The Dreamliner has become a nightmare.
I was listening to an ‘expert’ on the BBC last night, he said the problems it had prior to the battery incidents were nothing that all new planes have when they go into full service but the battery problem is a biggie.
Boeing worked closely with the regulatory body to get the lithium ion batteries approved and they did thousands of hours of testing, the Dreamliner is the only aircraft that is using those batteries, apparently.

A couple of things, if they have to go back to conventional batteries what would be the weight penalty, 500kg difference, half a tonne, 5 footballers, it’s not a lot.
On the other hand Boeing wanted the lithium ion batteries pretty badly for that aircraft, they spent a lot of lolly getting them approved, I wonder just how integral they are to the overall concept?

Confused Infrequent Flier.
Queensland

With these super-duper batteries, it is not only the weight component that needs to be considered, but the volume. If their new batteries are “twice as efficient” as regular batteries, they only take up half as much space.To retrofit old technology, they will either need to put twice as many batteries in the same space, or make do with the same physical size but have only half the capacity.

In the end, extra weight just means a higher running cost.

Ultimately it would probably be better to find out why their current batteries aren’t working.

The Li batteries are a lot lighter. I don’t know how much overall weight that means though.
Remember how Apple had trouble with batteries catching fire on some of their laptops. They seem to have that sorted now. It can’t be rocket science.
I remember reading about the Tesla car and they were saying that the Li batteries are very fussy about how they are charged and they spent a lot of time on the software that made sure the batteries were charged properly.

Other batteries may not be up to the job. It is more than just lighter batteries replacing older style, they have changed many of the systems that used to be hydraulic to electric. If traditional batteries cannot perform those functions big problems. Another issue is that I read that the Dreamliner batteries can be shaped in unconventional ways, if these need to be replaced by batteries that are not as flexible, packaging will take a hit.

I’m sure they’ve got their best boffins working on it right now and will come up with a fix.

Airbus are planning to use the same technology in their new A350, so they need it to work too.

Lithium batteries are the way of the future. They will lift and carry us away to the warm golden sunlit uplands. Just a few teething problems to get over first.

Um, sorry.

they could always go for a fuel cell rather than a battery this will be lighter than lithium and smaller, the fuel cell could just use the fuel from the fuel tank.

waste air from the cabins could be taken down to the fuel cell so the oxygen is at a greater density

radical idea so not much chance they’ll go for this

wookiemeister said:

they could always go for a fuel cell rather than a battery this will be lighter than lithium and smaller, the fuel cell could just use the fuel from the fuel tank.

Why not do away with the battery entirely and use the plane’s generator instead?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

wookiemeister said:

they could always go for a fuel cell rather than a battery this will be lighter than lithium and smaller, the fuel cell could just use the fuel from the fuel tank.

Why not do away with the battery entirely and use the plane’s generator instead?

I think the batteries are used mainly on the ground ( from the news reports) the plane still has an auxiliary turbine generator for flight.

>I think the batteries are used mainly on the ground

????

That’s a bit strange. Airports have 400 Hz supplies at all the staging gates.

sibeen said:

>I think the batteries are used mainly on the ground

????

That’s a bit strange. Airports have 400 Hz supplies at all the staging gates.
[/quote

Carmen_Sandiego said:

wookiemeister said:

they could always go for a fuel cell rather than a battery this will be lighter than lithium and smaller, the fuel cell could just use the fuel from the fuel tank.

Why not do away with the battery entirely and use the plane’s generator instead?

How you gunna start the APU without the battery?

Stealth said:

sibeen said:

>I think the batteries are used mainly on the ground

????

That’s a bit strange. Airports have 400 Hz supplies at all the staging gates.

That is what I was thinking. But it may be the taxiing bit.

Two batteries. For electrical power on the ground, and for starting the APU. They aren’t used in flight but they recharge in flight. Lithium batteries don’t like being drained flat or overcharged – that’s when they tend to get hot and start smoking or catch fire. Software is supposed to override before they even get near either scenario.

party_pants said:

How you gunna start the APU without the battery?

That was sarcasm, BTW. A fuel cell is no good if you run out of fuel.

Coffee?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

party_pants said:

How you gunna start the APU without the battery?

That was sarcasm, BTW. A fuel cell is no good if you run out of fuel.

FFS – Use the damn sarcasm font next time.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

wookiemeister said:

they could always go for a fuel cell rather than a battery this will be lighter than lithium and smaller, the fuel cell could just use the fuel from the fuel tank.

Why not do away with the battery entirely and use the plane’s generator instead?

what happens if the generator stops?

the batteries are a back up

generators are also moving devices, batteries and fuel cells are solid state devices and thus more reliable (if built properly)

the apu might not start

a fuel cell and battery have better reliability in normal circumstances

theres probably a regulation saying that batteries must do this job of providing power

Carmen_Sandiego said:

party_pants said:

How you gunna start the APU without the battery?

That was sarcasm, BTW. A fuel cell is no good if you run out of fuel.

Coffee?

you could always do something radical and have a small dedicated fuel tank for just that situation

so the answer i think we can all agree is a fuel cell people

its lighter

its solid state technology

its smaller

it uses existing fuel to power the aircraft electrically

believe it or not the yanks used fuel cells when they went to the moon – my guesses are because the fuel cell is a very reliable device. i figure that given the idea of reliability it will be ok to fit into an aircraft

its not a battery subject to requiring intricate and overly complicated devices to nuture them along

http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2009/12/14/kerosene-fueled-3-kw-solid-oxide-fuel-cell-successfully-co-developed/

Fuel cells are a completely new and untried techology. This stuff is all about switching from one type of batter to another. Switching to a whole new technology which needs its own fuel supply and all the associated plumbing that goes with it, plus a whole new cooling system. Once again Wookie – your solution is more difficult, creates more risk, and is more expensive than the original problem.

party_pants said:

Fuel cells are a completely new and untried techology. This stuff is all about switching from one type of batter to another. Switching to a whole new technology which needs its own fuel supply and all the associated plumbing that goes with it, plus a whole new cooling system. Once again Wookie – your solution is more difficult, creates more risk, and is more expensive than the original problem.

bullshit

fuel cells have been around for years

didn’t you even look at that link?

its three years old

now let me think

i figure boeing should be able to cobble a fuel cell together

the yanks were using fuel cells to go to the moon in 1969, i think the concept and technology is developed quite well

next rebuttal please

you’ll need to do much better than that to knock the idea down

you’d need to have an exhaust for the fuel cell though

you’d need to have a CO2/ CO sensor in the area where the thing is mounted to see leaks

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Fuel cells are a completely new and untried techology. This stuff is all about switching from one type of batter to another. Switching to a whole new technology which needs its own fuel supply and all the associated plumbing that goes with it, plus a whole new cooling system. Once again Wookie – your solution is more difficult, creates more risk, and is more expensive than the original problem.

bullshit

fuel cells have been around for years

Not in commercial aircraft they haven’t. The certification process to get a fuel cell into an aircraft would be…

Plus they tend to run hot, having something that runs hot in a confined space alongside fuel plumbing and an air supply – asking for trouble. Be more difficult to certifiy than a Lithium battery – at least they run cool in normal operation.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

With these super-duper batteries, it is not only the weight component that needs to be considered, but the volume. If their new batteries are “twice as efficient” as regular batteries, they only take up half as much space.To retrofit old technology, they will either need to put twice as many batteries in the same space, or make do with the same physical size but have only half the capacity.

In the end, extra weight just means a higher running cost.

Ultimately it would probably be better to find out why their current batteries aren’t working.

If I remember correctly these are the same or similar as the batteries in laptops that didn’t like flying high in jets?

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Fuel cells are a completely new and untried techology. This stuff is all about switching from one type of batter to another. Switching to a whole new technology which needs its own fuel supply and all the associated plumbing that goes with it, plus a whole new cooling system. Once again Wookie – your solution is more difficult, creates more risk, and is more expensive than the original problem.

bullshit

fuel cells have been around for years

Not in commercial aircraft they haven’t. The certification process to get a fuel cell into an aircraft would be…

Plus they tend to run hot, having something that runs hot in a confined space alongside fuel plumbing and an air supply – asking for trouble. Be more difficult to certifiy than a Lithium battery – at least they run cool in normal operation.

except the batteries aren’t working

if i were them i’d bite the bullet and fit at my cost new batteries regularly until some solution can be found fuel cell or otherwise

how old are the batteries that are playing up

it could be a manufacturing fault – are all the batteries playing up the same age?

you could design an aircradft using fuel cells but that would be some time off you could mount the fuel cell along with the apu in that general area

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

bullshit

fuel cells have been around for years

Not in commercial aircraft they haven’t. The certification process to get a fuel cell into an aircraft would be…

Plus they tend to run hot, having something that runs hot in a confined space alongside fuel plumbing and an air supply – asking for trouble. Be more difficult to certifiy than a Lithium battery – at least they run cool in normal operation.

except the batteries aren’t working

if i were them i’d bite the bullet and fit at my cost new batteries regularly until some solution can be found fuel cell or otherwise

how old are the batteries that are playing up

it could be a manufacturing fault – are all the batteries playing up the same age?

you could design an aircradft using fuel cells but that would be some time off you could mount the fuel cell along with the apu in that general area

And you could design an aircraft to use lithium batteries (like they have). You havent made the case that incorporating a fuel cell system would be any easier than a Li battery system.

you could use methanol as a fuel source

thats fairly common

Methanol

Methanol is a liquid from -97.0 °C to 64.7 °C at atmospheric pressure. The energy density of methanol is an order of magnitude greater than even highly compressed hydrogen, and 15 times higher than Lithium-ion batteries.

Methanol is toxic and flammable. However, the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) voted in November 2005 to allow passengers to carry and use micro fuel cells and methanol fuel cartridges when aboard airplanes to power laptop computers and other consumer electronic devices. On September 24, 2007, the US Department of Transportation issued a proposal to allow airline passengers to carry fuel cell cartridges on board. The Department of Transportation issued a final ruling on April 30, 2008, permitting passengers and crew to carry an approved fuel cell with an installed methanol cartridge and up to two additional spare cartridges. It is worth noting that 200 ml maximum methanol cartridge volume allowed in the final ruling is double the 100 ml limit on liquids allowed by the Transportation Security Administration in carry-on bags.

Direct methanol fuel cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell

Direct-methanol fuel cell
Direct-methanol fuel cells or DMFCs are a subcategory of proton-exchange fuel cells in which methanol is used as the fuel. Their main advantage is the ease of transport of methanol, an energy-dense yet reasonably stable liquid at all environmental conditions.

Efficiency is quite low for these cells, so they are targeted especially to portable applications, where energy and power density are more important than efficiency.

A more efficient version of a direct fuel cell would play a key role in the theoretical use of methanol as a general energy transport medium, in the hypothesized methanol economy.

wookiemeister said:

except the batteries aren’t working

if i were them i’d bite the bullet and fit at my cost new batteries regularly until some solution can be found fuel cell or otherwise

how old are the batteries that are playing up

it could be a manufacturing fault – are all the batteries playing up the same age?

you could design an aircradft using fuel cells but that would be some time off you could mount the fuel cell along with the apu in that general area

The batteries are sort of working. They don’t like overcharging or being run flat – that’s when they overheat. The software that’s supposed to control and block either situation developing is not working.

These aircrafdt are only 1-2 years old. They are the first to be certified with Lithium batteries. Previous aircraft models used Ni-Cads. Older models probably used lead-acid batteries.

The obvious solution is to go back to a known, tried and tested technology that works and is understood. Going to a completely different technology is just plain stupid. There isn’t the time to develop it. Best solution is either to fix the current problem or to go back one step in the technology tree.

wookiemeister said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

wookiemeister said:

they could always go for a fuel cell rather than a battery this will be lighter than lithium and smaller, the fuel cell could just use the fuel from the fuel tank.

Why not do away with the battery entirely and use the plane’s generator instead?

what happens if the generator stops?

the batteries are a back up

generators are also moving devices, batteries and fuel cells are solid state devices and thus more reliable (if built properly)

the apu might not start

a fuel cell and battery have better reliability in normal circumstances

theres probably a regulation saying that batteries must do this job of providing power

If all the engines fail and the APU fails big aircraft have a drop down wind turbine that can provide just enough power to keep the critical systems running so you can try and land your overweight glider.

Anyone care to venture an opinion on why they can’t use capacitors?

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

except the batteries aren’t working

if i were them i’d bite the bullet and fit at my cost new batteries regularly until some solution can be found fuel cell or otherwise

how old are the batteries that are playing up

it could be a manufacturing fault – are all the batteries playing up the same age?

you could design an aircradft using fuel cells but that would be some time off you could mount the fuel cell along with the apu in that general area

The batteries are sort of working. They don’t like overcharging or being run flat – that’s when they overheat. The software that’s supposed to control and block either situation developing is not working.

These aircrafdt are only 1-2 years old. They are the first to be certified with Lithium batteries. Previous aircraft models used Ni-Cads. Older models probably used lead-acid batteries.

The obvious solution is to go back to a known, tried and tested technology that works and is understood. Going to a completely different technology is just plain stupid. There isn’t the time to develop it. Best solution is either to fix the current problem or to go back one step in the technology tree.

trying to come up with another energy source now would be silly

so as i said you could just rip them out perhaps yearly and swallow the cost for your carelessness

in the meantime a new powersource could be constructed in its place

a methanol fuel cell that doesn’t require high temps could be used

Rule 303 said:

Anyone care to venture an opinion on why they can’t use capacitors?

they still aren’t developed enough

a few years ago they were promising a revolution and suddenly the capacitors thing just faded away

So nobody recalls the exploding laptop batteries?

wookiemeister said:

Rule 303 said:

Anyone care to venture an opinion on why they can’t use capacitors?

they still aren’t developed enough

a few years ago they were promising a revolution and suddenly the capacitors thing just faded away

But Li ion batteries are far more developed than fuel cells, and yet you think that they are the better way to go???

wookiemeister said:

trying to come up with another energy source now would be silly

so as i said you could just rip them out perhaps yearly and swallow the cost for your carelessness

in the meantime a new powersource could be constructed in its place

a methanol fuel cell that doesn’t require high temps could be used

Bullshit. No you can’t. It needs:

• Certification for new technology
• A major re-design of the aircraft
• Probably a new certification and testing of the aircraft as redesigned
• New infrastructure at every airport where this plane will operate

Its the very definition of silliness.

Rule 303 said:

Anyone care to venture an opinion on why they can’t use capacitors?

The toilets might overflow and leak on them… or something.

.. I don’t know. It’s just a step to a different technology rather than being a further branch on the technology evolution tree.

>Anyone care to venture an opinion on why they can’t use capacitors?

Because as an energy storage device they are rather crap. At least an order of magnitude below batteries.

energy = 1/2 C * V^2.

The C is very high, but the V is very low.

sibeen said:

Because as an energy storage device they are rather crap. At least an order of magnitude below batteries.

Ahhh, thank you.

Rule 303 said:

sibeen said:

Because as an energy storage device they are rather crap. At least an order of magnitude below batteries.

Ahhh, thank you.

Their design is only meant to hold charge for short periods.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

trying to come up with another energy source now would be silly

so as i said you could just rip them out perhaps yearly and swallow the cost for your carelessness

in the meantime a new powersource could be constructed in its place

a methanol fuel cell that doesn’t require high temps could be used

Bullshit. No you can’t. It needs:

• Certification for new technology
• A major re-design of the aircraft
• Probably a new certification and testing of the aircraft as redesigned
• New infrastructure at every airport where this plane will operate

Its the very definition of silliness.

sheesh

i wonder what happened when they came up with jet engines instead of propellors?

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

trying to come up with another energy source now would be silly

so as i said you could just rip them out perhaps yearly and swallow the cost for your carelessness

in the meantime a new powersource could be constructed in its place

a methanol fuel cell that doesn’t require high temps could be used

Bullshit. No you can’t. It needs:

• Certification for new technology
• A major re-design of the aircraft
• Probably a new certification and testing of the aircraft as redesigned
• New infrastructure at every airport where this plane will operate

Its the very definition of silliness.

sheesh

i wonder what happened when they came up with jet engines instead of propellors?

Well they developed the jet engines, had some failures, and decided to keep refining and improving the jet engines rather than jump to to totally different and less developed/proven idea.

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

trying to come up with another energy source now would be silly

so as i said you could just rip them out perhaps yearly and swallow the cost for your carelessness

in the meantime a new powersource could be constructed in its place

a methanol fuel cell that doesn’t require high temps could be used

Bullshit. No you can’t. It needs:

• Certification for new technology
• A major re-design of the aircraft
• Probably a new certification and testing of the aircraft as redesigned
• New infrastructure at every airport where this plane will operate

Its the very definition of silliness.

sheesh

i wonder what happened when they came up with jet engines instead of propellors?

Well actually they made turboprops

wookiemeister said:

sheesh

i wonder what happened when they came up with jet engines instead of propellors?

It had a really long testing and certification period.

Given that the 787 is already in production, has 800+ backlog of orders on the books, and is already running 2-3 years behind schedule – there isn’t the time to put everything on hold and spend another 2-3 years developing a new fuel cell alternative. They’d go broke.

Stealth said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Bullshit. No you can’t. It needs:

• Certification for new technology
• A major re-design of the aircraft
• Probably a new certification and testing of the aircraft as redesigned
• New infrastructure at every airport where this plane will operate

Its the very definition of silliness.

sheesh

i wonder what happened when they came up with jet engines instead of propellors?

Well they developed the jet engines, had some failures, and decided to keep refining and improving the jet engines rather than jump to to totally different and less developed/proven idea.

wow

i wonder if they could apply that to things like portable power sources?

naaahhhhhhhhh

as i said i don’t bother arguing anymore

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

sheesh

i wonder what happened when they came up with jet engines instead of propellors?

It had a really long testing and certification period.

Given that the 787 is already in production, has 800+ backlog of orders on the books, and is already running 2-3 years behind schedule – there isn’t the time to put everything on hold and spend another 2-3 years developing a new fuel cell alternative. They’d go broke.

i gave a solution to what could replace batteries

i then stated that in reality they’d be better off just using what they have now and just swap out those batteries every year before they blow up

that solution could be put into place for years until they find some solution

in the meantime ……

wookiemeister said:

as i said i don’t bother arguing anymore

Why would you? You keep losing all these arguments.l

if they can get the lithium batteries working they won’t need to bother with developing fuel cells.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

as i said i don’t bother arguing anymore

Why would you? You keep losing all these arguments.l

whatever you say

it doesn’t matter to me

its doubtful i’ll be flying in a dreamliner anyway

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

as i said i don’t bother arguing anymore

Why would you? You keep losing all these arguments.l

whatever you say

it doesn’t matter to me

its doubtful i’ll be flying in a dreamliner anyway

The A380 had wings that were cracking up and engines that were exploding in midair, but I still flew on one to get here. And the talk is true, they are quieter and smoother than a 747, but the neatest thing is that it had free WiFi.

I mentioned earlier that it is more than just them replacing batteries with lighter ones, they are using many many more batteries and using them to run systems and deleting the traditional hydraulics that used to run those systems. The new batteries will need to replicate whatever loads and discharges those systems need because there is no alternative design using hydraulics. If they don’t get it approved it is a probable show stopper.

Skunkworks said:

I mentioned earlier that it is more than just them replacing batteries with lighter ones, they are using many many more batteries and using them to run systems and deleting the traditional hydraulics that used to run those systems. The new batteries will need to replicate whatever loads and discharges those systems need because there is no alternative design using hydraulics. If they don’t get it approved it is a probable show stopper.

I hope they do get it sorted. There’s 800+ orders for the 787 on Boeing’s books.

Plus Airbus are using nthe same technology (possibly from the same supplier) on their new A350. They’ve got over 400 orders and the plane isn’t due till 2014.

There’s going to be a 1200+ shortfall in new aeroplanes if both programs end up being cancelled for the same problem.

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

I mentioned earlier that it is more than just them replacing batteries with lighter ones, they are using many many more batteries and using them to run systems and deleting the traditional hydraulics that used to run those systems. The new batteries will need to replicate whatever loads and discharges those systems need because there is no alternative design using hydraulics. If they don’t get it approved it is a probable show stopper.

I hope they do get it sorted. There’s 800+ orders for the 787 on Boeing’s books.

Plus Airbus are using nthe same technology (possibly from the same supplier) on their new A350. They’ve got over 400 orders and the plane isn’t due till 2014.

There’s going to be a 1200+ shortfall in new aeroplanes if both programs end up being cancelled for the same problem.

On the Euronews channel, they have quoted Airbus as saying the A350 will use a similar approach for electrics over hydraulics, but it will but a completely different system.

maybe boeing should have thought about this kind of thing before they started using the batteries in the first place?

wookiemeister said:

maybe boeing should have thought about this kind of thing before they started using the batteries in the first place?

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

maybe boeing should have thought about this kind of thing before they started using the batteries in the first place?

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

And if it is a manufacturing fault by the Japanese battery builder then no amount of testing would have shown that.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

maybe boeing should have thought about this kind of thing before they started using the batteries in the first place?

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

The one they didn’t test.. was in the air.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

maybe boeing should have thought about this kind of thing before they started using the batteries in the first place?

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

The one they didn’t test.. was in the air.

But the first battery fault happened on the ground.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

maybe boeing should have thought about this kind of thing before they started using the batteries in the first place?

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

The one they didn’t test.. was in the air.

That could be the problem. As Stealth said, it could have been a dud from the factory.

Stealth said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

The one they didn’t test.. was in the air.

But the first battery fault happened on the ground.

Ah.. but had it been in the air at high altitude beforehand?

Another risk is that the FAA certify the batteries but only under onerous inspection and replacement conditions that will change all the economic equations.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

They did thousands of hours of testing on the batteries to get certification. I guess the testing regime didn’t imagine every scenario on the ground in real-world conditions.

The one they didn’t test.. was in the air.

That could be the problem. As Stealth said, it could have been a dud from the factory.

Yes. There is always the dud factor.

anyone with any brains would have just sat the batteries in a space that could fit normal batteries

if the new batteries go belly up then you could always go back to the old batteries

maybe they should have asked someone first?

wookiemeister said:

anyone with any brains would have just sat the batteries in a space that could fit normal batteries

if the new batteries go belly up then you could always go back to the old batteries

And built the wings to take older engines if the new engines had issues, and built the airframe to take a conventional skin if the carbon fibre didn’t work out as planned…designed a really crappy new/old plane really.

wookiemeister said:

maybe they should have asked someone first?

Stand by the phone Wookies, I am sure Boeing will be calling you any minute now that they have seen the errors of their ways.

wookiemeister said:

anyone with any brains would have just sat the batteries in a space that could fit normal batteries

if the new batteries go belly up then you could always go back to the old batteries

I guess they were chasing innovative solutions and alternative and better ways of doing things and attempting to reduce costs. A bit like the intent behind all of your ideas in fact cept the cost bits which doesn’t seem to be a factor I wookieworld engineering.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

anyone with any brains would have just sat the batteries in a space that could fit normal batteries

if the new batteries go belly up then you could always go back to the old batteries

I guess they were chasing innovative solutions and alternative and better ways of doing things and attempting to reduce costs. A bit like the intent behind all of your ideas in fact cept the cost bits which doesn’t seem to be a factor I wookieworld engineering.

my ideas are just thrown out there

i don’t take them too seriously, the strength of the idea can only be tested under rebuttal and counter argument

whats happened is that there was no team B arguing the toss

What chemistry are conventional aircraft batteries, silver–zinc?

Glance Fleeting said:

What chemistry are conventional aircraft batteries, silver–zinc?

NiCad in the 747 but they are used for in flight type stuff.

Stealth said:

Glance Fleeting said:

What chemistry are conventional aircraft batteries, silver–zinc?

NiCad in the 747 but they are used for in flight type stuff.

Aren’t used for I flight stuff.

Stealth said:

Stealth said:

Glance Fleeting said:

What chemistry are conventional aircraft batteries, silver–zinc?

NiCad in the 747 but they are used for in flight type stuff.

Aren’t used for I flight stuff.

Yes they are* – there’s two big ni-cads in the 747. One in the back of the cockpit to briefly power the plane before the APU starts and another in the tail close to the APU to start the APU.

• Pretty sure they are, it’s bee too many years since I studied the systems on them.

As to why the 787 is having battery problems, I don’t know sorry as I haven’t really been following it.
Yes Boeing does very extensive testing of all the systems for years before the plane goes into public service but there’s still the odd thing that pops up in the real world that doesn’t show up in testing. I’m guessing that’s what’s happening here.
I’m very confident that Boeing will sort it out very quickly. I’m also glad that none of the problems seem to be related to the carbon fibre structure.

Spiny Norman said:

As to why the 787 is having battery problems, I don’t know sorry as I haven’t really been following it.
Yes Boeing does very extensive testing of all the systems for years before the plane goes into public service but there’s still the odd thing that pops up in the real world that doesn’t show up in testing. I’m guessing that’s what’s happening here.
I’m very confident that Boeing will sort it out very quickly. I’m also glad that none of the problems seem to be related to the carbon fibre structure.

tail falls off in the background

i see the batteries issue has come back

you could always just use cargo space to house normal batteries and be done with it

all you’d need to do is use the existing cables to hook onto the new batteries known to work

the space reserved for the defunct batteries could be left until they work out what they need to do