Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2013, 06:47 AM   #181
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
"This is sound technology that is growing through rigors of the real world."

No doubt,,, but the real question is how long can Boeing wait for the tech to be useable?

Hate to think they would be so stubborn that they will keep cranking out 5 a month 787's for the next 3 -5 YEARS ,
waiting for the tech to catch up.

Will they continue to ramp up production towards 15 or 20 a month , during the wait?
__________________
Advertisement

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:41 AM   #182
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
No doubt,,, but the real question is how long can Boeing wait for the tech to be useable?
The engineering solution has likely been defined. It's now got to get through the rigors of test, qualification and certification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
Hate to think they would be so stubborn that they will keep cranking out 5 a month 787's for the next 3 -5 YEARS ,
waiting for the tech to catch up.
I haven't heard anything about "waiting for technology to catch up". There are hundreds... thousands of planes to be built and that has nothing to do with what sort of battery technology they carry. Boeing has approval to build and fly 787's. They are being built faster than ever.
__________________

SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 07:47 PM   #183
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post

Then the rest would likely know this is a Thales design.
Are you saying that Thales peviously obtained design approval for the battery from the DGAC/FAA and that Boeing purchased the batteries as an off-the-shelf unit?
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:09 PM   #184
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
I don't know the particulars of the contracts portion of these, but the inverters are Thales design, the batteries themselves from Yuasa and the chargers / thermal regulators from an outfit in Arizona.

It's be just the same for an engine problem. We wouldn't stop production for an AD on the engines either. Just another hurdle.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:49 PM   #185
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,573
All you aircraft experts, anyone seen news reports of a door (in business class) coming open about 4 inches on an A380 flying between BKK and HKG, cabin crew stuffing the gap with blankets and pillows secured with duct tape, scared passengers complaining of extreme cold and loud noise until reaching destination? The operators are reported as admitting to noise, but say it is impossible for the door to open.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:15 PM   #186
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
I don't know the particulars of the contracts portion of these, but the inverters are Thales design, the batteries themselves from Yuasa and the chargers / thermal regulators from an outfit in Arizona.

It's be just the same for an engine problem. We wouldn't stop production for an AD on the engines either. Just another hurdle.
The question was about design responisbility, not production. Very big difference from the engines, which have their own type certificate. If the batteries are not already approved under a process separate from the airframe....BOEING is 100% responsible for the design under the airplane type certificate...doesn't matter who is doing the work under contract. Implying that Thales is responsible would simply be wrong...and misleading.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:20 PM   #187
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
That was just a door seal that was leaking. The door never actually came open, or was in danger of opening. Just a troublesome cold air leak.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:59 PM   #188
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post

Boeing has approval to build and fly 787's.
Not exactly.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 11:19 PM   #189
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidgear View Post
The question was about design responisbility, not production.


Perhaps you should ask the question as you want it answered then.

I'm not implying that Boeing is not responsible for the overall design. Just that Thales is the sub for all of the backup power generation systems and hence the designer of those systems. They have their own DEs, their own ARs and their own certification under Part 145 for those systems. They are working under Boeing's TC, but they most certainly are responsible for their system, and it's airworthiness.

You seem to know something about what you're talking about, so if you want specific answers, ask specific questions.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 11:21 PM   #190
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidgear View Post
Not exactly.
Say what you think you mean then.

Do we not still hold the valid Production Cert? Have they pulled the Type Cert? Have we stopped production? Are we going to keep flying B1s?

What EXACTLY are you asking?
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 11:52 AM   #191
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
[/I]
Perhaps you should ask the question as you want it answered then.

I'm not implying that Boeing is not responsible for the overall design. Just that Thales is the sub for all of the backup power generation systems and hence the designer of those systems. They have their own DEs, their own ARs and their own certification under Part 145 for those systems. They are working under Boeing's TC, but they most certainly are responsible for their system, and it's airworthiness.

You seem to know something about what you're talking about, so if you want specific answers, ask specific questions.

The question was specific and in regard to design approval and responsibility. You introduced production.

As you stated in the first sentence, second paragraph above, Boeing is responsible for the type design, including the batteries. End of story.

Part 145 covers Repair Stations, not type certification.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:10 PM   #192
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
Say what you think you mean then.

Do we not still hold the valid Production Cert? Have they pulled the Type Cert? Have we stopped production? Are we going to keep flying B1s?

What EXACTLY are you asking?
You currently have a very constricted Airworthiness Certificate which covers flight test only. The validity of the Production and Type Certificates is over shadowed by the grounding action. Surely you're not saying the aircraft currently on the production line won't be modified by a change to the Type Design before they enter airline service. And if the aircraft on the production line are knowingly being built to a Type Design with a dangerous flaw, then the Production Certificate is in reality, invalid. The Feds left the TC and PC intact to allow you to move forward for economic and public perception reasons. Technically, both are invalid and could be pulled.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:18 PM   #193
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
The question was specific and in regard to design approval and responsibility. You introduced production.
Yes I did. Boeing has overall design approval for the TYPE CERT of the 787, Thales is the designer of the inverter. They are a supplier like any other. They certify, qualify, conform and test their LRU like any other on the aircraft.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:30 PM   #194
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
You currently have a very constricted Airworthiness Certificate which covers flight test only.
Including those B1s as required. (Production Flight Tests and Ferry Flights)

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
And if the aircraft on the production line are knowingly being built to a Type Design with a dangerous flaw, then the Production Certificate is in reality, invalid. The Feds left the TC and PC intact to allow you to move forward for economic and public perception reasons. Technically, both are invalid and could be pulled.
The production cert is in no jeopardy and certainly not invalid. You can manufacture airplanes all day long and the only risk would re-work should you change the design before delivery (economic risk). We built better than 50 787 aircraft before we received initial Type Cert. This is no different.

You seem to have a very adversarial position on this and I'd rather talk about boats, so I'll make this my last comment to you on this matter.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:47 PM   #195
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
Yes I did. Boeing has overall design approval for the TYPE CERT of the 787, Thales is the designer of the inverter. They are a supplier like any other. They certify, qualify, conform and test their LRU like any other on the aircraft.
Do you mean to say that Thales, for example, designs, certifies, tests, and conforms completely independent of Boeing oversight?
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:50 PM   #196
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
Including those B1s as required. (Production Flight Tests and Ferry Flights)



The production cert is in no jeopardy and certainly not invalid. You can manufacture airplanes all day long and the only risk would re-work should you change the design before delivery (economic risk). We built better than 50 787 aircraft before we received initial Type Cert. This is no different.

You seem to have a very adversarial position on this and I'd rather talk about boats, so I'll make this my last comment to you on this matter.
Just separating fact from Boeing PR. By the way, name calling is a little sophomoric, don't you think?
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 02:04 PM   #197
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
Including those B1s as required. (Production Flight Tests and Ferry Flights)



The production cert is in no jeopardy and certainly not invalid. You can manufacture airplanes all day long and the only risk would re-work should you change the design before delivery (economic risk). We built better than 50 787 aircraft before we received initial Type Cert. This is no different.

You seem to have a very adversarial position on this and I'd rather talk about boats, so I'll make this my last comment to you on this matter.

As I said, the airworthiness certificate is severely restricted...including allowable operating area.

Production prior to TC is sometimes allowed when the data package is missing substantiating data...most often flight test results. It would be most unusual for it to be permitted at the front end of a program when a known serious safety related item is part of the TC drawing package. This is different.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:18 PM   #198
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Lots of details are coming out on the 787 battery issues. In a WSJ interview wth CEO McNerney he was quoted as saying he'd contacted fellow CEOs at GM and GE soliciting help from their Li battery gurus. He did not say he'd contacted Ford's CEO Mullahy (is this correct - who'd left Boeing when denied the top job McNerney received?)

The FAA is yet to sign off on Boeing's new plans to:
  1. Put a beefier fireproof box around the batteries
  2. Increase the space between the batteries
  3. Put smoke tubes leading from the beefier box to vent to the outside in the event (certainty?) of fire
Now Congress is getting ready to convene on the myriad of regulatory issues that are involved. Good news is needed.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 08:53 PM   #199
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
There are only two batteries on the plane. The "space between them" is not being changed. One is in the front of the plane, one is in the back. The additional space is in the form of changes to the internal layout and construction of the batteries themselves.

Your assumption about Mulally, who I happen to know quite well, is also incorrect.

Ignorance continues to run rampant.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:04 PM   #200
Guru
 
Moonstruck's Avatar
 
City: Hailing Port: Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moonstruck
Vessel Model: Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post

It's a 28V battery... not a solid fuel rocket booster.
I would never belittle the catastrophe that befell the crew of the Challenger, but the batteries in this application have the possibility of killing far more people. A few pounds and dollars saved is no excuse for bypassing good safety practices.
__________________

__________________
Don on Moonstruck
Sabre 42 Hardtop Express & Blackfin 25 CC
When cruising life is simpler, but on a grander scale (author unknown)
http://moonstruckblog.wordpress.com/
Moonstruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012