Originally Posted by
SFflyer123
This is all fine & dandy that the smoke is evacuated, but what about not having a functioning battery? Doesn't that pose a problem to operate the aircraft, espeically if so many functions on this plane are electric, not hydraulic? So the fire is contained, but will the aircraft still function normally with a destroyed battery?
As I understand it, you're "ok" with the other battery, and up to six generators--two per engine, including two powered off the apu. You're probably "fine" with even just the four generators tied to the two main engines powering the 78s' systems. But, in either of these cases, you're probably looking to land at the nearest suitable field. There is, also, the probable last resort (emergency use) RAM air turbine. But will the regulators go along, particularly given the original 78 certification requirements, and, perhaps no or limited ETOPS, given this "solution"? I can't wait to see if they'll release the video and results of a presumably required induced thermal runaway on Boeing's proposed box and pipes solution.
Originally Posted by
uastarflyer
Your description and questions have me anticipating a drawing right out of Spy v Spy (from MAD Magazine)
This is a funny reply, except, underlying this, we're talking about a major part of Boeing's preferred, real world solution to 78 battery thermal runaway, and probable fire on board. Let's hope the other part--additional battery cell spacing and revised, cell dividers can sufficiently bring down the risk of getting to the thermal runaway stage!