HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Comments
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 2/5  >  >>
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. 
 


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."

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.


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.

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.

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.

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" !  :)

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.

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

kenish
User Rank
Platinum
Re: "Danger, Danger..."
kenish   3/21/2013 4:15:39 PM
NO RATINGS
Your comments are accurate, but not in the context of the 787.  Here's a good link that explains my earlier comments: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost:5e8acfbf-0e5f-4354-a6f3-f19ec0ac6556

You're right about ground power from a cable or "start cart".  But that's not always available at the far corner of the maintenance or overnight parking ramp. The more important thing is twin-engine aircraft have a requirement called ETOPs to fly over water or isolated areas. The higher levels of ETOPS certification require a cold-start APU (cold in both the literal and figurative sense).  In case of a double failure of both engines the APU needs to be started on a stand-alone basis after being cold-soaked to -70C in flight...not an easy requirement!

The batteries are definitely not used as a "reservoir" floating on the main bus or to handle parasitic losses as you describe with ground vehicles.

My knowledge is second-hand too...just from working with avionics, as an "aerogeek", and a private pilot.  So, I could stand corrected but everything I've seen from Boeing, NTSB, FAA, etc. support the Avweek link. 

<<  <  Page 2/5  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Sharon Glotzer and David Pine are hoping to create the first liquid hard drive with liquid nanoparticles that can store 1TB per teaspoon. They aren't the first to find potential data stores, as Harvard researchers have stored 700 TB inside a gram of DNA.
If you see a hitchhiker along the road in Canada this summer, it may not be human. That’s because a robot is thumbing its way across our neighbor to the north as part of a collaborative research project by several Canadian universities.
SpaceX has 3D printed and successfully hot-fired a SuperDraco engine chamber made of Inconel, a high-performance superalloy, using direct metal laser sintering (DMLS). The company's first 3D-printed rocket engine part, a main oxidizer valve body for the Falcon 9 rocket, launched in January and is now qualified on all Falcon 9 flights.
Stanford University researchers have found a way to realize what’s been called the “Holy Grail” of battery-design research -- designing a pure lithium anode for lithium-based batteries. The design has great potential to provide unprecedented efficiency and performance in lithium-based batteries that could substantially drive down the cost of electric vehicles and solve the charging problems associated with smartphones.
UK researchers have come up with a method for machining aerospace-grade, carbon fiber-reinforced composites, along with high-strength aerospace alloys, using an ultrasonically assisted machining device. It also works on high-strength aerospace alloys.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Aug 18 - 22, Embedded Software Development With Python & the Raspberry Pi
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.
Last Archived Class
Sponsored by igus
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