LOT's lot was to be caught on the ground here in the U.S., so until inspected and released, it's lot will be to remain here racking up ground fees...

 

...and there's not a lot LOT can do except grin and bear it.

 

Haha that is great.

 

Boeing is going to have to pay some serious money AGAIN for these mistakes. Hopefully it all gets fixed soon!

I can't tell if you were trying to make a tongue twister or if you just happened to use the word lot so many times by accident.

Kevin, I simply love puns and have a weird sense of humor (humour for our British cousins). I'm just punny that way....

Kevin, I simply love puns and have a weird sense of humor (humour for our British cousins). I'm just punny that way....

Figures.

In my humble opinion - this whole mess would have been avoided if Boeing's current leadership was on top of their game. But Boeing's CEO is more involved with civic planning (and moving to Chicago - total time waste) than leading the design and construction of the flagship airplane.

 

One of the best damning articles I have read about Boeing's fiasco with 787. As an engineer and investment strategist, early on in the design process news, one could tell that 787 was being managed by tons of pointy head bosses (read Dilbert) - and passengers ended up alpha-testing this plane. I just can't figure out how no one saw this coming. 787 truly has become "ScreamLiner" - the article openly points to how idiotic the current management at Boeing is - Damn, this is sad.

 

http://www.forbes.co...rong-at-boeing/

Really that bad? :mellow:

 

Correct me if I state wrong things but reality has it that, if a guy is currently is on the ground, a lot of folks gather for an extra punch. Or in media terms, know exactly why this happened. Just right after it did. :rolleyes:

 

I do see the 787 as the ambitious project it is, but I also see that airlines applaud to the opportunity to buy such a plane. Sales numbers are looking good. And I don't recall airlines being stupid when picking their options. I'd actually say that some smart airline management now forms up a few items for the next 'lets talk about the price' meeting. Reality bites.

 

My impression is that media often only knows two extremes. Either winning by a huge margin or being close to a disaster. Go figure.

 

But I get your point on the management setup. There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Well, not a special Boeing problem in my eyes. ^_^

787 truly has become "ScreamLiner" - the article openly points to how idiotic the current management at Boeing is - Damn, this is sad.

 

 

I don't like the trend of outsourcing things to the cheapest source of labor and how it ends up costing much more in the long run--not to mention the larger national economic consequence of such corporate behavior--but concerning the resulting end-product itself, don't you think saying "truly has become the Screamliner" is hyperbolic? I'm no aviation historian, nor have I felt inspired enough by the 787 to have followed it's development all that closely, but are the teething problems of the 787 upon its long delayed service entry any worse than that of the other major airliners?

Somewhere, in some room, Boeing and Airbus devs from all brands are sitting at a table, fighting over which one had the shortest delays so far. ^_^ The one who loses has to pay the next round.

 

but it seems that saying "truly has become the Screamliner" is hyperbolic

I couldn't agree more.

The way I see it, these battery fires have been said to have been caused by the batteries overcharging, which leads me to think that may have been a software issue. I don't know the aircraft well enough but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

 

The Airframe on that aircraft has proven itself so far, and that is the area with a lot of innovations using composites and weight deductions. So what we are talking about here are batteries, engines, some assembly problems with fuel lines and wiring.....Yes expensive mistakes but not surprising with any new product line.

 

I don't see the sky is falling in this scenario as these are all items that can be resolved, Boeing doesn't make Batteries or Engines so these are problems between Boeing and it's suppliers.

Engineering management is probably one of the most difficult tasks around. It probably doesn't help that Boeing (Seattle) engineering work force has a reputation of being a militant union.

 

scott s.

.

The way I see it, these battery fires have been said to have been caused by the batteries overcharging, which leads me to think that may have been a software issue. I don't know the aircraft well enough but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

 

The Airframe on that aircraft has proven itself so far, and that is the area with a lot of innovations using composites and weight deductions. So what we are talking about here are batteries, engines, some assembly problems with fuel lines and wiring.....Yes expensive mistakes but not surprising with any new product line.

 

I don't see the sky is falling in this scenario as these are all items that can be resolved, Boeing doesn't make Batteries or Engines so these are problems between Boeing and it's suppliers.

 

By design, Boeing needs an enormous amount of power from the batteries. What they have in the 787 is not available in quantity or setup anywhere else.

 

The A380 and A350 will use Lithium batteries but not in the quantity, setup or even cell distribution as the 787, they are a different type of battery. The 787 is unique.

 

The FAA has confirmed the batteries were not overloaded so they are still trying to find out what the problem is. Unfortunately for Boeing, the weight savings and power distribution they set up means their design will need to change if the battery cannot supply in a safe manner, and this could be disastrously expensive. At the moment, I would love to know how much Boeing is compensating every airline for every minute the aircraft is not flying and disrupting the schedules, never mind the delivery delays.

By design, Boeing needs an enormous amount of power from the batteries. What they have in the 787 is not available in quantity or setup anywhere else.

 

The A380 and A350 will use Lithium batteries but not in the quantity, setup or even cell distribution as the 787, they are a different type of battery. The 787 is unique.

 

The FAA has confirmed the batteries were not overloaded so they are still trying to find out what the problem is. Unfortunately for Boeing, the weight savings and power distribution they set up means their design will need to change if the battery cannot supply in a safe manner, and this could be disastrously expensive. At the moment, I would love to know how much Boeing is compensating every airline for every minute the aircraft is not flying and disrupting the schedules, never mind the delivery delays.

 

Thanks for that. Makes sense as they are using a different battery technology (larger capacity lithium ION Batteries) to try and reduce weight in that area as well. I bet they are getting their overtime in trying to figure this one out.

 

I am starting to research these batteries a little more now....

 

Cheers

The 787 features two batteries with lithium-ion tech. The same tech being used on your mobile, on other systems of other planes and on the latest electric cars. As far as being unique goes, here's some data.

 

75Ah

29.6V

215x280x335mm

28.5kg each

~2.2kWh each

 

To compare, the A330 features three batteries of 37AH, 28V. This equals ~1kWh each. Therefore, we are talking about an available power increase (batteries fully loaded on both planes) from 3kWh (A330) to 4.4kWh on a 787. 46% increase. Not exactly mind blowing nor close to being a nuclear power plant. ^_^

 

Another comparison. A nice Tesla Model S comes in at about 40 to 85kWh, depending on which pack you get. Now that's a big battery installation! 10 to 20 times the size of the 787 ones. Just to put things in perspective. Now ask about ships.

 

Back to the planes, they are running main ship batteries of that kind on the F-35, they are running a standby emergency system based on that tech on the A380 and the A350 is promoted to use such main ship batteries too. The last point being an update to a previous statement of mine. Some business jets already mentioned in another thread may also feature main ship lithium based batteries.

 

Looking at the size and power output of the batteries itself, they are by far smaller than the installation on an electric car. When it comes to monitoring and installing such batteries, they of course differ from what is known from small electronic devices where the only safety feature is a non acid-leaking casing. No fire containment measures in place for example.

 

Expect the big installations (cars) to be part of a liquid cooled cycle not only for safety reasons. Since the battery compartments of more conventional Ni-Cad installations already feature temp monitoring and fire-proof casings, it's safe to say that those features are repeated on lithium based installations as both, lithium and the former Ni-Cad tech, contain the risk of a so called thermal runaway condition.

 

I don't see a reason to dramatize the events or even to forget about the fact that all kind of groundings, reworks, extra inspections or investigations are a pain for the manufacturer in charge.

Who is dramatising? the FAA? All the other agencies around the world?

 

Read this:

 

"Boeing chose lithium-ion batteries for the 787, which uses five times more electricity than similar jets, because they hold more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, chief 787 project engineer, said. In a worst-case scenario in which the batteries do burn, they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't threaten the aircraft, Sinnett said.

If the jet is airborne, smoke is supposed to be vented out of the compartment so that it doesn't reach the cabin, he said, and all of the battery cells can ignite without harming the plane's ability to stay aloft."

 

 

Airbus, your cell phone, your electric car, do not use Lithium Manganese batteries, that is the difference, Boeing switched to these batteries in 2008, airbus didn't, and won't for the A350 either.

 

 

 

B787 battery manufacturer fact sheet. http://www.gs-yuasa..../007_01_014.pdf

 

Decision on the A350 to use lithium-ion batteries. http://www.prnewswir...b-56906867.html Side note. This decision was made back in 2008 and hasn't been revised so far.

 

Airbus, your cell phone, your electric car, do not use Lithium Manganese batteries, that is the difference, Boeing switched to these batteries in 2008, airbus didn't, and won't for the A350 either.

If you say so. Besides, the B787 incorporates lithium cobalt oxide types. I don't know what that says about the above statement. Lithium manganese types? Ask Nissan about them. Their hybrid (and full elec) cars feature big setups of those. 24 kWh in the Nissan Leaf, sold since 2010. You'll also find electric bikes using them.

 

Picture of a BIG battery. http://green.autoblo...-recharging-sp/

 

Who is dramatising?

You tell me, Will. Hint. I don't think my statement was aiming at the authorities.

 

Fun fact, even the Airbus officials, which would be in the position to spin the thing some more, state two things. First, 'lets wait for the investigation to end' and second, 'we have some ambitious project coming up too and there's is a chance that it will also have to face the one or the other surprise.' I'll leave that one open to the reader's mind. :smile:

 

In my eyes, waiting for the investigation's outcome and then discussing the impact makes much more sense. Don't we actually agree on that? :mellow:

In my eyes, waiting for the investigation's outcome and then discussing the impact makes much more sense. Don't we actually agree on that?

 

True. All we know at present is that there is a fault with the B787 electrical power supply system.