This does NOT bode well for an "all electric" airplane. The incident was bad enough that the RAT was deployed for alternate power. Some "witnesses" have claimed they did see flames from the aft E/E area (aft of the main gear) after it landed. (PUBLIC DOMAIN INFORMATION) EVERETT The Boeing Co.s 787 test jets remain grounded after an electrical fire forced an emergency landing on Tuesday. A power control panel is at the heart of Boeings investigation into the source of the fire, which caused smoke to waft into the cabin of the second 787 test plane. Its too early to answer whether the incident will lead to a delay in delivery of the first 787 expected in February, said Scott Fancher, vice president of Boeings 787 program. Boeings 787 program is already running almost three years behind schedule. Boeings shares fell $2.18, or 3.2 percent, on Wednesday to close at $67.07. The 787 made an emergency landing Tuesday in Laredo, Texas, after the fire broke out in the rear electronics bay. In that area, the airplane is not equipped with fire suppression equipment. Instead, the bay is outfitted with nonflammable materials including fire-retardant blankets, Fancher said. The 787 lost primary electrical power but the backup emergency power unit, called the Ram Air Turbine, functioned as designed, he said. Although the flight display flickered because of the loss in main electrical power, the pilots at all times felt they had positive control of the aircraft, Fancher said. Fancher didnt specify how much of the 787 sustained damage in the fire. However, did it consume the entire (electronics) bay? Absolutely not. It was contained, Fancher said. Boeing is analyzing in Seattle the flight data retrieved from the 787 in Texas. That should tell Boeing how much electrical power the 787 lost in the incident, Fancher said. The Dreamliner relies more on electrical power than do most commercial airplanes, which rely on air diverted from the engines to operate various onboard systems.
Read the above carefully. Most importantly, what wasn't said. It was "contained" in the E/E bay. I keep thinking to myself, can the Engineering be so far off as to allow an event like this or is this component failure, which component, why and who's component? The questions keep coming......................... I keep thinking to myself, this is rookie crap for a company that's been doing this since the 20's.
They are pretty much telling it like it is in that release. I've seen the pictures of the P100 and surrounding areas. Localized component failures inside the panel mostly but there was collateral damage as well.. Really hot ugly looking stuff. It was good that they landed when they did.
So after reading this story I'm wondering more about the power distribution in the 787.... If my memory is correct it does away with bleed air for environmental stuff and is all electric. I'm not really all that informed about how much it takes to run all this stuff but I'm guessing it means a significantly larger quantity of juice is running through the plane than on previous designs so an electrical malfunction that might not have been such a big deal on previous planes can really become a big deal with the 787. Am I totally off base?
Boeing is claiming FOD as the possible cause if the P100 catching fire... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/25/350176/787-schedule-to-slip-after-fire-prompts-hardware-software.html
Glad the crew was able to land safely, and that the Test Article can be examined and changes made for production. Fly by wire aircraft failures do not do the industry any good, as some are already nervous about the technology.
No, you are not off base. The A/C packs are electrically driven now. To me all electrical malfunctions are serious on an A/P. The 787 will be running a lot of juice but also has many redundant systems. Fire control is paramount............................
I think I would wonder how anything could possibly be left of said FOD washer after the high amperage arcing and fire taking place in the P-100................................ Just sayin............................
Affirmative. The big thing in naval architecture in the 70s and early 80s was aluminum superstructure. Then the Falklands war happened and they discovered the aluminum burned like a match. But that is what they said, an aluminum washer. Taz Terry Phillips
Call me old fashioned, but the higher electrical content in aircraft was in spearheaded by the air force in their "all electric airplane" initiatiave. In some areas that's a good thing, but when you start moving big amounts of power or have big forces, seems to me that good old hydraulics and hydromechanical systems are lighter. Now we all think of electrical stuff as being more reliable, but when you are talking about big power and big forces that's not entirely true. And while hydraulic systems can leak, they are pretty reliable, and the failures aren't usually massive. More commonly they start to weap and leak a bit, so the maintainer can get after it and fix it before it beomces a real issue. With electrical stuff, it either works or it doesn't, and there isn't anything in between. Big electrical capability means the potential for an arc welder if you get a short, not a good thing. Spasso mentioned that Boeing has been doing this kind of stuff for a long time, but I would argue that nobody has been making airplanes with this level of electrical content, and moving this much power around electrically. There's going to be some painful lessons learned in doing this. As Bill Lear said, "You can always tell the leader by the arrows in his back"
A freaking washer almost takes down a 787. I'm going to start flying on Blue@Heart's DC3s. Call me a luddite, but carbon fiber and fly by wire scare the hell out of me. What happens when these are 15 years old and flown by Bud-Jet Air?
There was a show on TV on Sunday night, can't remember what channel, but they went through a handful of plane crashes and discussed what went wrong. In every case they brought up, it was a fire that got out of control. At least two of those instances were do to electrical components arcing (or however it's called), creating a fire that eventually led to the plane becoming unflyable. They also said that something like three flights per day are diverted due to smoke. Scary & interesting at the same time, but there are a lot of examples out there which led to hundreds of lives lost that Boeing engineers were hopefully able to learn from on the 787 (i.e. an electrical component might short circuit, but make sure the damn insulation isn't flammable so it doesn't set the whole plane on fire when sparks fly).
I agree with what you are saying. I don't consider this a Boeing A/P. The entire program was ill conceived and poorly executed by ACCOUNTANTS. The bulk of the assembly farmed out to "risk sharing partners". The previous programs were orchestrated by AIRPLANE PEOPLE.
A washer, in the wrong place, can take down any A/P. I'm still trying to figure out how they know it was a washer. If it caused the initial arc it would be vaporized..............................
I'm with you, Solo. I can recall some failures of hydraulic systems but there was always containment and some sort of back up and no catastrophic damage from them. A properly designed and assembled hydraulic system can be reliable and somewhat bullet proof. A runaway electrical system can leave a wake of failures and self perpetuating destruction. I know that the heat generated by the power feeders was extreme in normal operation and took special efforts to contain it.
Looks like Boeing has fixed the 787 that caught fire and returned it to Seattle. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/30/350347/boeing-787-struck-by-fire-heads-back-to-seattle.html http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE2
I think for the first time in many years airplanes are being designed differently, other than avionics, airplane systems really havent changed in decades it will take a little while to work the bugs out.
