FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   TravelBuzz (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/)
-   -   Are you comfortable flying the 787? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/1427883-you-comfortable-flying-787-a.html)

stablemate77 Jan 17, 2013 6:34 pm

i wonder if these new batteries are stable
 
this plane uses a alot of juice....and a350 has less electronics i here.... i really not think where made is issue like some say....design seems trouble....a french company builds electonics for both planes 787 an a350 i believe usa builds planes for airbus and boeing planes are built in other countrys at least the parts.....i would not go on this plane until is fixed

motytrah Jan 18, 2013 10:40 am

Many Type of Lithium-ion Batteries
 
The 787 uses a Lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) battery. It's what's in many laptops and cell phones these days and has the some of the highest energy density with very quick recharge times. It's also the most susceptible to fire and combustion compared to competing technologies.

Most Lithium-ion electric cars use lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2O4). The density is not as good, but it's much safer and less susceptible to the kinds of failures associated with Lithium cobalt oxide. There are also newer battery types that blend technologies such as the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide cells the Chevy Volt use.

I would speculate that the battery choice for the 787 reflects what was state of the art at the time of the 787's design, but the supply chain and test regiment means they can't just swap up the battery packs. Though, given Lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) batteries have a shorter life span compared to other technologies Boeing may already have been working on using other types of batteries.

All that being said tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) batteries are in use daily. Very few have issues. In particular when they are combined with a quality power management controller/charger. If the batteries are okay it's possible a software fix could solve the short term problems.

bocastephen Jan 18, 2013 1:25 pm

I flew the NH 787 before it was grounded - this is by far the greatest commercial aircraft in history.

I wouldn't hesitate a second to fly a 787 today without its battery fixed vs any model of Airbus.

slawecki Jan 18, 2013 3:03 pm

normally, when something newish in technology comes along, it is first tested and flown on military equipment. are these batteries being used by military?

Josh125 Jan 18, 2013 3:36 pm

I flew the 787 in November from IAH to LAX. I believe it was the aircraft's 5 trip and it was amazing, it is the future. I wouldn't hesitate to book another flight, although not a possibility at the moment.

ft101 Jan 19, 2013 2:39 am


Originally Posted by slawecki (Post 20077600)
normally, when something newish in technology comes along, it is first tested and flown on military equipment. are these batteries being used by military?

The military normally trails many years behind in adopting new technologies/new processes for its hardware. Testing and qualification takes many years with standards much stricter than commercial/industrial requirements.

BOH Jan 19, 2013 5:17 am


Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 20076971)
I flew the NH 787 before it was grounded - this is by far the greatest commercial aircraft in history.

I wouldn't hesitate a second to fly a 787 today without its battery fixed vs any model of Airbus.

A round of applause for the most inane post of 2013 so far :rolleyes:

slawecki Jan 19, 2013 11:01 am


Originally Posted by ft101 (Post 20080320)
The military normally trails many years behind in adopting new technologies/new processes for its hardware. Testing and qualification takes many years with standards much stricter than commercial/industrial requirements.

1.i did not think that trailing to be the case.
2.i think this battery technology and materials combination has been around for over 10 years.
3. their are known issues with (LiCoO2) batteries.
4. it looks like someone screwed up and did not have them being charged correctly. not a materials issue. the batteries were being charged too hard and got very unhappy.
5. i would think this a simple fix, not a 30 day down time, unless they need a new 1000 hr test on the new specs.

found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/bu....html?hp&_r=1&

seems to me to be an excellent report of what's goingon.

chollie Jan 19, 2013 11:35 am


Originally Posted by ft101 (Post 20080320)
The military normally trails many years behind in adopting new technologies/new processes for its hardware. Testing and qualification takes many years with standards much stricter than commercial/industrial requirements.

Actually, for many years the story was supposedly the complete reverse at Boeing. The military needed a new aircraft, Boeing developed it (with taxpayer funding of the R&D, of course), then applied what it learned and made a civilian aircraft.

The 777 was considered 'ground-breaking' because it was the first time that Boeing had developed a civilian aircraft from scratch without the advantage of a military precursor that provided taxpayer dollars for R&D.

Javelin Jan 19, 2013 9:23 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 20082544)
Actually, for many years the story was supposedly the complete reverse at Boeing. The military needed a new aircraft, Boeing developed it (with taxpayer funding of the R&D, of course), then applied what it learned and made a civilian aircraft.

The 777 was considered 'ground-breaking' because it was the first time that Boeing had developed a civilian aircraft from scratch without the advantage of a military precursor that provided taxpayer dollars for R&D.

The 747 as a military-derived airframe, sure. Can you explain how the 707/737/757/767/787 were developed using taxpayer funding, albeit indirectly?

BOH Jan 20, 2013 1:03 am


Originally Posted by Javelin (Post 20084963)
The 747 as a military-derived airframe, sure. Can you explain how the 707/737/757/767/787 were developed using taxpayer funding, albeit indirectly?

The 707 undoubtedly was as it is the passenger derivative of the KC135 tanker. The 727 and 737 were then derived from this base model, ie same fuselage width, some common systems.

Much of the technology in the 787 and particularly carbon fibre was developed using taxpayer funding as it was first used in military aircraft a decade or so before.

wallypiper Jan 20, 2013 5:55 am

Back to the subject of the thread, my answer is unequivocably "no, not at this time."
The battery problem is serious and demonstrates a multi layer failure. The use of lithium ion cobalt batteries requires careful management of charge and discharge. Clearly, the systems installed on the 787 to do this are not working. Until they figure out how and why that failure is occurring, and it has to be a multi layer failure, there is no way I would fly on one. I want to. I want them to be a great innovative airplane. But lithium batteries are dangerous and require very careful management. You can't go to the store and buy a standalone lithium battery. You can only buy them in a battery assembly that includes built in safety circuits. You have to assume that in the 787, there are redundant safety circuits to detect and react to battery problems and those systems are obviously not working. Until they know why and fix it, I think you'd have to be nuts to fly on one. Note that Yuasa, the actual manufacturer of the batteries has been pretty silent so far. According to their own marketing materials, they supplied the batteries with "battery management electronics which guarantees multiple levels of safety features". Apparently, more levels are required. Yuasa stock dropped over 6% after the grounding as investors react to the high likelihood of major lawsuits from the airlines who are taking a beating because of the groundings.

slawecki Jan 20, 2013 7:06 am


Originally Posted by Javelin (Post 20084963)
The 747 as a military-derived airframe, sure. Can you explain how the 707/737/757/767/787 were developed using taxpayer funding, albeit indirectly?

a lot of the development is other than the whole plane. the whole plane is not a birth event, it is the sum of close to a million parts. the engines, the electronics, the construction materials, the fuel management system, the entertainment system were all developed with government money. i was not involved in wing design, but i am certain a lot of that design was govt funded.

the answer to the question about flying in a 787. fires in airplanes scare the hell out of me. i once was managing a multiplex box for 707's(40 years ago). i went to west coast and found out what was going on. pratt & whitney said that if i took the train back(3-4 days) they would fire me. i flew, for the last time in 5 years, until they got rid of that "technology"

slawecki Jan 20, 2013 7:08 am

the airbus uses the same batteries. sort of amazing the french made something using electricity that works.

KurtVH Jan 20, 2013 8:53 am


Originally Posted by slawecki (Post 20086567)
the airbus uses the same batteries. sort of amazing the french made something using electricity that works.

They hired some Germans for that part.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:20 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.