HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Blogs
Electronic News & Comment

Boeing Should Never Say Never

NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Oldest First|Newest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 4/5  >  >>
DONWS
User Rank
Iron
Re: Part of the job.
DONWS   3/21/2013 5:17:10 PM
NO RATINGS
ChasChas  3/21/2013 9:51:25 AM said
 


"Alan Mulally had to say what he said in order to keep his job".

 

Sorry- Alan has been CEO of FORD for about 5 years now..

 

The current BA 787 Engineer in charge for several years is Mike Sinnett

 

He was for a time highly regarded- but he formally worked for McDonnel Douglas and then switched to Boeing in the early 90's.

 

And he no douvt is a  prisoner of the CEO McNearney and his GE pals

 

His father worked for MDC in St louis as a high ranked VP

CLBrown
User Rank
Iron
Re: "Danger, Danger..."
CLBrown   3/21/2013 5:49:22 PM
NO RATINGS
Kenish,

I hate to keep arguing with you... but this is the only reason that the aviation business has moved away from hydraulic systems to electrical system, for, say, actuating the gear, or the flaps, or the control surfaces in some cases.

They've moved away from direct hydraulic to electrically-powered devices for the EXACT reason I described.  You can store up electrical energy, over time, and discharge it "on demand," reducing parasitic loses and thus improving overall fuel efficiency.

There is ZERO DOUBT about what I'm describing.  This is hard fact.

There's quite literally no other reason to move from a hydraulic system to an electrical system, is there?


I'll concede that your point about "remote self-starting" COULD be accurate... though every airport I've ever deal with would just roll out a "start cart" to the aircraft, and I've never seen a commercial airliner have to start itself.  The "in-flight restart" scenario does seem quite a bit more likely... and I know this is a real requirement, in fact.  But normally, to do this, they'd switch of other in-flilght systems (lighting, entertainment, heating, etc).   Today's aircraft use a lot more batteries than older ones, because they're supporting a far, far higher electrical load... including the various "replaced hydraulics" I mentioned previously.


I'm worried that maybe you think I'm stating a direct paralle between the passenger bus (which uses stored electrical power for MOTIVE FORCE) and the aircraft (which uses stored electrical power for momentary high-demand actions like, for example, deploying flaps or landing gear).

But the POINT remains the same, and I'm absolutely clear on this... the reason for switching from hydraulic to electrical power is to permit you to burn less fuel throughout the flight, by slowly charging the batteries and rapidly discharging them in burst to do brief "high demand" operations, rather than having a perpetual load on the engines capable of supplying that full load at any given instant, and serving only as losses the rest of the time.


That's the argument which was at the core of the 787's overwhelmingly electrically-driven design... all in the name of improving fuel efficiency.


This isn't a "debatable" point... so... you can take my word for it, or reject what I'm telling you...  but I'm not going to bother to restate this another time.

kenish
User Rank
Platinum
Re: "Danger, Danger..."
kenish   3/21/2013 6:03:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Totally agree the swich from bleed air and hydraulics over to electrics is fuel burn.  BTW, during revenue service before the grounding, airlines reported fuel burn bettered spec by 1-2%, which as you know is huge in the airline biz.

Other reasons for moving away from hydraulics are one less system to maintain, less weight, easier system integration into the airframe, better "coupling" to software control (and thus other systems), easier monitoring and maintenance, more environmentally-friendly, etc. Of course a leaky hydraulic fitting seems way easier to detect and fix than an error code on the maintenance console and the difference between hydraulics and electrics ought to add more reliability through "diversity".

I'm open to being wrong as I know you have a lot of knowledge too.  I could very well be misinterpreting the Avweek link.  Also as a "sparky", the battery capacity seems a drop in the bucket compared to total electrical load.  There may be other battery banks that do what you describe....of course the LAST thing Boeing wants to do at this point is say..."oh, you know there's much larger batteries on the 787" !  :)

curious_device
User Rank
Gold
Re: A Safe(er) Solution
curious_device   3/21/2013 6:54:28 PM
NO RATINGS
They should have backpedalled to a less finicky, more extinguishable battery technology until they get their act together.  I can't imagine that they could easily overcome Lion's overtemp/undertemp restrictions in the environs of a commercial aircraft.

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: A Safe(er) Solution
Charles Murray   3/21/2013 8:14:20 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree, curious_device. I would love to know the real reason why they didn't backpeddle.

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Unsinkable
Charles Murray   3/21/2013 8:17:55 PM
NO RATINGS
I, too, like Warren's comment about 16-year-old invulnerability, Ann. It rings eerily true.

paglee
User Rank
Iron
boeing battery
paglee   3/21/2013 9:30:42 PM
NO RATINGS

"The entire argument for the transition from hydraulic to electrical, especially combined with "battery storage," has been to reduce the requirement for the power being tapped off the engines on a continual basis. The idea is, you take a little bit of power, which is used to charge the batteries... and you discharge the batteries (in "lump amounts") as needed."

It doesn't matter if the power is being "tapped off the engines on a continual basis", the load on the engines and its effect on fuel consumption is only a function of the current being drawn, assuming the voltage being generated must be at fixed constant value.

The sizing of the generators depends on the peak current load that must be handled, but only the actual electrical load being delivered by the engine at any given moment, whether the load is constant, variable or intermittent, will affect fuel usage. No load, essentially no additional fuel usage except to cover minimal constant losses within the generator due to windage, bearing friction, etc.


curious_device
User Rank
Gold
Re: A Safe(er) Solution
curious_device   3/22/2013 1:38:33 AM
NO RATINGS
"I would love to know the real reason why they didn't backpeddle."

In the infamous words of Morton-Thiokol, they "put their management hats on."

RC Newby
User Rank
Iron
The Battery might endure, but..
RC Newby   3/22/2013 6:58:25 AM
NO RATINGS
It's an interesting development. The publicity factor with a safety related issue always bears the potential to outweight the utility, and I know that with lithium-ion's reputation their will be no shortage of executives taking the opportunity to staid the concern. Mr McNerney himself will be keen to see the Dreamliner's presence in news ahead of the A350, given the latter has marginally better specifications. I've had the pleasure of working on the topical laminates for both jets during testing and I have to say, the budgetary restraints continued to lapse on either side as the project continued. Everything is related to appearances and neither side wants to be outdone in even the most remote aspect of test and dev, given the possible reprecussions the media has motivation to slant a certain way. I was at http://www.ventec-usa.com while the match-up was unfolding and there were optimisation concerns from both parties which at one point I thought would never be settled

Now it's almost 18 months since Dream's commercial introduction, and with the A350 hurtling towards us from beyond the horizon, it's about time there was a united front for all disciplines in all departments at Boeing! Although I'm certain the engineers have done a fantastic job despite the on-going pressure which to be frank, has been there since conception. 
 


loadster
User Rank
Gold
Re: Unsinkable
loadster   3/22/2013 3:54:51 PM
NO RATINGS
I think your article stated it correctly. Marketers and managers use superlatives without care. Engineers should be immediately alert and  be reminded to use metrics and quantitative realities they can defend. "how to lie with statitistics" is a prerequisite to every political debate.

We may not like the solution Boeing and FAA agreed upon. We may not perceive it as thorough or exhaustive or in our individual branding: safe. They are selling convenient cost-controlled air travel. We are buying or not.

Of course Boeing claims they have created a zero-risk solution. To declare anything else would admit known liability and inherent design flaw. Zero is their definition of significant figures. I'm impressed they gave as much disclosure as they did about the corrections implemented.

So flier beware and keep your will in order. And if you see something, say something. Smoke, particularly.

<<  <  Page 4/5  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Electronic News & Comment
If you’re designing a handheld device or industrial machine that will employ a user interface, then you’ll want to check out the upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center course, "Engineering Principles Behind Advanced User Interface Technologies.”
Brooke Williams of Texas Instruments explains how TI’s new TDA3x chip will help future vehicles “see” all around themselves.
Kevin Gautier of Formlabs describes the making of a carbon fiber mold for an intake manifold, using a $3,300 3D printer, during Medical Design & Manufacturing Midwest.
Mac Cameron of Stratasys describes the company’s Connex3 technology, which allows users to 3D-print complex parts in one build with no assembly required.
At Medical Design & Manufacturing Midwest, Joe Wascow told Design News how Optimal Design prototyped a machine that captures the wing-beat of a duck.
Design News Webinar Series
10/7/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
9/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
9/10/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Nov 3 - 7, Engineering Principles behind Advanced User Interface Technologies
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: 10/28-10/30 11:00 AM
Sponsored by Stratasys
Next Class: 10/28-10/30 2:00 PM
Sponsored by Gates Corporation
Next Class: 11/11-11/13 2:00 PM
Sponsored by Littelfuse
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service