787 problems

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by ConcordeSpeedbird on 16/01/2013 23:23:38:

It reminds me that when Concorde (somehow) was in operation because she heated up and cooled on every flight, the airframes stayed in superb condition and did not corrode. And at Mach 2 you got about 10 inches more leg room due to heat expansion!

I think you'll find it was the whole airframe which expanded 10" which is a lot less extra leg room between each row of seats (I certainly didn't notice any change in leg room when I flew on it.............)

Also concorde was pressurised to a lower altittude than other airliners of the time, probably possible as it's much smaller diameter would have allows a higher internal pressure.

[Tim Campling]

Pics are here of battery failure on American 787.

[Gordon Bushell]

Mmm, crunchy!

[Simon Chambers]

I bet that smells fantastic....

I wonder if all the crap on top is some sort of sand that is supposed to contain the fire?

I did think that Lithium batteries don't like been recharged cold (i.e. <0C) - I wonder if the unit had some sort of heater in it to keep the cells toasty at altitude? If so, I guess that could have failed.

Si.

[Tom Sharp]

The Dreamliner is fast becoming the BIN LINER of the aviation industry.

[Peter Miller]

Posted by Tom Sharp on 17/01/2013 18:43:33:

The Dreamliner is fast becoming the BIN LINER of the aviation industry.

Osama Binliner?

[001]

It is worrying that Boeing had not tested this equipment thoroughly enough before it was released!

Alright trying out a new flavour of crisps on the public, but this is going too far!!!!

[Concorde Speedbird]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 17/01/2013 09:43:55:

Posted by ConcordeSpeedbird on 16/01/2013 23:23:38:

It reminds me that when Concorde (somehow) was in operation because she heated up and cooled on every flight, the airframes stayed in superb condition and did not corrode. And at Mach 2 you got about 10 inches more leg room due to heat expansion!

I think you'll find it was the whole airframe which expanded 10" which is a lot less extra leg room between each row of seats (I certainly didn't notice any change in leg room when I flew on it.............)

Also concorde was pressurised to a lower altittude than other airliners of the time, probably possible as it's much smaller diameter would have allows a higher internal pressure.

Wow, you flew on her! Brilliant! You get approxiamately 0.4 inches leg room each!

ALL the 787s have been grounded. Airbus will be secretly smiling.

CS

[Pete B]

Posted by ConcordeSpeedbird on 17/01/2013 21:11:29:

Airbus will be secretly smiling.

I doubt it, CS - if it's true that the A350 will have even more Li-ion packs fitted, they'll probably be very concerned indeed - and looking closely at their systems!

Pete

[Concorde Speedbird]

But while the 787 is being grounded and all this is being heavily publicised getting a bad reputation for the aircraft, Airbus can sort it out before even flying their A350, which will look more desirable than a plane with a bad reputation.

CS

[Pete B]

Posted by ConcordeSpeedbird on 17/01/2013 21:40:24:

But while the 787 is being grounded and all this is being heavily publicised getting a bad reputation for the aircraft, Airbus can sort it out before even flying their A350, which will look more desirable than a plane with a bad reputation.

CS

Give it a chance, CS - most of the other Airbus variants have been through the mill, too, so it's odds-on the A350 will make the wrong sort of name for itself in its early days.........

Pete

[Plummet]

I am just wondering what on earth Boeing were thinking about.

Who in their right mind would put nasty dangerous Li-Ion batteries into anything that was intended to fly?

Plummet

[PatMc]

CS, I doubt that Airbus will be gloating. Both companies sub-contract & source a lot of their components from the same suppliers.

Edited By PatMc on 17/01/2013 21:54:34

[PatMc]

Posted by Plummet on 17/01/2013 21:52:36:

I am just wondering what on earth Boeing were thinking about.

Who in their right mind would put nasty dangerous Li-Ion batteries into anything that was intended to fly?

Plummet

The same people that fill the tanks up with flammable liquid.

[Concorde Speedbird]

Posted by Pete B on 17/01/2013 21:50:50:

Posted by ConcordeSpeedbird on 17/01/2013 21:40:24:

But while the 787 is being grounded and all this is being heavily publicised getting a bad reputation for the aircraft, Airbus can sort it out before even flying their A350, which will look more desirable than a plane with a bad reputation.

CS

Give it a chance, CS - most of the other Airbus variants have been through the mill, too, so it's odds-on the A350 will make the wrong sort of name for itself in its early days.........

Pete

I don't mind the plane, I like it (apart from the name) and it is a very nice aeroplane, but I generally prefer Airbus because I am interested in working for them (and I wish Boeing built that SST, that was one of the biggest losses for Concorde!).

I actually think that aircraft testing could be more rigorous. Take Concorde, most tested aircraft of all time and it was very reliable. There were some early problems like rudder losses, but they were not dangerous and soon fixed on the British airframes. Had the 787 been tested more then maybe these problems would have been identified earlier.

And I think it is no doubt that on the front pages of newspapers and websites reading '787s grounded' is not good for Boeing, and the A350 could capatilise on that.

My 2p anyway!

CS

[Peter Jenkins]

CS

It's great that you want to enter the aerospace industry and work for Airbus. Just remember that when Boeing catches a cold the general public don't realise the difference btw Boeing and Airbus and it's bad news for both. Remember also that when the Air France A 330 crashed into the South Atlantic there was a great deal made at the time of the side stick controller on the A330. This was because the other pilot could not see what the handling pilot was going with the stick. Boeing has stuck to the traditional control yoke so that it is immediately obvious what the handling pilot is doing to the second pilot. I do not carry a torch for Boeing by the way but I merely point out that it is unhelpful for people to crow at the expense of others when history tells us that what goes around comes around. By the way, the reason that Concorde was so extensively tested was that 2 governemnts were paying for the work not a single commercial company and they were pushing technology to the limits of the day. There has to be a limit in aerospace between making things so safe that they are too expensive to buy. Remember that there is no such thing as absolute safety - 1 crash in 750,000 is about what the commercial world operates to otherwise we would not have commercial aircraft because we wouldn't be able to afford to fly unless we were mega rich.

Just my 2 pennorth!

[Concorde Speedbird]

Thanks Peter, some good points. I still think it will help Airbus, because the airlines will want a reliable aircraft, and if the 787 gets a bad name and the A350 is successful then the sales could swing Airbus' way, but only time will tell. I think the 787 will still do well, so long as the orders still go ahead.

I do think aircraft testing could be more rigorous, so problems like the A380 wing cracks and engine faults and the 787 problems may have been identified, but I suppose money is the thing these days.

CS

[Frank Skilbeck]

Boeing are a big company with a good reputation they will sort this out and this will just be seen as a blip. Have people stopped buying Roll Royce engines because of the fuel pipe issues on the A380, did GE dance in the aisles?

Toyota had some big problems a couple of years ago, but I think they are still highly regarded.

Its a battery issue, we use this type of battery everyday, something is mistreating the battery or the production spec is slightly different to the earlier flight test ones, once they've identified it, it will get resolved.

By the way, you will understand when you start work for a commercial organisation that money is always quite an important thing, if you don't make it then you'd better call in the administrators

[Pete B]

Posted by ConcordeSpeedbird on 17/01/2013 23:07:36:

I do think aircraft testing could be more rigorous, so problems like the A380 wing cracks and engine faults and the 787 problems may have been identified, but I suppose money is the thing these days.

All prototypes undergo many thousands of hours of flight-testing before deliveries commence - I occasionally catch a glimpse of the A400M out of Toulouse trundling overhead (and no sign of deliveries anytime soon, AFAIK) - but like cars, RC Tx's, et al, machines aren't truly tested until the customers get hold of them......

Pete

[Simon Chaddock]

Due to the battery fire the US authorites have grounded ALL 787s today until further notice!

I guess Boeing will have to prove either that the fault was an exceptional event or engineer a solution.

A PR nightmare but unless the airlines take fright they still have 800 on order!

.

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Pete B on 17/01/2013 23:47:42:

CLIP............ but like cars, RC Tx's, et al, machines aren't truly tested until the customers get hold of them......

Pete

Quite, however, there are sometimes over eager cost limits applied! Engineers in Royal Mail used to say there was no such thing as "Postman Proof", so we had a few on the team to keep us grounded (no pun intended!!)

With regard Concorde and the airframe life, AFAIK it was not the heating and contracting that gave it long life, but that most of the miles it was flying it was up above the sort of weather that did the damage.

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

There is no mercy in today's airline industry....I can imagine,The Airbus now produces... GROANS..

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 18/01/2013 08:37:19

[Peter Miller]

Does anyone remember that the Boeing 707 had a habit of losing engines and I don't mean just the engine stopping.

In fact DeHavilland said that the Comet had its engines buried in the wing, The 707 had them buried in French Fields.

That was in 58/9.

[Martyn K]

I think that sub wing mounted engines had thermal fuses (on some aircraft) that used to allow the engine to detatch in the event of a fire (so the tank didn't catch fire). I remember a fire at the BOAC engineering base at LHR in about 1974 where the engine caught fire and fell off. Unfortunately, it only fell about 6 feet and it didn't save the aeroplane. I can't remember what type it was though.

I guess the reasoning behind it is that an engine falling from the sky would probably cause less damage than an aircraft falling out of the sky. Either way, it is quite a frightenting thought.

Martyn

[JohnnyB]

As I understand it, the Airbus A380 actually uses Lithium Ion batteries too. To date, I have not read any reports of any problems relating to their use on this aircraft.

What I don't understand, regarding the A380, is why the so called 'wing cracks' where not detected much, much earlier on the static airframe testing phase. Surely, this is the WHOLE point of having a static airframe testing programme - to detect any problems with the structure, particularly fatique in the wings and fuselage. I seem to remember, it was first noticed by a Qantas engineer during a specific wing inspection.

I would have thought though, all joking apart, that all these so called 'teething troubles' with the Boeing 787 would have been sorted during the extensive flight test programme. However, if you look back through the build it has had one big problem after another right from the very start with the fastener fiasco. You would have thought, for instance, that using a new battery source such as Lithium Ion, they would have created a special setup (mock up) of the complete system to test the system fully - especially the loadings etc - over and over through various cycles of operations.

Maybe there is alot of commercial pressure going on here, as the aircraft is running so late, BUT safety should not, under any circumstances, be compromised.

John.