787 fire at Boston Logan

This is BOEING presenting the fire box to NTSB. We should do a caption contest... I love the facial expressions for the guys at the far end near the easel.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

They've talked about adding airflow and purging the box to the outside atmosphere. Can't imagine it would be continuous, which means they have to have a system to turn on the purge and also dump values through the pressurized fuselage shell. Wonder if they plan on using nitrogen for the purge or just cabin air. Anyone know if flammability of Li batteries is affected by an inert atmosphere?

 

It was my understanding that the fire located on the Boston fire was where oxygen was available, NOT inside the box where it was simply smoldering, albeit at a ridiculous temperature.

To me pumping continuous air/oxygen through the box just enhances the issue. Might as well throw gas on a fire.

NOW, if they bled the gasses from from the Nitrogen Gas Generation system used to purge the empty fuel tanks in flight it would make sense to provide constant pressure to the inside of the battery box. No oxy, no fire, unless you are dealing with magnesium.

 

The fuselage of almost any airliner is constantly purging pressure to the outside during flight, No need for dedicated pumps, just some rerouting.

Your point about cabin air is another sticky question. Adding cabin air to a potential fire hazard is bothersome. See my post above.

 

The guy at the end with the lap top is thinking

" if he rejects it, I just push the "esc" key here and he goes up in smoke with out a trace, we call NTSB and say your inspector never showed, we can keep that up till one passes it "


The dude with the glasses, waving the pen is saying "not yet Bob, not yet"

 

Pete

 

Early reports(rumors) look like if it goes back in service it's gonna have a serious limit to ETOPS. Maybe as low as 2 hours from runway return.

Boeing 787 faces new risk: limits on extended range-sources | Reuters

Better than nothing, but still cuts out a ton of routes.

 

Might as well fly a DC-3 (and my brother used to fly them)
How embarrassing....

 

This plane is officially dead. No matter what they do this plane will never live up to the companies and airlines expectations. I imagine they will kill it and use what they have learnt to produce 797 RealWorldLiner.

I can see them refunding contracts to keep the airlines on side and selling them their old 747's back, after a quick spit and pollish.
Pete

 

That's just nonsense.

 

I'm one of the biggest Boeing 787 critics, and even the above statement isn't true. The operators that have received and operated the 787 are reporting better than expected fuel burn rates (early delivery aircraft are nearly 4000kg overweight) on the later delivery aircraft over the 767 (I've seen figures as much as 21%).

However, with a plane that seems to spend more time on the ground than the air due to electrical issues, any positives about the plane are immediately wiped out. Very much like Ferrari. It's a blast to drive, when it works.

 

Boeing layoffs around Seattle announced

Boeing planning 2,300 layoffs in Seattle this year - San Antonio Business Journal

I guess this was out last week. Sad.

 

All they need to do is build only the 737 and 777 passenger and cargo versions and they'll be profitable. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

That is my point, and now it can only be used for 2 hour flights (I think) surely making them ineffective?
Pete

 

It means they must be less than 120 minutes flight time on one engine from a suitable airport (i.e. one at which they can land). They can still fly 8 or 9 hr flights as long as they meet that criteria.

 

Incorrect. That certification (if its is applied which at this point is pure speculation), means it can not be more than 2 hours flying distance from a suitable airport.

 

Right, but how many routes would that effect? Trans-pacific still okay? Not sure of an airport every 2 hours away with 1 engine that is "suitable," but you never know. All the small islands around there may be able to land it.

 

The ETOPS won't be permanent.Once they have N number of flight hours without a failure the ETOPS number will increase, and finally go back to it's nominal number based on crew and fuel.

<Edit: Here's a sample of what occurred with the 777; http://atwonline.com/aircraft-amp-engines/faa-extends-777-etops-approval-330-min >

 

Is the battery really THAT SMALL? (or is this just one cell?)

I was picturing something MUCH larger than that in my mind.

 

Oh, I missunderstood. That changes everything I said on my last post.

Pete

 

The 787 is no Ferrari and right now it isn't the 787 that was designed. Yes, it has a problem and that problem is being fixed and will have permanent solution to the problem. I can think of a lot of programs that had birthing issues: the 299 (B-17), 314 (Clipper),345 (B-29), 367 (Stratocruiser), B-47, B-52, 707, Lockheed Electra, DC-8, DC-10, 747, and many others. This entire concept has great potential but a lousy business plan has hobbled it. Boeing will get it fixed and they will have a great airplane. Any outfit that has the guts to push into the next stages of technology will face some challenges and missteps and Boeing has done this many times in the past AND they always succeeded.

 

Not much bigger than a truck battery.

 

IN COMPOSITE BY UNITED STATES ENGINEERING AND ESTABLISHED QUALIFIED SKILLED LABOR (US and Japan)
Both of those airplanes would be world beaters.

 

YES!

 

I pity the people on the plane when this thing has to be replaced in a third world country where A&P standards are a little lower and by a little I mean non-existent.

Do you have to torque each of those bolts, too?