Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-02-2013, 12:14 PM   #121
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
Aircraft are built around probability of risk, not potential. It's a subtle difference, but design must assume bad things WILL happen, and work to provide appropriate levels of mitigation.
Don't bother, SomeSailor. Every time these guys respond they simply prove the validity of the title of my "787 vs ignorance" thread. Life's too short to waste it trying to educate people who don't even have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about. That sounds arrogant, but it's reality.

Reading threads like these has given me a great insight to what the people in Communications have to put with day after day. I know a lot of them and I'm sure you do, too. You couldn't pay me enough to deal with the bozos like they have to.
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 01:59 PM   #122
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 RickB View Post
What part is "hilarious," ??
I find your rants amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
the repitition of misinformation posted by Boeing's local representatives?
I'm no "representative" of Boeing at all. I just work there.

You seem to like ANY excuse to go after someone, or pick an argument. As far as "earning ridicule", if that's your self-appointed role on this forum, I think you should check yourself.

You wanna put your money where your mouth is, show me where I've misled anyone on here. You asked for an opinion, I gave mine. It's just an opinion and no way represents what actually happened, what the fix will be or what the design will be in the future.

Feel free to take my opinions any way you wish, but be adult enough to refrain from the name-calling and insinuation, I'm a grown man and chose to have conversations with other grown men in that fashion.
__________________

SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 05:10 PM   #123
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post

I'm no "representative" of Boeing at all.
Particularly now that Boeing is being exposed to worldwide discussion and biting commentary. You didn't mind regurgitating the company line week or so ago.

Quote:
You seem to like ANY excuse to go after someone, or pick an argument.
Nah, just when a poke with a pointy stick deflates a puffed up poseur.

Methinks you guys protest too much.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 08:35 PM   #124
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 RickB View Post
Methinks you guys protest too much.
Methinks you're an argumentative troll who, when tired of arguing ANYTHING anyone says about their boats... starts in on any other subjects he's ignorant of.

Trying to have a discussion with you always always turns into a fool's errand.

I'll let you waddle down that path on your own. What a shame a forum with so much great information so frequently gets sodden with your strident tripe.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 06:07 AM   #125
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,529
"The entire industry is invested in lighter, more powerful battery technologies."

And has been for over a century since wet lead acid batts became common .

Everyone on the planet is wishing to move the decimal point , lighter , cheaper , 10 or 100x the power density,faster charge ans discharge.

While creating a mostly electrical aircraft , no bleed air and the Hyd system , really an electric system,
the LI bat jump may have been too far too soon.

As an arm chair guesser my thought is tech readyness failure .

On any product a failure will occur every so often, 1 in 10 on Chrysler cars , maybe 1 in 10,000 on D cells from a mfg.

The LI battery is literally hundreds of batts stuck together , and each individual cell MUST be "perfect" which is difficult as each cell is fairly complex internally..

Sadly one cell failure can cause the entire batt pack to catch fire.

This is the LI problem that has yet to be solved for years , I'm not confident it will be solved in a reasonable enough time that Boeing can stand the wait.

Hanging on , waiting for "the fix" has got to be expensive.

The wings failed on the Electra , that was a BIG problem to fix ,

The problem here seems to be pride.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 10:40 AM   #126
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
The LI battery is literally hundreds of batts stuck together , and each individual cell MUST be "perfect" which is difficult as each cell is fairly complex internally..
That's one approach, and actually one of the safer ones. Tesla is taking that approach with his cars. You can have many small cells, and when one fails you simply have a bad battery, or you can have a lighter design that is fewer cells, but the potential for thermal runaway much greater.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
The wings failed on the Electra , that was a BIG problem to fix, The problem here seems to be pride.
Not at all. I flew for 23 years on the military version of the L-188 Electra, Lockheed's P-3 Orion. The wing never failed in my career. They overcame the technology challenges, but the plane never succeeded commercially after that. I hope that's not the case with the 787. I don't think Boeing is reacting with pride so much as a business decision.

Ironically, some attribute the success of the the much less efficient jet aircraft (Boeing's 707), to the PR disaster of the L-188.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 11:20 AM   #127
Guru
 
HopCar's Avatar


 
City: Miami Florida
Vessel Name: Possum
Vessel Model: Ellis 28
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,505
A little side note about the strength of the Electra's wing. NOAA has been flying them (P-3 version) into hurricanes for more than twenty years and hasn't lost one yet.
HopCar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 12:27 PM   #128
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
I thought between this and the "Ignorant" thread things were getting a bit over the top, but could not help myself referencing this article about Lion batts. Seems our government still is unable to talk to itself!!
Boeing's Dreamliner Grounded, But Batteries Can Fly: AP Exclusive
Chrisjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 01:07 PM   #129
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The Electra's problem was not the wing but the engine installation. I remember reading about these accidents and the cause. IIRC, the engines could set up an oscillation that in turn fatigued the engine attachments. The accidents occurred when an engine would suddenly depart the wing which of course caused all sorts of damage to the wing, loss of control, fire, etc.

Once the cause was found the problem was fixed and the airframe went on to a long and successful service.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 02:29 PM   #130
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
The Electra was way ahead of it's time as well. The Navy really wanted to keep a similar airframe going well into the 21st century, and they're still flying them today. The P-8A will be a nice replacement for many reasons, but my heart will always be with the P-3.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 06:57 AM   #131
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,529
"The wing never failed in my career. They overcame the technology challenges, but the plane never succeeded commercially after that."

After the repair and rebuild the aircraft was far too heavy to operate in commercial service.
The airlines do worry about fuel burn , the US Navy could care less.

The Senator from Lockheed got them sold to the USN,, because a few Electras were sold and Loc didn't wish to buy them back OR keep a line open to create replacement /repair parts .

Sadly the wing repair made the aircraft so stiff that in Mad trapping even experienced crew BARFED from the lousy rough ride.

Additionally with a commercial aircraft base , rather than a military design the survivabilty of a P3 using a Nuke torpedo was the same as with a helicopter,,ZERO

Not many Pensacola AOC grads were interested in Kama Kazi procedures,
tho one aircraft for a nuke boomer is a great deal,"120 cities saved",
unless you are driving the delivery cart.

Crap decisions from "the best congress money can buy" (Will Rogers) continues today , look at the base closing dance.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 08:39 AM   #132
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
Sadly the wing repair made the aircraft so stiff that in Mad trapping even experienced crew BARFED from the lousy rough ride.
That's funny. I was an WST/IFT for many years and never had that problem. It sounds like you were a P-3 weenie for awhile?
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 10:56 AM   #133
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
She is just saying that you should not design an aircraft with the EXPECTATION THAT IT IS GOING TO CATCH FIRE!!!!!.... I happen to agree!!!!!!!!!

Most aircraft ARE built with the concept that they may catch fire.

The engines are built with firewall cut offs that stop fuel, hydraulic etc to that engine, and usually 2 sets of fire bottles.

Proper planning precludes poor performance,
FF, look at the sentence before the one you quoted. I covered it....and am well aware of the safeguards against fire. Her point(and mine) was that an aircraft should never be designed with the expectation that it is going to catch on fire. Yes, you plan and design for the contingencies....but it should not be inherent in the design.
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:00 AM   #134
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post

Aircraft are built around probability of risk, not potential. It's a subtle difference,
Agreed. And Boeing ended up on the wrong side of this one.
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:03 AM   #135
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post

Last but not least, please note the occupation and knowledge of the person who started this thread. He and his thousands of fellow employees definitely need to be aware that the mitigations are real and not Boeing speak.
Thanks, sir. I could bid and fly this aircraft as a first officer. Being a captain I do not want to go back to the right seat. So hopefully one day I will fly this aircraft(as captain). Everyone I have talked to is blown away by and loves it. But they gotta get to the bottom of this.
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:13 AM   #136
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Don't bother, SomeSailor. Every time these guys respond they simply prove the validity of the title of my "787 vs ignorance" thread. Life's too short to waste it trying to educate people who don't even have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about. That sounds arrogant, but it's reality.

Reading threads like these has given me a great insight to what the people in Communications have to put with day after day. I know a lot of them and I'm sure you do, too. You couldn't pay me enough to deal with the bozos like they have to.
<<"You don't need to be an expert to look at the photos of charred batteries and know that some of the safeguards are failing. The "multiple systems" to prevent just this sort of event "did not work as intended," Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said Thursday of the incident in Boston. In blunt language, Hersman said the "expectation in aviation is never to experience a fire on an aircraft.">>

Look at the first 7 words in her statement. And regardless of her expertise, I am sure she is privy to more information on the subject than any of us.

The bottom line is that Boeing KNOWS how volatile Li batteries are and the design of the battery box is basically an admission.

Anyway Marin, I know you have compared this issue with the A380 engine issues and you are correct. But practically speaking, in reality, there is a difference between an engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft and a fire in flight.
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:33 AM   #137
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baker View Post
.... So hopefully one day I will fly t.
I believe you will, John. I know very little about the 787 but as a prospective paying passenger, I can't wait to take a ride.
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:22 PM   #138
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baker View Post

Anyway Marin, I know you have compared this issue with the A380 engine issues and you are correct. But practically speaking, in reality, there is a difference between an engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft and a fire in flight.
I don't disagree with you but I've read the damage report on the Qantas A380 and they did a lot more than just lose an engine. The flight crew and the Qantas people doing the initial inspection felt that had that plane been just a little further along on its flight the crew would have been unable to return to land. The damage to the wing structure itself was amazing and the crew could barely keep abreast of the plane's systems that were failing or dropping offline.

While "containing" a potentially serious problem is certainly not as good a solution as eliminating the risk of having the problem altogether, it is not an unprecedented thing to do. Virtually every turbofan operating today has a containment structure designed to keep fan and turbine blades that might come off from exiting the nacelle and causing untoward damage. And blades do come off, albeit very rarely.

BTW, my "787 vs ignorance" title was not to imply that the only people who understand the industry are the people at Boeing. Far from it. The folks at the regulatory agencies, our competitors, our customers, our suppliers and partners, certainly understand the industry that they are part of. But in the overall scheme of things, that's a not a huge number of people.

People outside this industry-- or who were part of it decades ago--- are largely ignorant of its current realities as witness the uninformed posts popuating almost every aviation thread that pops up here. They read stuff and parrot it back, but what they are reading is usually written second or third hand by people equally outside the industry even if their "job" is reporting on it.

A lot of the posts here make for interesting and entertaining reading simply because it's amusing to see how far off base people can be even though they think they're right on the money. But other than the entertainment value, I see little point in trying to engage them in any meaningful dialogue because they are so far out of the loop.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 07:24 PM   #139
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 Baker View Post
Agreed. And Boeing ended up on the wrong side of this one.
You could very well be right. People just don't understand the subtle difference between "probability" and "possibility"

We deal is probability factors, all reactive metal batteries can catch fire (possibility). They liklihood that one will catch fire, and then not remain in check... (probability).

Possible isnít probable. The mere possibility of something is rarely a good reason to make a mitigation. But then again... From one of my favorite movies: "Sometimes you eat the bear ... and sometimes the bear eats you."

SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:10 AM   #140
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,529
"and the crew could barely keep abreast of the plane's systems that were failing or dropping offline."

This is an even bigger problem as most crew are only taught switch positions.

Ancient pilots (of the 60's 70's 80's) could draw a good schematic for most systems , so had a handle on what would fail after the first set of failures.

Too expensive today , easier to just pay the insurance.
__________________

FF 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



» Trawler Discussions


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.


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