Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Rut Row...how does one fix cheap....errr, I mean quality composites that have been exposed to scorching heat?

    Lay a new layer of fiberglass & bondo over it, sand and paint?
    The repair of composite structures depends on its purpose and damage. I've seen cylindrical structures repaired by replacing the damaged area with a composite patch and securing it in place with both bonding and fasteners. If the damage is to a major structual composite item I imagine it can be repaired by adding metalic reinforcement elements.

    Comment


    • #77
      Thanks for the twin engine aircraft explanation.

      Back to the 787 hopefully that hole in the composite body won't be a cause for future cracks on the hull of the aircraft as it ages. We sure don't have that much experience with composite airframes.
      AD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Kpeters View Post
        Thanks for the twin engine aircraft explanation.

        Back to the 787 hopefully that hole in the composite body won't be a cause for future cracks on the hull of the aircraft as it ages. We sure don't have that much experience with composite airframes.
        Actually, there is a lot of experience with composite airframes. The B-2 is mostly carbon-fiber composites; the F-117 used them as well. Most military aircraft today use a lot of composites so the technology is out there and has been for decades. It just took that long to seriously enter the commercial arena.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by B757300 View Post
          Actually, there is a lot of experience with composite airframes. The B-2 is mostly carbon-fiber composites; the F-117 used them as well. Most military aircraft today use a lot of composites so the technology is out there and has been for decades. It just took that long to seriously enter the commercial arena.
          Very true. Composites and bonding have been used on commercial aircraft for many years - in the beginning they were used for secondary structure (including the L1011) and gradually expanded in to primary structure (the 777 for example http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...und/back5.html).

          Comment


          • #80
            I agree there's use in Military and certain parts of commercial aircraft. Just thought it will be interesting to see how maintenance will go on civilian airframes.

            Was going along that thought of "It's not the same having a few composite parts than an entire hull"

            Also thinking about training for the mechanics, experience with continued use and thousands of hours, etc.
            AD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              Rut Row...how does one fix cheap....errr, I mean quality composites that have been exposed to scorching heat?

              Lay a new layer of fiberglass & bondo over it, sand and paint?
              ...and put it in a museum?
              "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

              Comment


              • #82
                Haven't seen it mentioned here (apologies if this turns out to be duplication) but I caught on BBC World News this morning that the APU is also being looked into for any part it may have played

                Arrow

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Arrow View Post
                  Haven't seen it mentioned here (apologies if this turns out to be duplication) but I caught on BBC World News this morning that the APU is also being looked into for any part it may have played

                  Arrow

                  I read that about that somewhere. P&W makes the APU.

                  NTSB investigators are continuing to look at the battery system. They plan to meet Tuesday with officials from Securaplane Technologies Inc., manufacturer of the charger for the 787s lithium ion batteries, at the company's headquarters in Tucson, Ariz., said Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for the board.

                  There is an illustration of who makes the various sections of the 787 in this report:
                  The National Transportation Safety Board has said that the lithium battery which caught fire in a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 was not overcharged but was because of a 'chain of events' on-board the troubled passenger airliner.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    I read on another forum that the actual battery manufacturer had a building burn down while developing the 787 battery.

                    Not sure I belive it, but...
                    Nearly there. Problems with a prototype system evidently lead to a fire at Securaplane. Securaplane (Arizona) is the company which developed the charging system, not the battery itself. The battery comes from a company in Japan. And the APU is another company again.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      What changed to bring about these battery issues?

                      One of the things that has not been discussed is why did the battery issue crop up suddenly and to multiple aircraft at the same time? This usually indicates that something has changed. These batteries were charged and discharged multiple times since each 787's delivery. There are three things that I can think of that could have changed. One, the battery chemistry changed as the batteries aged. Two, the battery chargers analog voltage, current and temperature measurement instruments and circuitry drifted over time and were not re-calibrated, causing an overcharge condition. Third, normal operation reduced the current carrying capacity of components that were close to or at their current rating, such as wiring and connectors that resulted in even higher current while at the same time reducing voltage. The million dollar question is if the LI batteries were magically swapped out prior to these incidents, would they have occurred at all?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by ptwtanks View Post
                        One of the things that has not been discussed is why did the battery issue crop up suddenly and to multiple aircraft at the same time? This usually indicates that something has changed. ..............
                        Or it could be pure coincidence.

                        One aft battery and one fwd battery - are these the same battery or different batteries. If different then were there any common parts in the batteries? I'm sure investigators will be checking this out.

                        Publically Airbus is expressing confidene in their A350 batteries but I'm sure there are internal worries over them.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The other question is we were told that the fire at BOS was from batteries that are only in use on the ground. Im not sure we are being told the truth.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
                            The other question is we were told that the fire at BOS was from batteries that are only in use on the ground. Im not sure we are being told the truth.
                            Who said that?

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Who said that?
                              I recall reading that somewhere Gabriel, about the batteries only being used on the ground.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                                I recall reading that somewhere Gabriel, about the batteries only being used on the ground.
                                If the battery was only meant to be used for the APU then that would be an almost accurate description unless there is some sort of emergency in the air that requires starting up the APU. If that causes a fire well it won't help the emergency that's for sure!
                                AD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X