Dreamliner in trouble

by Idéfix Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:37 pm

I was looking forward to flying on this new plane, and was booked on it in December. But the plane went into unscheduled maintenance at the last minute. Now it looks like the problems are occurring on multiple airlines. I hope they do fix the problems and get it back into regular service soon. With its composite construction, this aircraft represents the biggest advance in commercial aviation since the doomed Concorde.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/17/news/companies/boeing-dreamliner-faq/

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:48 pm

i don't think this is an easy fix. lithium batteries have been excellent for low current draw, low power applications which require a slow charge-discharge cycle. they last thousands of charge cycles, our cell phones being a prime example. but they've never worked well in high power, fast charge-discharge cycles. there were a number of reports of cars catching fire in china that never got much press. this is an even large power draw application. i am surprised they took the risk having no experience with deploying lithium ion in such large power applications. i think they messed up.

by Idéfix Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:52 pm

I guess they were going for low weight and maintenance cost... and somebody did a good job of selling them on the scalability of the technology. I wonder why this was not caught before delivery to customers. AFAIK, FAA certification of a new plane requires several hundreds of hours of flight testing with multiple manufactured units (not just prototypes). I am surprised these issues didn't show up / or were glossed over in that testing process.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:58 pm

this is a very well known unsolved problem in lithium ion technology. without getting into too much technical details, what happens is that under high current draw applications, lithium forms tree like structures which cut across the cell from one terminal to the other creating an internal short. this causes a huge leakage current through the shorted region and creates hot spots and fires. i am amazed boeing made such a basic mistake and did not do proper due diligence.

by Idéfix Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:06 am

Hmm, that's interesting... I wonder what the designers at Boeing were thinking! Is it possible for them to replace the Li-ion batteries with another battery technology in short order? Is there anything out there with similar performance characteristics without too much additional weight and volume? If they can't solve this problem soon, this has the potential to kill their commercial aviation business. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the war against Airbus.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:14 am

nicads are a lot heavier and don't have the same energy density as lithium ion. if they were counting on these to cut down their fuel payload, they have a crappy problem on their hands. if they replace with nicad, it will severely cut down their range before refueling. i'd hate to be in the shoes of the guy who pulled the trigger on this one.

by Idéfix Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:47 am

Thanks for that answer. I read a little more on the Dreamliner's electrical systems... you may find this interesting.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/01/boeing-787-electric-fire-grounding/

Carrying the moniker of the most electric airliner, the 787 relies almost entirely on electricity to power the systems on board the airplane instead of hydraulics or pneumatics.

Most of the electricity on the Dreamliner is created by six generators, two on each engine and two on the auxiliary power unit in the tail of the airplane. Traditionally, Boeing airliners used only three. These generators provide electricity for the airplane in a similar way that an alternator provides electricity for your car. Though on the 787, a lot more electricity is generated than in the family truckster.

The Dreamliner’s electrical system generates nearly 1.5 megawatts, enough to power several hundred homes. With such high electric power demands, the 787 needs high power-dense batteries as an emergency backup source. Though recently it’s the high powered, lithium-ion batteries that have been the source of the emergencies leading to the grounding of the 787 fleet.

All of this electrical power has also been decentralized on the 787 with remote power distribution units located in different parts of the airplane. And the 787 electrical system is dominated by a higher power, 235 volts alternating current system instead of the more traditional 115 VAC system.

By reducing the use of pneumatic and other hydraulic systems that have been traditionally powered by bleed air and replacing them with electric power, airplane designers are able to save weight and greatly reduce complexity. And because the electric power can be produced and used more efficiently, the airplane needs to burn less fuel to power the systems as well. The result with the Boeing 787 is an airplane that uses electricity instead of pneumatics and hydraulics to do more work, more efficiently than any other airplane in history.

Boeing estimates using electrical systems instead of bleed air decreases the fuel burn about three percent. Overall, the 787 reduces the fuel burn about 20 percent compared to a similar size aircraft.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:19 am

One of the major challenges in battery technology is heat generation - which tends to degrade the batteries. The temp cannot go above 120 F or else the electrode separators will deteriorate leading to short circuit. That is a perennial problem, and the heat generation and dissipation is not that simple when pressure variation also is taken into consideration (although this may not be a big factor in the dreamliner).

by Maria S Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:12 am

Anything with "dream" in it..is a give away, and always makes me pause..may be too good to be true:) Can be.. dream man/woman, home, dream world etc! Being a frequent flyer..do look forward to more safety/comfort in flying..I'll take a nice realityliner anytime:)
Am not an expert on aircraft assemblies..but, have heard some interesting discussions on outsourcing-manufacturing of components..and all the repercussions too.

Speaking of outsourcing..was reading this funny story (Not from Onion!):

Outsourced: Employee Sends Own Job To China; Surfs Web

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/16/169528579/outsourced-employee-sen\
ds-own-job-to-china-surfs-web

"Bob"..am sure..never comes to this forum:

Excerpt:

The Verizon team even found that "Bob" kept a regular schedule at his office:

9:00 a.m. – Arrive and surf Reddit for a couple of hours. Watch cat videos
11:30 a.m. – Take lunch
1:00 p.m. – Ebay time.
2:00 – ish p.m Facebook updates – LinkedIn
4:30 p.m. – End of day update e-mail to management.
5:00 p.m. – Go home

by Idéfix Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:12 am

Wow, for all the fictional stories I have read about outsourcing, reality beats them hands down!

And it turns out that the job done in China was above par — the employee's "code was clean, well written, and submitted in a timely fashion. Quarter after quarter, his performance review noted him as the best developer in the building," according to the Verizon Security Blog.

"All told, it looked like he earned several hundred thousand dollars a year, and only had to pay the Chinese consulting firm about fifty grand annually," according to the Security Blog.

---

I don't think Boeing could ever hope to make the batteries in question by itself -- that is too far removed from aircraft design and manufacture. Even in the old days, I think they would have bought those batteries from another company.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:17 am

panini press wrote:Wow, for all the fictional stories I have read about outsourcing, reality beats them hands down!

And it turns out that the job done in China was above par — the employee's "code was clean, well written, and submitted in a timely fashion. Quarter after quarter, his performance review noted him as the best developer in the building," according to the Verizon Security Blog.

"All told, it looked like he earned several hundred thousand dollars a year, and only had to pay the Chinese consulting firm about fifty grand annually," according to the Security Blog.

---

I don't think Boeing could ever hope to make the batteries in question by itself -- that is too far removed from aircraft design and manufacture. Even in the old days, I think they would have bought those batteries from another company.

GS Yuasa a japanese company. what i find inexplicable is that these are the same batteries that have plagued the automobile industry and continue to do so. what led boeing to conclude that they would perform better in an even more stringent environment wrt temperature and pressure changes that they are subjected to, and the huge currents during takeoff? looks like somebody made some really aggressive decisions.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:08 pm

this doesn't raise optimism.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:29 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this doesn't raise optimism.

"In the ANA incident, the pilot made an emergency landing when he
received warnings of an overheated battery and smelled a burning smell
in the cockpit"

Exactly as I had predicted in my earlier post here.

And let me say this ain't that simple a job to fix - in a short time - in a foolproof manner.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 pm

i have never felt utterly comfortable with the idea of a li battery in my car let alone an aircraft.

by Idéfix Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:40 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this doesn't raise optimism.

The obvious question is, how did the bosses at Boeing approve this unstable technology for their biggest bet? And how did the FAA go along with it? I wonder if any heads have already rolled at Boeing over this.

by Idéfix Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:21 am

More bad news for the Dreamliner... United removes it from its plans for the next few months.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/unitedcontinental-idUSL1N0BL8PE20130221

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:44 am

panini press wrote:More bad news for the Dreamliner... United removes it from its plans for the next few months.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/unitedcontinental-idUSL1N0BL8PE20130221

heard
2 days back that the battery guys in Japon found the error. Apparently
they misconnected "some wires". If that is the case (and totally true),
it should be easy to rectify. But a lot more testing will be done after
rewiring.

Airbus decided to use the old Ni-Cd rechargeables in
its A350 planes - same ones used in Prius and the ones we rarely use these days at
home.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:24 pm

United says it will start revenue flights by the end of May.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-united-plans-to-fly-dreamliner-again-on-may-31-20130408,0,7389846.story

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:25 pm

told you this problem isn't that easy to lick:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/22/boeing-787-dreamliner-faa-airworthiness-directive

i bet this is the same old problem of business guys who don't know their ass from their elbow making decisions about technical problems. the same thing that happened when the challenger disaster unfolded.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:30 pm

and some more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370054/More-trouble-Dreamliner-787-way-Tokyo-turned-Boston-fuel-pump-problem.html

by truthbetold Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:45 pm

Max,
read each of the problems carefully. They are unrelated problems. Have you read the report on challenger disaster? Who made the decisions on challenger?

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:53 pm

These problems are not directly related, but the bad press can do the plane and Boeing in. When you have a series of troubles, it is natural for the public to lose confidence in the plane, and create a perception of lack of quality and safety. Every time the regulators have to step in to order more checks or ground the plane, that costs airlines money. I believe Boeing paid millions to airlines for the last grounding.

by truthbetold Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:10 pm

Boeing owns lithium ion battery problem. That technology was a risky one and was a known fire hazard.
Beacon problem could be Honeywell or a simple manufacturing error among other possibilities.
Media could damage the reputation of Boeing.
but the fact is Boeing changed the whole craft of airplane building with 787. Despite massive testing, few problems will escape.
Not offering excuses for Boeing but just stating what we see in industrial world.
If Boeing could overcome infantile disorders without loss of life, it can still claim a successful launch.

by Sponsored content

Dreamliner in trouble

Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble

Re: Dreamliner in trouble