Posted on 01/27/2013 3:47:53 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Nobody is allowed to fly them. But Boeing can't stop churning them out.
A federal probe into electrical fires has grounded all 50 Boeing 787 Dreamliners around the world. But Boeing has little choice but to keep its assembly lines in South Carolina and Washington State running at their normal pace, building five jets a month. A significant slowdown in production, let alone a full shutdown, would be too costly for both Boeing and its suppliers who are counting on making parts for the aircraft.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
It is such a stupid headline. Like saying that Boeing should stop building them because some seats don't work properly.
A battery is a minor item, morons. Keeping the battery from overheating is not rocket science. Even including double redundant monitors and safeties.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I don’t think the Japanese really give a rip where the structure is built. They were the first to ground their fleet.
I toured the 747 facility in Everett in 1974 — it was spectacular then, too. I remember the videos of the stress tests on the wings and the take-off tests with too much rotation causing the tail to drag for a long ways down the runway (they had affixed lumber to the bottom of the rear cone for the test).
Its nice when people use acronyms properly by introducing it first
Auxiliary Power Unit. It’s a turbine generator set usually located in the tail of the aircraft. (Look for the exhaust duct the next time you’re at an airport.) On the 787 the APU produces electricity only, but they also produce pneumatic and sometimes hydraulic power on other aircraft.
Thanks!
It was a prototype of the battery charging system...
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020199686_787batterysafetyxml.html
Same type of charger and same type of battery.
From your link, chargers not on the 787:
“and none are installed in Boeing 787 aircraft”
From here, not the same battery, chargers not on the 787:
“Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said the 2006 fire resulted from “an improper test set up, not the design of the battery.” FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency “investigated Mr. Leon’s complaints in 2008 and 2009. The investigation determined that the battery charging units in the complaints were prototypes, and none are installed in Boeing 787 aircraft. “
“Boeing’s Birtel said the batteries referenced in the correspondence between Securaplane and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are not “the specific battery type currently under NTSB investigation or subject of the FAA emergency airworthiness directive.””
There was a fire on a UPS stretch 8 (DC8). They made it down safely but the entire top off the cargo compartment burned off. A total write off. They found that it was a Li battery fire in a bunch of laptops.
Google UPS DC 8 fire, 2006, flight 1307.
I looked up the incident (it was July 06), and apparently the Li batts were under no load, and were not charging.
One suspects that the altitude change might have caused a leakage which led to an exotherm chem rxn, and thermal runaway.
And, if this is the case, then the Li batts on the (gorgeous) 787 might malfunction as a result of altitude, whether-or-not the charging would contribute to the issue.
I would hope that they look into NiCd as soon as possible, and consider the Li batt fires to be (relatively) cheap lessons.
.
How many laptops are there on the average jumbo flight? 50? 60? and how many of them have caught fire? Probably none is my guess.
There is something different happening than just the presence of the battery.
Those pilots deserved a medal for bringing that bird in.
On the older aircraft the battery is used for emergency power to run some systems in the event of total AC failure. You could still fly as long as you had hydraulics and engines. Battery power is used for navigation and opening valves etc.
On newer aircraft the battery is more critical because they use fly by wire which is run off electrical power. The newer batteries have to run longer and provide more power than the older (usually lead acid) batteries.
The C5 had two NiCads the size of a loaf of bread.
Are you talking about passenger laptops? If so the electrical power system are designed to only accommodate so many laptops. They use a load shedding scheme in the event of an emergency. If a laptop was to short circuit while hooked up to the aircraft system the system will dump all of them.
I think the problem is transporting batteries.
Not really, maybe next year the battery factory will produce batteries that produce currents rather than fires. But until then, crank out those airplanes that don’t fly until they get non-flamable batteries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.