags inside the envelope, the so-called ballonets, keep the internal pressure constant in each flight situation and ensure highest safety.

My Civic hybrid has a greater top speed and range though. Not nearly as fun for sure.
 
Wow, we’re all over the map on this thread; let’s forget about the OP. If you’re worried about fuel economy, just stuff it and take up walking – that’s the most energy efficient. Not much to worry about with aerodynamics there.

Chalo, you can have the remote control back; I’m off to fetch a bag of Cheetos. Shall I grab you a beer at the same time? I think there’s a game on Channel-5.

<yawn> KF
 
Kingfish said:
If you’re worried about fuel economy, just stuff it and take up walking – that’s the most energy efficient.

..Well.... not really...
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/
Activity .....................MPG food .. MPG gas/lard ... kWh/100-mi
Biking, incidental............290 ...........1300 .............. 2.8
Biking, long-haul ............160 ............720 ...............5.1
Walking, incidental...........75.............340................10.4
Walking, long-haul ...........40.............180.................20

Another consideration to bear in mind: in most cases, cycling and walking involve a single “passenger.” A Prius loaded with four people effectively gets 200 MPG per passenger (18 kWh/100-mi per passenger), so make sure to account for this when making comparisons.

EDIT:-- I should have commented that an Ebike beats all of those figures also at <2kWhrs /100km.
 
Chalo said:
Hillhater said:
and..Yes , bring back the airship !!

Yes, yes, yes. That's a place where advances in materials tech could really deliver. I bet a new kind of airship built with materials that weren't available in the 1930s could be as effective with helium as the old dirigibles were with hydrogen. And our better understanding of lifting bodies and monocoque construction could yield a slightly-heavier-than-air craft that would operate at higher speeds with less noise than the Zeppelins of yore.



Developing airships would require old-fashioned visionaries rather than today's corporate vampires, though.


you've accurately described the legendary silent half-mile long floating black triangle series of airships.
like nick fury's S.H.I.E.L.D. hq (that's the ole-fashioned visionary part) the hovering aircraft carrier variant is allegedly just one of numerous delta planform craft born out of the (skunkworks?) aurora project.
 
FAA approves Boeing plan to fix 787's batteries

WASHINGTON -- A Boeing plan to redesign the 787 Dreamliner's fire-plagued lithium-ion batteries won approval Tuesday from the Federal Aviation Administration, although officials gave no estimate for when the planes would be allowed to fly passengers again.

The plan includes changes to the internal battery components to minimize the possibility of short-circuiting, which can lead to overheating and cause a fire. Among the changes are better insulation of the battery's eight cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system, the FAA said in a statement.

A series of tests, including flight tests, must be passed before the 787 can return to service. So far, flight tests of two 787s with prototypes of the new battery design have been approved, the agency said.

The plan is an outline for a recertification of the plane's batteries, the FAA said. The 787 has two identical lithium-ion batteries, one of which is located toward the front of the plane and powers cockpit electrical systems, the other toward the rear and used to start an auxiliary power unit while the plane is on the ground, among other functions.

Every item that is part of an airplane, down to its nuts and bolts, must be certified as safe before FAA approves that type of plane as safe for flight.

The 787 fleet worldwide has been grounded by the FAA and civil aviation authorities in other countries since Jan. 16, following a battery fire on a Dreamliner parked in Boston and a smoking battery that led to the emergency landing of other 787 in Japan.

"This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "We won't allow the plane to return to service unless we're satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers."

The cutting-edge airliner's troubles have raised concerns that the FAA has ceded too much responsibility for evaluating the safety of new aircraft to manufacturers. To save manpower, the FAA designates employees at aircraft makers and their subcontractors to oversee the safety testing of new planes. Boeing's battery testing concluded that short-circuiting wouldn't lead to a fire and that the chance of a smoke event was one in every 10 million flight hours.

Instead, there were two battery failures when the entire fleet had clocked less than 52,000 flight hours.

The FAA's approval of Boeing's battery plan "is a critical and welcome milestone toward getting the fleet flying again and continuing to deliver on the promise of the 787," Jim McNerney, the aircraft maker's CEO, said in a statement.

The 787 is Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced plane. Its grounding on Jan. 16, an enormous black eye for Boeing, marked the first time since 1979 that FAA had ordered every plane of a particular type to stay out of the air for safety reasons.

UBS analyst David Strauss estimated that the 787 will cost Boeing $6 billion this year. Besides the battery problems, the plane already costs more to build than it brings in from customers.

United Airlines is the only U.S. carrier with Dreamliners in its fleet. It has six, plus another 44 on order. American and Delta have also ordered 787s. Including United, 50 of the planes had been delivered to eight airlines in seven countries at the time of the grounding orders. Boeing has orders for more than 800 of the planes.

Steven Udvar-Hazy, CEO of Air Lease Corp., which has ordered 12 of the planes, said it could still take months for the plane to fly again and that a very long-term grounding could damage the 787 Dreamliner brand.

"It's important to get the airplane back in the air," Udvar-Hazy said while attending an airplane finance conference in Orlando, Fla. "Every plane has mechanical issues, but this was one that was considered serious by the authorities and I think Boeing has done everything it can to get that under control."

Udvar-Hazy has had weekly updates from Boeing's CEO of commercial airplanes, Ray Conner, and daily conversations with others at the airplane manufacturer. He has then relayed that information to his airline customers around the world.

"Boeing has been very transparent and I think they've made a very concerted effort to address this issue ... to come up with a fix that hopefully is a permanent fix, not just sort of a Band-Aid solution," he said.

Boeing didn't predict how long it would take to get the planes hauling passengers again.

"Obviously we're all working towards getting the fleet flying again in the most expeditious manner possible, but we're certainly not going to shortcut the tests and certification process," Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said.

Boeing plans to begin test flights within days, Birtel said. The new battery design will be tested on a plane that has been identified elsewhere as being built for LOT Polish Airlines. Boeing also plans to fly a 787 that is used exclusively for testing. That plane has the stronger battery box, and will also be used for unrelated engine tests.

Before the fire on Jan. 7, Boeing shares had closed at $77.69. They closed as low as $73.65 three weeks later, after the planes had been grounded. But the shares have been recovering as anticipation grew for a battery fix. Boeing's gains have outpaced the strong rise in the Dow Jones industrial average, of which Boeing Co. is a member.

On Tuesday, Boeing shares rose $1.22 to close at $84.16, and rose another 28 cents to $84.44 in aftermarket trading.

~KF
 
The 787 has two identical lithium-ion batteries, one of which is located toward the front of the plane and powers cockpit electrical systems, the other toward the rear and used to start an auxiliary power unit while the plane is on the ground, among other functions.

i do wonder what additional info you gain by actually testing these packs in flight as opposed to ground testing ?

I also wonder if the FAA have reviewed their own certification procedures, since it was they who approved the original pack system that failed so quickly.
 
Hillhater said:
The 787 has two identical lithium-ion batteries, one of which is located toward the front of the plane and powers cockpit electrical systems, the other toward the rear and used to start an auxiliary power unit while the plane is on the ground, among other functions.

i do wonder what additional info you gain by actually testing these packs in flight as opposed to ground testing ?

I also wonder if the FAA have reviewed their own certification procedures, since it was they who approved the original pack system that failed so quickly.

The very premise of Chaos Theory is the things we just don't understand. You put it to use exactly as it's intended to be used and discover there's additional pressures you had not anticipated. You might not be able to discover all of those additional pressures. So you test with a process that creates a similar problem as you're facing, but that's not 100% guaranteed. So you put the solution back in the field and you watch it work. Not so much looking for specific data as just watching for new anomalies. Oops, our solution created a whole new problem. . . .
 
Boeing sees 787 airborne in weeks with fortified battery

Reuters said:
Boeing Co said its 787 Dreamliner jets could be airborne within weeks with a fortified power pack that would eliminate the risk of fire, confident the U.S. aviation authority would approve the redesigned battery soon.

Regulators grounded all 50 of the carbon-composite Dreamliners in use by airlines worldwide in January after a battery caught fire on a Japan Airlines Co Ltd 787 jet at Boston's Logan airport and a battery melted on an All Nippon Airways Co Ltd flight in Japan.

Boeing, which has Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval to test its new battery for certification, said Friday it will encase the redesigned power pack in a steel box, pack it with added insulation, heat-resistant material and spacers, drill drain holes to remove moisture, and vent any gases from overheating directly to the atmosphere outside the aircraft.

"If we look at the normal process and the way in which we work with the FAA, and we look at the testing that's ahead of us, it is reasonable to expect we could be back up and going in weeks, not months," the 787's chief engineer, Mike Sinnett, said at a briefing in Tokyo.

But the Civil Aviation Bureau (CAB), FAA's counterpart in Japan, dismissed Sinnett's prediction, saying it was still too early to say when 787 operations could resume.

Investigations by Japanese and U.S. transport regulators are still ongoing.

The investigators may never uncover the root cause of those failures, Sinnett said.

"Because we did not find the single root cause, we looked at everything that could impact a battery and set a broad set of solutions," Sinnett said.

The fortified power pack can withstand 80 possible malfunctions covering all the potential failure scenarios that Boeing engineers could envisage, he said.

Boeing is now about a third of a way through the certification process of the new battery, Sinnett said.

The aircraft maker will also bolster quality control at battery component makers GS Yuasa and Thales Sa and install a new charger that would be keep voltage within a tighter range to guard against possible overheating.

"I would gladly have my family, my wife and my children, fly on this airplane," Sinnett said.

'INAPPROPRIATE'

Shigeru Takano, the air transport safety director at the CAB, which will assess and approve Boeing's proposed fix, said Sinnett's comment on the battery probe was "inappropriate."

Investigators were still diligently analyzing data from the JAL and ANA power packs, Takano said.

"At this time we are not yet in a position to say when flights will restart," Takano said.

A transport ministry source, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to talk to the media, later told Reuters that it was possible the 787 will fly again in "several weeks."

But the source cautioned that regulators will take as much time as they need to assess the battery fix.

Boeing still faces a rigorous testing regimen for its new battery and faces U.S. public hearings in April on the safety of its lithium-ion batteries.

Once regulators allow Boeing's 787 to fly with a modified battery, work to install the new power packs and add a specialized vent will take about a week per plane, Boeing vice president in charge of 787 services, Mike Fleming, said after the briefing in Tokyo.

The work will be undertaken on-site, rather than at Boeing's assembly plants in the United States. The aircraft maker does not have the capacity to work on all 50 Dreamliners at the same time and will fix them in the order they were delivered, Fleming said.

That would put launch customer, Japan's ANA, at the head of the queue.

"We are hoping that considerations of Boeing's improvement plan will move along quickly," said a spokesman for ANA, which owns 17 Dreamliners, accounting for about a tenth of its fleet.

Japan is Boeing's biggest customer for the fuel-efficient aircraft, which has a list price of $207 million. JAL and ANA combined account for almost half the global Dreamliner fleet. Japanese firms also build 35 of the aircraft.

Japan's presence in the Dreamliner project as both customer and partner prompted Boeing to pick Tokyo to reveal details of its battery fix, said Ray Conner, the chief executive of Boeing's commercial aircraft unit.

Shares in JAL and ANA have risen 20 percent and 16 percent, respectively, in Tokyo trading since January 7 - the day of the JAL battery fire in Boston.

Investors expect little impact on operations as the carriers use other aircraft to limit cancellations, with Boeing also likely seen compensating the carriers for losses.

The stock gain was in line with an 18 percent rise in the broader market. Boeing's stock has advanced 11 percent.

~KF
 
I like how they say
Boeing Co said its 787 Dreamliner jets could be airborne within weeks with a fortified power pack that would eliminate the risk of fire, confident the U.S. aviation authority would approve the redesigned battery soon.

I think the batteries could still burn inside that fortified box, so you can't say it eliminates the risk of fire.
It might mitigate some of the effects of a fire but certainly not all of them (like you could lose power).

It sounds like they still don't have a clue...
It's got to be that French BMS...

Seriously, if the BMS was properly designed and implemented, it is supposed to prevent any conditions that would cause catastrophic cell failure. How hard is it to put a temperature sensor on every cell.
 
I focused on this quote:
The aircraft maker will also bolster quality control at battery component makers GS Yuasa and Thales Sa and install a new charger that would be keep voltage within a tighter range to guard against possible overheating.

To me the first part is "fluff"... the real issue is addressed in the bold section. The fortified box and vent are 2nd order hazard controls in my estimation.
The investigators may never uncover the root cause of those failures, Sinnett said.

So much politics in everything these days... You guys were all over the apparent, possible and probable "root causes" right off the bat. Now the face saving... can't identify the root cause...

Seems just like when the Shell oil derrick drilled a 14 inch hole into the salt mine in 1980 under Lake Peigneur and drained the lake. IIRC 14 or 17 barges and one tugboat got sucked down that drill hole after the drilling derrick went down hole with a giant sucking sound as the water filled the salt cavern. End result of the investigation? We couldn't determine the cause... yea, right.
 
Yup scary! [youtube]ddlrGkeOzsI[/youtube]
 
Oh man, is this a whopper! ... :mrgreen: or :pancake:

Larsen Speculates LENRs Are Triggers for Lithium-Ion Battery Fires
Lewis Larsen, co-developer of the Widom-Larsen low-energy nuclear reaction theory has released another document on the potential relationship between LENRs and the recent lithium-ion battery fires. (See New Energy Times article “Are Nuclear Reactions Causing Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fires?”

Larson's slides are here:

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglar...nd-lenrs-in-lithiumbased-batteriesjan-23-2013

Won't let me just copy and paste... interesting read...
Interestingly... evanescent flickering superconductivity may occur in micron scale patches just before they go LENR active and make neutrons....
 
bigmoose said:
Oh man, is this a whopper! ... :mrgreen: or :pancake:

Larsen Speculates LENRs Are Triggers for Lithium-Ion Battery Fires
Lewis Larsen, co-developer of the Widom-Larsen low-energy nuclear reaction theory has released another document on the potential relationship between LENRs and the recent lithium-ion battery fires. (See New Energy Times article “Are Nuclear Reactions Causing Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fires?”

Larson's slides are here:

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglar...nd-lenrs-in-lithiumbased-batteriesjan-23-2013

Won't let me just copy and paste... interesting read...
Interestingly... evanescent flickering superconductivity may occur in micron scale patches just before they go LENR active and make neutrons....
When something wont let me copy and paste I screan shot its ass ;)
 
bigmoose said:
Oh man, is this a whopper! ... :mrgreen: or :pancake:

Larsen Speculates LENRs Are Triggers for Lithium-Ion Battery Fires
Lewis Larsen, co-developer of the Widom-Larsen low-energy nuclear reaction theory has released another document on the potential relationship between LENRs and the recent lithium-ion battery fires. (See New Energy Times article “Are Nuclear Reactions Causing Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fires?”

Or maybe it's the work of space aliens trying to deny us alien-quality technology!

Actually I think it's Lewis Larsen smoking bath salts that's causing the battery fires.
 
Chalo said:
bigmoose said:
Oh man, is this a whopper! ... :mrgreen: or :pancake:

Larsen Speculates LENRs Are Triggers for Lithium-Ion Battery Fires
Lewis Larsen, co-developer of the Widom-Larsen low-energy nuclear reaction theory has released another document on the potential relationship between LENRs and the recent lithium-ion battery fires. (See New Energy Times article “Are Nuclear Reactions Causing Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fires?”

Or maybe it's the work of space aliens trying to deny us alien-quality technology!

Actually I think it's Lewis Larsen smoking bath salts that's causing the battery fires.

I think it's cosmic rays. (Just passin' through) :lol:
 
Congress silent on Boeing 787 woes

Yawn. Nothing new except this silly article out of Everett milking the story. It could have all been summed up by this quote:

The unusual bipartisan silence reflects Boeing's political clout, wielded by legions of lobbyists, fueled by hefty political campaign contributions and by the company's importance as a huge employer and the nation's single largest exporter. Few companies are as well positioned as Boeing to fend off a potentially damaging public investigation.

That's certainly one perspective. Frankly I think a lot of hands are stuck in the cookie jar.

"The whole focus now is to get this fixed," he said. "We are trying to let them solve the problem, and they are devoting enormous resources to doing that.”

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the senior Democrat on the transportation committee, said he and some other committee members are concerned a hearing might create "an unnecessary scare when there is no grounds for it," resulting in air travelers refusing to fly the planes.

"I think the parties that are part of this process would rather not see this in the public arena until they have done their proper investigations and found some answers," he said.

But another committee member, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said he's concerned about the growing presence of lithium ion batteries on planes, either as equipment or as cargo. They are more likely to short-circuit and start a fire than other batteries if they are damaged, defective or exposed to excessive heat.

"Is this a good idea for the future?" he asked. "Given the current technology, I think it's a bad idea.”

And I think we need better QC of batteries.
~KF
 
So little catastrophic testing reminds me of the challenger and columbia disasters where they do simulated catastrophic testing after the accidents instead of before just to save time and money.
With the latest remedies they could be building a bomb versus a fire hazard. We here know that lifePO4 is orders of magnitude safer and much more suitable for aircraft. The FAA with their ignorance with respect to battery chemistries hurts the entire EV industry here.
 
Back
Top