FlyerTalk Forums - ET / Ethiopian 787 "Dreamliner" catches fire at LHR [12 Jul 2013]

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Other Middle Eastern and African Airlines (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other-middle-eastern-african-airlines-471/)

- - ET / Ethiopian 787 "Dreamliner" catches fire at LHR [12 Jul 2013] (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other-middle-eastern-african-airlines/1484336-et-ethiopian-787-dreamliner-catches-fire-lhr-12-jul-2013-a.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaviddesJ (Post 21187444)

How does this relate to the question? I don't know what the fuel economy of a 787 is at 8000 or 10000 ft, compared to normal cruising altitude. Probably a lot worse. Do you know? The 319 certainly flies a lot higher than 10000 ft.

How does it relate? You were wondering about the range of the 787 should it need to fly across the Atlantic at a low altitude. As you admit, you don't know how much less efficient the 787 is at lower altitude as opposed to cruising altitude. I'll admit that I don't know, either.

However, an A319 carries about 24 000 litres of fuel whereas a 787 carries about 127 000 litres. So, unless you're suggesting the 787 is 80% less efficient at low altitude than the 20 year old A319 is at cruising altitude, it should easily be able to cross the Atlantic.

As I suggested in my post, I think it's a safe assumption.

Pushing the Limits?

Now, with all the news about the Dreamlifter that landed at the wrong airport, we see that Boeing actually had the wherewithal to fly in a fuselage section, instead of just a patch.

All done. And back on the line since 23 December...

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...87firexml.html

Quote:

Flightaware, which tracks airplane flights, shows the jet on a Dec. 23 scheduled flight from Frankfurt, Germany, to Ethiopian’s base in Addis Ababa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firewind (Post 22116395)

All done. And back on the line since 23 December...

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...87firexml.html

Flew her ex YYZ on her first trans atlantic after the fire. She was awesome!

It seems the investigation is over; the fire was caused by a wiring fault. No indication if the problem can be assigned to Boeing, Honeywell or the equipment installer. Clear case of poor workmanship and quality control, it would seem (from the perspective of someone who did similar work wiring, installing and maintaining precision electronic equipment) and the battery thermal problems.

The boffins say if the short circuit had occurred in the air, the very cold ambient temperatures would have prevented similar damage in flight - perhaps the same people who though a short would only drain the battery?

Quote:

BBC: 19 Aug 2015 - A fire on a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet at Heathrow Airport two years ago was probably caused by a short circuit, air accident investigators have said.

The fire was likely to have been started by two bare wires touching in a piece of location equipment, the UK Air Accidents Investigations Branch said.

...

The piece of equipment that caught fire - the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) - was located near the back of the plane, and was made by Honeywell, investigators said.

...

The device in the 787 had positive and negative cables that were too long to fit into the box housing the device, and so ended up touching one another.

Testing had predicted that the worst reaction from a short circuit would be the batteries running down.

Unfortunately, what actually happened was what investigators called "a thermal runaway" - a fire that spread from one battery cell to the next.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33985615

Thank you, JDiver.

The safety of all 787 aircraft has been questioned in serious reporting about their manufacture and assembly, including interviews with the employees and contractors involved in both. This does not promote confidence in ET's decision to purchase the early manufactured aircraft that had been stored for years.