Another 787 electrical/smoke incident (on ground)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TURIN...
Howdy. I may have let a muse in when pondering the Batteries' role in the Grounding. I'm pretty sure I was not proposing that sixty pound batteries can keep a flying auditorium pumped up to 6000 feet at altitude
So some suspense... Boeing has told you not to discuss the GE? That infers a new concept in the word proprietary; how much knowledge can be leaked into the public domain?
Boeing speced a powerplant that is more or less a hybrid. Plugging the bleeds and bolting on Generation? That is not new. The JT-8D supplied multiple megawatts to the power grid in California back in the nineties....
But they were not required to be airborne. So in the interest of discussion, until more data is released by the principals, (I won't hold my bleed air), how do you interpret the turboshaft concept + CFRP?
If it is down to RAT, then Boeing don't have much to offer in the realm of innovation, at least insofar as it applies to "new" technology. imo. (Vis a Vis SAFETY, pardon my "french")
Howdy. I may have let a muse in when pondering the Batteries' role in the Grounding. I'm pretty sure I was not proposing that sixty pound batteries can keep a flying auditorium pumped up to 6000 feet at altitude
So some suspense... Boeing has told you not to discuss the GE? That infers a new concept in the word proprietary; how much knowledge can be leaked into the public domain?
Boeing speced a powerplant that is more or less a hybrid. Plugging the bleeds and bolting on Generation? That is not new. The JT-8D supplied multiple megawatts to the power grid in California back in the nineties....
But they were not required to be airborne. So in the interest of discussion, until more data is released by the principals, (I won't hold my bleed air), how do you interpret the turboshaft concept + CFRP?
If it is down to RAT, then Boeing don't have much to offer in the realm of innovation, at least insofar as it applies to "new" technology. imo. (Vis a Vis SAFETY, pardon my "french")
Last edited by Lyman; 19th Jan 2013 at 14:28.
No offence meant Lyman, but you tend to talk (type) in riddles. 
Vis...
Sorry, no idea what you are getting at here. It is what it is. The engines are no different really from their predecessors. Two gennies instead of one and no bleed air apart from engine anti-ice.
CFRP is another story. Not new, but the way that Boeing have used it is. How it withstands ramp-rash was one of the major worries. The idea that the aircraft would be grounded due to overheating batteries was certainly not on my list of gotchas when I did the course. The fuselage being thumped by a highloader and the consequent inspection required afterwards was my No.1.
As for the RAT. Well to be honest they get more use in the hangars don't they? No innovation required there except, as I said before, to keep the weight down.
Vis...
So in the interest of discussion, until more data is released by the principals, (I won't hold my bleed air), how do you interpret the turboshaft concept + CFRP?
CFRP is another story. Not new, but the way that Boeing have used it is. How it withstands ramp-rash was one of the major worries. The idea that the aircraft would be grounded due to overheating batteries was certainly not on my list of gotchas when I did the course. The fuselage being thumped by a highloader and the consequent inspection required afterwards was my No.1.
As for the RAT. Well to be honest they get more use in the hangars don't they? No innovation required there except, as I said before, to keep the weight down.
I was under the impression that 2 separate batteries (which can be isolated separately), are required for ETOPS?
Last edited by Uplinker; 20th Jan 2013 at 11:28.
