• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The root cause of the 787 problems is?

We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?

Bigger is not necessarily better.
 
A classic case of technological overreach. Using electrical systems to replace
hydraulics and pneumatics to save weight is a viable concept, but only if you have stable and high energy density batteries. Li CoO2 batteries have the fire risk, NIMH are too heavy and Li Po4 weren't ready in time. Commercial airliners demand safety and predictability over performance and that requires taking a more conservative technological approach.

Sigh....the dreamliner is "fly by wire" and is not the fiirst aircraft by a long shot set up that way.

It still uses hydraulics ( electrical DC servo's would be too heavy and require too much power ). It just uses "power paks" wich are a complete hydraulic device located at the control surface or landing gear. There's no hydraulic lines snaking throughout the plane.

Their problem ? Their batteries. Aircraft are always the predecessor to any tech you will see on a automobile.

From antilock brakes to fuel injection to fuel injection AND NiCad batteries. Aircraft had them first.

Thermal runaway involving aircraft batteries is nothing new either. Its been the cause of many Aircraft avcidents.

The 787 isn't a technological overreach. Its still has hydraulics and loads of proven and legacy tech built into it.

They just chose the wrong batterys
 
Sigh....the dreamliner is "fly by wire" and is not the fiirst aircraft by a long shot set up that way.

It still uses hydraulics ( electrical DC servo's would be too heavy and require too much power ). It just uses "power paks" wich are a complete hydraulic device located at the control surface or landing gear. There's no hydraulic lines snaking throughout the plane.

Their problem ? Their batteries. Aircraft are always the predecessor to any tech you will see on a automobile.

From antilock brakes to fuel injection to fuel injection AND NiCad batteries. Aircraft had them first.

Thermal runaway involving aircraft batteries is nothing new either. Its been the cause of many Aircraft avcidents.

The 787 isn't a technological overreach. Its still has hydraulics and loads of proven and legacy tech built into it.

They just chose the wrong batterys

Getting rid of bleed air is a considerable step in electrifying the plane beyond the current standard for airliners. That requires considerably backup larger batteries to handle the increased power. The current batteries in the dreamliner weigh around ~125 pounds using the lithium cobalt oxide batteries. If Boeing switched to NIMH batteries with 1/4 the energy density, that would increase weight by 375 pounds. Now I agree it would be worth ditching a couple seats to mitigate the heavier batteries to the avoid fire risk , but using other batteries would come with disadvantages of their own.
 
"Bleed air" ? I'm confused and I'm a licensed A&P mechanic...its been almost 30 years since I used my ticket but none the less I've got a really good memory and am a avid plane buff.

All I can think is bleed air being taken off of the compressor section in a turbine but those systems are generally used for cabin pressurization and environmental applications.

They are highly effective and don't represent a profound amount of weight.
 
How the hell can it be the fault of American unions when the parts going bonkers on Boeing is made overseas?


I was only responding to the person who said that the planes that burst into flame need to be used only by Conservatives.

I have a feeling that if these planes were being assembled in the new Boeing Plant, we'd have heard about it pretty clearly from all of the union supporters in the country.
 
"Bleed air" ? I'm confused and I'm a licensed A&P mechanic...its been almost 30 years since I used my ticket but none the less I've got a really good memory and am a avid plane buff.

All I can think is bleed air being taken off of the compressor section in a turbine but those systems are generally used for cabin pressurization and environmental applications.

They are highly effective and don't represent a profound amount of weight.

Boeing approach on the 787 was to combined as many weight eliminating technologies as possible to a relatively large net gain. They also claim better efficiency using electrical systems for a fuels savings. Exactly how effective they are in practice is still in question, especially considering that Airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air systems.
 
Boeing approach on the 787 was to combined as many weight eliminating
technologies as possible to a relatively large net gain. They also claim better efficiency using electrical systems for a fuels savings. Exactly how effective they are in practice is still in question, especially considering that Airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air systems.

Bleed air for what ? Be specific. Airplanes have been using batteries for decades.

The difference is the new Lithium Ion Batteries and the push to make the thing greener.

The electrolyte materials in aa lithium ion battery are FLAMMABLE.

So the bigger the lithium ion batyery the bigger the chance for a fire.

They're are not practicle in large applications.
 
Back
Top Bottom