FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can do some WYSIWIG formatting of tables by wrapping the table text inside CODE tags (The # format button in the toolbar).
This will work best if you have formatted the table in a straight text editor and not a word processor and have used a monospace font such as Courier. Try to avoid using TABs if possible.
Code:
Type Energy density
(Wh/kg)
Lithium-air (organic)[7] 2000
Lithium sulfur[10] 400
Lithium-ion 200
Molten salt 180
Lithium-ion polymer 165
Sodium-sulfur 150
Silver-oxide 130
Lithium iron phosphate 100
Lithium–titanate 90
Alkaline 85
Zinc bromide 80
Nickel–hydrogen 75
Nickel–zinc 60
Nickel–metal hydride 55
Nickel–iron 50
Nickel–cadmium 50
Lead–acid 35
Vanadium redox 30
Sodium-ion[13] 0
Thin film lithium 0
Last edited by inetdog; 28th Feb 2013 at 08:18.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walnut
I believe this is one reason that the APU can be started by either battery or ground power. The APU can then start the engines, one at a time.
If there is no fuel on board for the APU, the main battery will power the fuel transfer system to allow fuel to be added and made available to the APU.
I also believe that since pressurization is provided by electrically powered compressors rather than air bleed, minimal cabin pressurization can be powered from the APU or even just the RAT.
I note that the a/c needs 2 GPUs to provide engine starting, I have been to numerous outstations where you are lucky to get even one doubtful unit.
If there is no fuel on board for the APU, the main battery will power the fuel transfer system to allow fuel to be added and made available to the APU.
... but again the pilot is faced with pressurisation problems...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAT has absoulutely nothing to do with pressurizing the aircraft. It simply does not have the capability to power the CACs and thus is limited to only the most essential items needed such as hydraulics and flight instruments.
Last edited by Spooky 2; 28th Feb 2013 at 10:35.
My greater concern is not that these batteries catch fire, but that they fail! On a fly-by-wire aircraft, that gives a whole new meaning to the term "dead stick". Yes, I know almost everything else has to fail before this matters. But consider Sully's celebrated ditching:
He lost both engines. His APU was not running. If his batteries had failed, and his aircraft had been a 787, he would have had no flight controls. At all.
He lost both engines. His APU was not running. If his batteries had failed, and his aircraft had been a 787, he would have had no flight controls. At all.
I note that the a/c needs 2 GPUs to provide engine starting, I have been to numerous outstations where you are lucky to get even one doubtful unit.
Boeing have said this a/c is a game changer, I agree, but it is very complex, and as such I can see lots of down line problems.
Boeing have said this a/c is a game changer, I agree, but it is very complex, and as such I can see lots of down line problems.
For optimum engine starting a third GPU is required-plugged in at the aft EE bay area.
As has been said, getting two 90Kva GPU supplies is hard enough, but three? FORGET IT!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 48
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have there been many (any?) total electrical power failures that haven't been caused by loss of the engines too? I can't think of any.
Not a total electric failure though. Three of four.
Close but no cigar.
Close but no cigar.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Turin
B777 is the only type I can think of with a pneumatic starter (in addition to electric).
Are there others? A380 perhaps?
A380 has no pneumatic starter. No other aircraft I know of has one.
Have there been many (any?) total electrical power failures that haven't been caused by loss of the engines too? I can't think of any.
Only major failure when all power was lost on B787 was in the Loerdo incident, when there was a total loss of power and the RAT deployed. As they were on approach at that time they continued in that condition. Details of that incident are sketchy. There was a major fire in the central Electronics bay, where all power panels are located. I don't think NTSB got involved as the aircraft was still in the test phase. The reason for the power loss and fire according to Boeing was FOD !!!
Then there was the United incident and diversion to New Orleans, where power loss from one Gen was not properly restored from the other good generators. When you have 6 Gens loss of one Gen should be a piece of cake. Again the details are sketchy.
The same problem occurred again on a new Qatar B787 after delivery flight. The details are once again limited. the out burst of it's Chairman against Boeing is well documented.
Boeing has mentioned that these problems are now sorted out.
During my time in aviation there were some incidents of total power loss on different aircraft, but did not result in any accident. In one instance the aircraft was B777 that was dispatched with one gen inoperative, and other side engine failed for an unconnected reason. But as the APU was already running, power was automatically restored.
One remarkable incident was on a A300-600, belonging to a charter airline, that was positioning to an MRO. It was dispatched with one Gen inoperative from far east and when over India the other Gen also failed. The flight continued all the way to France with just APU. It was a ferry with just 2 crew. Still it was remarkable that the crew had faith on the APU for 6-7 hours. When I met the crew after landing, both Mexican, I had to tell them that they were bravest crew I have ever met to have faith in the APU for 7 hours.
On airbus there is detector called Avionic smoke Detector, which can trigger a warning (Most instance false), the crew have to kill most of the power and land ASAP. This has happened several times, a recent one is on Air Canada 320 at Edmonton.
Incident: Air Canada A320 near Edmonton on Aug 18th 2012, avionics smoke indication
Are there others? A380 perhaps?
A380 has no pneumatic starter. No other aircraft I know of has one.
Have there been many (any?) total electrical power failures that haven't been caused by loss of the engines too? I can't think of any.
Only major failure when all power was lost on B787 was in the Loerdo incident, when there was a total loss of power and the RAT deployed. As they were on approach at that time they continued in that condition. Details of that incident are sketchy. There was a major fire in the central Electronics bay, where all power panels are located. I don't think NTSB got involved as the aircraft was still in the test phase. The reason for the power loss and fire according to Boeing was FOD !!!
Then there was the United incident and diversion to New Orleans, where power loss from one Gen was not properly restored from the other good generators. When you have 6 Gens loss of one Gen should be a piece of cake. Again the details are sketchy.
The same problem occurred again on a new Qatar B787 after delivery flight. The details are once again limited. the out burst of it's Chairman against Boeing is well documented.
Boeing has mentioned that these problems are now sorted out.
During my time in aviation there were some incidents of total power loss on different aircraft, but did not result in any accident. In one instance the aircraft was B777 that was dispatched with one gen inoperative, and other side engine failed for an unconnected reason. But as the APU was already running, power was automatically restored.
One remarkable incident was on a A300-600, belonging to a charter airline, that was positioning to an MRO. It was dispatched with one Gen inoperative from far east and when over India the other Gen also failed. The flight continued all the way to France with just APU. It was a ferry with just 2 crew. Still it was remarkable that the crew had faith on the APU for 6-7 hours. When I met the crew after landing, both Mexican, I had to tell them that they were bravest crew I have ever met to have faith in the APU for 7 hours.
On airbus there is detector called Avionic smoke Detector, which can trigger a warning (Most instance false), the crew have to kill most of the power and land ASAP. This has happened several times, a recent one is on Air Canada 320 at Edmonton.
Incident: Air Canada A320 near Edmonton on Aug 18th 2012, avionics smoke indication
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus knows when it potentially has a tool to beat its competitor over the head with. Not in an overt way mind you - there will be subtle reminders...
When Airbus redesigned the A350 seven years ago to create the all-new XWB, Leahy admits that he pushed the engineers to follow Boeing's lead on all-electric architecture. But he is pleased he was overruled. Airbus engineers went "back and forth" three times about whether to equip the XWB with electric brakes before deciding to stick with conventional hydraulic architecture. "I'm guilty as the commercial guy for pounding the table saying 'look [the 787's] all-electric - it's game-changing'," Leahy admits. But trade-off studies by Airbus engineers could not justify adopting the technology. Leahy says: "They told me: 'You're not going to like the reliability - it's going to be complex, heavy, and hard to maintain'."
Last edited by deptrai; 28th Feb 2013 at 11:49.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walnut
Quote:
I see the flying controls have 3 hydraulic systems, with the centre electrically powered, so with a double engine failure it is essential to start the APU, (from the battery)?
My original post was just to high light how Boeing are in a pickle by doing away with engine bleed. Though a bit old fashioned, engine bleed was reliable power source. Without bleed we need huge power source from generators and batteries etc, and has actually created a problem on basic electric systems which normally do not have any serious problem on most aircraft these days.
I see the flying controls have 3 hydraulic systems, with the centre electrically powered, so with a double engine failure it is essential to start the APU, (from the battery)?
My original post was just to high light how Boeing are in a pickle by doing away with engine bleed. Though a bit old fashioned, engine bleed was reliable power source. Without bleed we need huge power source from generators and batteries etc, and has actually created a problem on basic electric systems which normally do not have any serious problem on most aircraft these days.
Last edited by Hi_Tech; 28th Feb 2013 at 12:36. Reason: Typos
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
engine bleed was reliable power source
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Interflug Il-62 crashed back then because of a leaky bleed air pipe crossing the little known cargo compartment between the engines burned through insulation and some electrical wiring which ignited some barrel of deicing fluid that was carried there (not permitted per regs). And all that led to a fire, loss of control, inflight breakup and loss of all lives.
The type received modifications afterwards.
ASN Aircraft accident Ilyushin 62 DM-SEA Knigs Wusterhausen
The type received modifications afterwards.
ASN Aircraft accident Ilyushin 62 DM-SEA Knigs Wusterhausen
Last edited by Kerosene Kraut; 28th Feb 2013 at 14:54.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree
The RAT has absoulutely nothing to do with pressurizing the aircraft. It simply does not have the capability to power the CACs
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiskaloo,
Agreed, in that Boeing don't design batteries. They would have looked at the energy density values and at the design stage, Lithium-Ion would have been a no-brainer.
Yuasa's expertise in battery design is beyond reproach, however at this moment it's uncertain what caused the battery pack to ignite. While it may have been a faulty battery, we don't know if the cell spacing exacerbated the problem or if the charge/discharge algorithms were faulty or if it was an as yet unknown factor.
What is clear is that Boeing pretty much went all in on 'Electric plane' concept and this made the Lithium battery a commitment rather than a contribution.
I'm still slightly surprised that there were no indications of potential battery problems during the testing/flight testing regime, these normally take each system to the edge of the envelope, yet no issues reported?
Agreed, in that Boeing don't design batteries. They would have looked at the energy density values and at the design stage, Lithium-Ion would have been a no-brainer.
Yuasa's expertise in battery design is beyond reproach, however at this moment it's uncertain what caused the battery pack to ignite. While it may have been a faulty battery, we don't know if the cell spacing exacerbated the problem or if the charge/discharge algorithms were faulty or if it was an as yet unknown factor.
What is clear is that Boeing pretty much went all in on 'Electric plane' concept and this made the Lithium battery a commitment rather than a contribution.
I'm still slightly surprised that there were no indications of potential battery problems during the testing/flight testing regime, these normally take each system to the edge of the envelope, yet no issues reported?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiskaloo,
Agreed, in that Boeing don't design batteries. They would have looked at the energy density values and at the design stage, Lithium-Ion would have been a no-brainer.
Yuasa's expertise in battery design is beyond reproach, however at this moment it's uncertain what caused the battery pack to ignite. While it may have been a faulty battery, we don't know if the cell spacing exacerbated the problem or if the charge/discharge algorithms were faulty or if it was an as yet unknown factor.
What is clear is that Boeing pretty much went all in on 'Electric plane' concept and this made the Lithium battery a commitment rather than a contribution.
I'm still slightly surprised that there were no indications of potential battery problems during the testing/flight testing regime, these normally take each system to the edge of the envelope, yet no issues reported?
Agreed, in that Boeing don't design batteries. They would have looked at the energy density values and at the design stage, Lithium-Ion would have been a no-brainer.
Yuasa's expertise in battery design is beyond reproach, however at this moment it's uncertain what caused the battery pack to ignite. While it may have been a faulty battery, we don't know if the cell spacing exacerbated the problem or if the charge/discharge algorithms were faulty or if it was an as yet unknown factor.
What is clear is that Boeing pretty much went all in on 'Electric plane' concept and this made the Lithium battery a commitment rather than a contribution.
I'm still slightly surprised that there were no indications of potential battery problems during the testing/flight testing regime, these normally take each system to the edge of the envelope, yet no issues reported?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still slightly surprised that there were no indications of potential battery problems during the testing/flight testing regime, these normally take each system to the edge of the envelope, yet no issues reported?
Have there been many (any?) total electrical power failures that haven't been caused by loss of the engines too? I can't think of any.
The 747-400s APU cannot be started inflight, apparently as failure of all 4 gens was thought impossible.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business & Technology | Electrical fire forces emergency landing of 787 test plane | Seattle Times Newspaper You been asleep for a few months? How on Earth did it get certified when a test A/C burst into flames?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Cargo Clown, inetdog
As it was a test flight, the incident has not been logged by the NTSB : List by Month
Therefore, no "official" report has been established by an independent body.
"Common" knowledge is that some FOD made its way in the aft electric panel and the whole thing burned down !
Flightblogger published a quite comprehensive summary of that incident No split over similar-looking wingtips - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis
Therefore, no "official" report has been established by an independent body.
"Common" knowledge is that some FOD made its way in the aft electric panel and the whole thing burned down !
Flightblogger published a quite comprehensive summary of that incident No split over similar-looking wingtips - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis