repeat.

oh...

/ did only japan buy them?

There were 3 incidents last week alone?

Imagine how bad it would be if Scarebuses were involved

i could only imagine all of the bugs that the plane must have. testing yes will work out some bugs but i think actually everyday use will show ones that test dont show.

sucks it has to be this way.

thisiszombocom:
/ did only japan buy them?

No, but they do have most of the early deliveries

These planes are made up of billions of tiny strings all glued together with epoxy. Then arched under compression.

You do the math.

Walker: More like a Nightmareliner. Amirite?

"Screamliner" rolls off the tongue easier.

As fun as it is to bash the Screamliner, this one actually is a repeat, from less than 10 threads down

But then, it's an easy mistake to make at the moment..

ThunderChild: As fun as it is to bash the Screamliner, this one actually is a repeat, from less than 10 threads down

But then, it's an easy mistake to make at the moment..

Yeah, I'd say it's forgivable this time. I had to read the story to find out if it was actually a repeat.

/Heh, Screamliner

nice planes. ascend to 31, then have battery fires. nice.

Screamliner, delivered what,  three years late?
Not like they were rushed out the door.
Doesn't matter, just fire some union guys for not doing the engineering the right way and carry on.
It's not like anyone will be responsible for any of this and when one comes screaming out of the clouds in a controlled flight into terrain, it'll still not be anyone's fault.

Corporate Think anyone?

Why yes, I have a dim view of large corporations.  Why do you ask?

Deathfrogg: These planes are made up of billions of tiny strings all glued together with epoxy. Then arched under compression.

You do the math.

None of the issues have been related to the composite wing structure (yet), we've had two battery issues and a host of minor systems. The batteries were a known potential area of concern since this was the first lithium power cell, the others are likely due to the 800+ subcontractors used to try to break the unions.

Speaking as an engineer, these are all minor problems in the grand scheme of things. Every new airplane will have these and the chances that any of these problems would actually down a flight are very minimal.

You can thank the 70's and 80's for that. Those two decades were the testing grounds for the technology we have now. Pilot error is now the leading cause of crashes, not equipment malfunction.

Walker: More like a Nightmareliner. Amirite?

We're done here.

robodog: Deathfrogg: These planes are made up of billions of tiny strings all glued together with epoxy. Then arched under compression.

You do the math.

None of the issues have been related to the composite wing structure (yet), we've had two battery issues and a host of minor systems. The batteries were a known potential area of concern since this was the first lithium power cell, the others are likely due to the 800+ subcontractors used to try to break the unions.

Could these battery issues be related to the decompression/compression cycle? Are they under cabin pressure or are they mounted outside the bulkheads? It is my understanding that Li batteries are airtight (for obvious reasons, Lithium does interesting things when exposed to moisture.) and perhaps the seals just aren't good enough.

cfletch13: nice planes. ascend to 31, then have battery fires. nice.

Wake me up when they start falling out of the sky--FL35, cruise and "breaks up".

/Why do I love this stupid meme so much?

Between the fuel leaks and electrical fires, I bet Boeing is rethinking their decision to copy the 787 design off the Jaguar XJS.

Deathfrogg: robodog: Deathfrogg: These planes are made up of billions of tiny strings all glued together with epoxy. Then arched under compression.

You do the math.

None of the issues have been related to the composite wing structure (yet), we've had two battery issues and a host of minor systems. The batteries were a known potential area of concern since this was the first lithium power cell, the others are likely due to the 800+ subcontractors used to try to break the unions.

Could these battery issues be related to the decompression/compression cycle? Are they under cabin pressure or are they mounted outside the bulkheads? It is my understanding that Li batteries are airtight (for obvious reasons, Lithium does interesting things when exposed to moisture.) and perhaps the seals just aren't good enough.

The batteries are fully within the pressure hull--the fore and aft E&E compartments are pressurized. It's more likely there is a manufacturing defect in the batteries, or they're not adequate for the required duty cycle, or other environmental issues (such as vibration or G-loading, though admittedly the number of Gs getting pulled by a commercial airliner is low).

For battery locations, see this diagram, page 7:

Boeing 787 Airplane Rescue and Firefighting Information

mr pity:
The batteries are fully within the pressure hull--the fore and aft E&E compartments are pressurized. It's more likely there is a manufacturing defect in the batteries, or they're not adequate for the required duty cycle, or other environmental issues (such as vibration or G-loading, though admittedly the number of Gs getting pulled by a commercial airliner is low).

For battery locations, see this diagram, page 7:

Boeing 787 Airplane Rescue and Firefighting Information

Hm, what is cabin pressure at cruise altitude? And is there any correlation or commonality of the number of cycles in these aircraft?

I remember the test dreamliner had to land where at the city where i live due to smoke/small fire emergency -- good to see they still figured what was the problem *snerk*

The only way thing this could be worse is if they used square windows and punch rivets...

By the way it a Japanize battery company !

Deathfrogg: mr pity:
The batteries are fully within the pressure hull--the fore and aft E&E compartments are pressurized. It's more likely there is a manufacturing defect in the batteries, or they're not adequate for the required duty cycle, or other environmental issues (such as vibration or G-loading, though admittedly the number of Gs getting pulled by a commercial airliner is low).

For battery locations, see this diagram, page 7:

Boeing 787 Airplane Rescue and Firefighting Information

Hm, what is cabin pressure at cruise altitude? And is there any correlation or commonality of the number of cycles in these aircraft?

One of the things that Boeing touts about the 787 is that its composite structures permit it to be more pressurized. Where most aircraft are pressurized to the equivalent of 8,000 feet, the 787 is pressurized to 6,000 feet. Also, because composites aren't subject to the same corrosion effects that aluminum is, the cabin can have higher humidity. So it's more similar to the air at sea level, though only a little bit more so.

In terms of big differences between it and other aircraft, the main one is the use of composites, but the other is the extent to which the 787 uses electricity to power secondary systems. This is also the only aircraft I know of that uses lithium ion battery packs for main and APU power.

The JAL hull that experienced battery issues was number 84 off the assembly line. This ANA hull was airplane number 9. It's not that far of a logical leap to deduce that 9 has had a lot more cycles than 84. In fact, because Airplane 9 an early specimen and consequently overweight, ANA is using it principally for domestic runs, so it certainly has more cycles than any JAL 787.

Dinobot: I remember the test dreamliner had to land where at the city where i live due to smoke/small fire emergency -- good to see they still figured what was the problem *snerk*

The only way thing this could be worse is if they used square windows and punch rivets...

I dunno. Not properly accounting for whirl on engine mounts that oscillate at resonance frequency of the wings can also be cool.