login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Boeing 787 Grounded: Dreamliner Nightmare Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,930
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


Jan 17 13 04:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AdelaideJohn1967
Posts: 12,286
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


If that wasn't a serious story I'd be laughing...

But I did when I heard they are now changing all the batteries to Ni-Cads........ Is this a plane or a toy? Sorry I know but the moment they said Ni-Cad I just could not help but laugh.
Jan 17 13 06:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AdelaideJohn1967
Posts: 12,286
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


Hey also why is there so much fly by wire in these planes? What happens if you run out of electrical power or such? How do you move the controls and other items if you get rid of hydraulics?
Jan 17 13 07:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,930
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


The batteries were made in Japan by Yuasa. But the problems seems to go deeper than that.

.
Jan 17 13 01:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
tenrocK photo
Posts: 5,408
New York, New York, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Hey also why is there so much fly by wire in these planes? What happens if you run out of electrical power or such? How do you move the controls and other items if you get rid of hydraulics?

There is always an APU (additional power unit), in other words one more small engine that feeds power independently from the others. Usually it is located near the tail.
Losing hydraulics presents another big challenge but there are cables running along the plane for emergency handling, old school style.

Jan 17 13 01:18 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


At least it hasnt suffered a catostrophic engine failure, A-la-A380.

Cutting edge planes come with risk.
Jan 17 13 01:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MTAP
Posts: 25
Fayetteville, Georgia, US


Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.
Jan 17 13 02:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MTAP
Posts: 25
Fayetteville, Georgia, US


Almost forgot something’s. On the Boeing 757 if there complete electrical failure, there is a little turbine that pops out of the side of the aircraft powered by the wind to provide electricity.  I’m not aware of it ever being used. Most critical systems run on DC and the batteries provide about 45 min of power.
Jan 17 13 02:36 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


The Airbus A380, the Dreamliners main rival, suffered far worse teething problems, and got far less bad press.

http://images.theage.com.au/2012/07/25/3486268/art-Qantas-A380-Engine-Explosion-620x349.jpg
Jan 17 13 03:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photographybyStavros
Posts: 5,379
Bainbridge Island, Washington, US


This is bad news for Boeing and the region. Labor issues and other delays have also caused problems.
Jan 17 13 04:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AdelaideJohn1967
Posts: 12,286
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


MTAP wrote:
Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

Jan 17 13 05:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
UnoMundo
Posts: 47,527
Olympia, Washington, US


An amazingly high tech plane grounded by a low tech battery.
Jan 17 13 06:30 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


Wouldnt surprise me if it was something stupid like a grounding problem.
Jan 18 13 07:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 7,972
Los Angeles, California, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

You mean...Fly by Wire.

Jan 18 13 08:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BlueMoonPics
Posts: 3,889
New York, New York, US


MTAP wrote:
Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.

Me too, I prefer Boeing to Airbus.
I know someone in the airline biz and they prefer Boeing too.

Jan 18 13 08:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
surinity
Posts: 1,481
Pattaya, Central, Thailand


no big deal, just change the batteries
Jan 18 13 09:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

What happens if ALL the engines fail or the wings fall off?

Jan 18 13 10:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,444
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


OVERCHARGED BATTERIES EYED IN BOEING 787 FIRES
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/overchar … -787-fires

Worst case is they change out the battery packs for NiCad or NiMHi in short order with a 100 pound weight penalty.



http://binaryapi.ap.org/66e4e97674e449f88ed986007f152e57/460x.jpg
Jan 18 13 12:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,444
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?
Christopher Hartman wrote:
What happens if ALL the engines fail or the wings fall off?

Wings Fall Off a C-130 Hercules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A4QZAxrb28

Jan 18 13 12:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Signature Image
Posts: 12,055
Gorham, Maine, US


I watched show about the Dreamliner on TV. The plane was three years late, in part, because Boeing decided to have the sections and parts of the plane built in different countries.

Problem was the parts/sections from country A did not fit the parts/sections from country B. Boeing also had to build special planes to transport certain sections from the plants where the sections were built.

All-in-all a very bad plan.

The problem for Boeing is not the batteries. The problem is, in light of the plane's problems, whether future customers will hesitate before ordering or would they just jump to Airbus?
Jan 18 13 12:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LaurensAntoine 4 FHM
Posts: 333
San Diego, California, US


MTAP wrote:
Almost forgot something’s. On the Boeing 757 if there complete electrical failure, there is a little turbine that pops out of the side of the aircraft powered by the wind to provide electricity.  I’m not aware of it ever being used. Most critical systems run on DC and the batteries provide about 45 min of power.

Air Canada did when they ran out of fuel shortly after the 75/76 was introduced. They landed on a drag racing strip.

Jan 18 13 01:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LaurensAntoine 4 FHM
Posts: 333
San Diego, California, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

What happens if ALL the engines fail or the wings fall off?

There are manual backup systems. On the 787, the rudder is in full control, the elevator is operated by manual controls to the trim tab and roll is handled by manual controls to the spoilers (you lose the ailerons).

"Old school" isn't necessarily more reliable than fly by wire. Primary flight control systems were operated hydraulically which has more room for failure. Moreover, fly by wire has several layers of redundancy before requiring manual controls that include bypassing the primary control system (direct electronic control) and then a battery in case of power loss.

If the wings break off, everyone dies. However, that hasn't ever happened on a modern jetliner. Last commercial plane I believe that happened to was the Electra 440.

Jan 18 13 01:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AdelaideJohn1967
Posts: 12,286
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

You mean...Fly by Wire.

No, I thought fly by wire was the current method. I meant what happens if all the systems including fly by wire and the redundant backups fail. Is there a more mundane manual option for flight controls?

Jan 18 13 03:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


It's well known that Li-Ion batteries can easily overheat and catch fire if overcharged or charged at too high of a rate. I'm surprised that Boeing is having this problem. It's not like it's the first time there's been a problem with Li-Ion batteries catching fire.

Google returns 5 million hits for "Li-Ion battery fire".
Jan 18 13 04:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BlueMoonPics
Posts: 3,889
New York, New York, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

No, I thought fly by wire was the current method. I meant what happens if all the systems including fly by wire and the redundant backups fail. Is there a more mundane manual option for flight controls?

In the highly unlikely event that all that should happen you should...

stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

Jan 18 13 04:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 7,972
Los Angeles, California, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
No, I thought fly by wire was the current method. I meant what happens if all the systems including fly by wire and the redundant backups fail. Is there a more mundane manual option for flight controls?

This one..and it was a Airbus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


They call it Deadstick Landing...

Jan 18 13 04:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,930
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


Jan 19 13 03:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 5,930
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


No wonder, the 787 is flawed...

The Chief Engineer uses a Jurassic Blackberry.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines … 6717956140

http://www.mobileshop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/sectera-edge-the-abrams-tank-of-mobile-phones.jpg

.
Sep 13 13 06:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vivus Hussein Denuo
Posts: 63,687
New York, New York, US


DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

This one..and it was a Airbus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


They call it Deadstick Landing...

This one was amazing.  The pilots were able to steer the airplane without flaps or spoilers, and they landed roughly but safely.  The pilots rightly were feted as heroes.

Sep 13 13 09:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AdelaideJohn1967
Posts: 12,286
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

This one..and it was a Airbus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


They call it Deadstick Landing...

Ta thanks

Sep 14 13 09:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Frank Lewis Photography
Posts: 12,246
Winter Park, Florida, US


Long ago, air travel was much slower and more elegant than air travel today. Sometimes I think we are becoming much to dependent on technology. I admire what Boeing has done developing the 787 Dreamliner. It's certainly an airplane designed for passenger comfort. The windows are high enough that the passenger can see out of them while seated normally. No slouching needed. The 787 uses more fuel efficient engines from General Electric. The 787 uses a lot of lightweight composite materials in its construction as opposed to the A380, which is heavier because it is all metal and uses the problematic Rolls Royce engine. I trust Boeing because of their experience building large airplanes beginning with the model 314 Clipper airplanes. 

http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/07/boeing314.jpg

If there was an affordable charter service that operated a Lockheed Constellation (I know, not a Boeing, but a beautiful airplane without question), I'd book a ticket today! Plus I know that it won't need to rely on Ni-Cad batteries to power any systems.

http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac3/Airline/Pan%20American%20L409%20White%20Top.jpg
Sep 14 13 11:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hikari Tech Photography
Posts: 791
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
If that wasn't a serious story I'd be laughing...

But I did when I heard they are now changing all the batteries to Ni-Cads........ Is this a plane or a toy? Sorry I know but the moment they said Ni-Cad I just could not help but laugh.

Are you sure they said Ni-Cad? I couldn't find any mention of it in the last 8 months.

Sep 15 13 02:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hikari Tech Photography
Posts: 791
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


BlueMoonPics wrote:

Me too, I prefer Boeing to Airbus.
I know someone in the airline biz and they prefer Boeing too.

Please do tell us the reason... and not because you saw a sticker that said "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going".

Sep 15 13 02:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hikari Tech Photography
Posts: 791
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

No they still have basic instruments and the odds of losing all systems including the APU and RAT are so slim that it has NEVER happened since the early 80's when the first major screw up happened going from imperial measurements to metric. That was Air Canada 767-200 FIN604 that ran out of fuel and the pilots landed the aircraft dead stick. The engines having no fuel could not power the various on board systems and the APU which also runs on the same fuel was unable to provide back up power so the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was deployed and it generated enough power to keep basic cockpit controls operational.

When the Airbus 320 that lost both engines due to multiple bird strikes had to ditch in the Hudson it was able to power the controls because the APU (Aux Power Unit) in the tail of the aircraft was able to run (there was fuel) and the RAT was also deployed.

FYI, Airliners tend to have triple redundant systems and in United FLT 232 a DC-10, the number 2 engine in the tail failed causing it to shoot shrapnel and puncture the lines of all three hydraulic systems routed through that area. The pilots used the remaining engine 1 and 3 to fly/steer the aircraft now having no wing surface controls.

Sep 15 13 02:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hikari Tech Photography
Posts: 791
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Robb Mann wrote:
The Airbus A380, the Dreamliners main rival, suffered far worse teething problems, and got far less bad press.

http://images.theage.com.au/2012/07/25/3486268/art-Qantas-A380-Engine-Explosion-620x349.jpg

The A380 is NOT the 787-800 main rival.

The A380's main rival is the 747-800 and maybe the 777-300ER.

FYI, the 787-800 is a 767-300ER replacement.

Sep 15 13 02:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hikari Tech Photography
Posts: 791
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


MTAP wrote:
Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.

Yes, there were steel cables that controlled wing and tail plane surfaces at one time and on the biggest beasts in the air. The C5 Galaxy and the early 747s both used steel control cables.

Sep 15 13 02:44 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


de BUEN PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

The A380 is NOT the 787-800 main rival.

The A380's main rival is the 747-800 and maybe the 777-300ER.

FYI, the 787-800 is a 767-300ER replacement.

I disagree. The A380 and 787 represent the direction each company believes will be the future of long range air travel. Airbus bet on a true 747 successor with huge capacity while Boeing choose efficiency and fuel savings. Both planes represent a huge risk and enormous gamble for their respective companies. I see each plane as the current 'halo' product for their company. These are the planes in the spotlight. The ones they bring to airshows to impress crowds.

Sep 15 13 06:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MerrillMedia
Posts: 8,338
New Orleans, Louisiana, US


There have many aircraft over the years of aviation that have had much worse problems. Boeing will get the kinks worked out and 787 will likely have a long service life.
Sep 15 13 07:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony-S
Posts: 1,291
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


de BUEN PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
That was Air Canada 767-200 FIN604 that ran out of fuel and the pilots landed the aircraft dead stick.

The 757/767/777 (and I suspect 787) have 7:1 altitude to glide ratios, which also helps substantially when losing power!

Sep 15 13 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hikari Tech Photography
Posts: 791
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


Robb Mann wrote:

I disagree. The A380 and 787 represent the direction each company believes will be the future of long range air travel. Airbus bet on a true 747 successor with huge capacity while Boeing choose efficiency and fuel savings. Both planes represent a huge risk and enormous gamble for their respective companies. I see each plane as the current 'halo' product for their company. These are the planes in the spotlight. The ones they bring to airshows to impress crowds.

Airbus knew that Boeing with the smaller (than the 747-400ER) 777-300ER would not do what airlines wanting more seats wanted. The 747-400ER was over 20 years old by the time Airbus started on the A380 and was looking to take any orders that would have been for Boeing's 747 and 777.

The A380 was a direct attack on the 747-400ER market and Boeing responded by going to the 747-800.

Airbus is now going after the 787 and 777 markets with their new A350.

Claiming that two completely different aircraft types are direct competition is like someone claiming that the station wagon is the direct competitor to the 5 ton truck because they both haul goods and companies need that.

Sep 15 13 05:15 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers