Search
Notices

UAL Fleet Plan

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-28-2013, 03:24 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 230
Default

Originally Posted by FastDEW View Post
The 787 will not be down that long. Boeing will get it back in the air within the next 30 days. Bet on it.
10 bucks says,they either become weather vanes at local airports or wind up sitting next to the Beech Starships some where...
Maxepr1 is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 03:40 AM
  #12  
SLI best wishes!
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default

Originally Posted by FastDEW View Post
The 787 will not be down that long. Boeing will get it back in the air within the next 30 days. Bet on it.
Very expensive proposition...It's best to come up with the correct fix, not the quickest fix while this problem is at its infancy. If one of these airplanes catches fire in the middle of the ocean it's all over with no other recourse but to park it side by side with the Caravelle.
LeeMat is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 03:41 AM
  #13  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default Nostradamous

I'm going with 90 days. Boeing will push for 30, the FAA will want 120; compromise will be 90.

Outcome will be a new type of Lithium battery (less subject to impact damage/thermal runaway), an improved (and heavier) containment system, some type of fire-extinguishing capability that routes directly into said containment system, and supporting peripheral equipment (charging/monitoring, etc).

There will be a lawsuit from the airlines asking for damages from lost revenue. It will take three years, and be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Boeing stock will dip until the new system is certified, the aircraft get back in the air, and no fires happen for a week or two.

Remember: technically, a nightmare is still a dream.........liner.

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 01-28-2013 at 05:09 AM. Reason: Spelling
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 03:54 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 230
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
I'm going with 90 days. Boeing will push for 30, the FAA will want 120; compromise will be 90.

Outcome will be a new type of Lithium battery (less subject to impact damage/thermal runaway), an improved (and heavier) containment system, some type of fire-extinguishing capability that routes directly into said containment system, and supporting peripheral equipment (charging/monitoring, etc).

There will be a lawsuit from the airlines asking for damages from lost revenue. It will take three years, and be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Boeing stock will dip until the new system is certified, the aircraft get back in the air, and no fires happen for a week or two.

Remember: technically, a nightmare is still a dream.........liner.
Boeing just purchased 100 PRIUS batteries from from toyota..... Expect them flying soon!!!!
Maxepr1 is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 03:58 AM
  #15  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
I'm going with 90 days. Boeing will push for 30, the FAA will want 120; compromise will be 90.

Outcome will be a new type of Lithium battery (less subject to impact damage/thermal runaway), an improved (and heavier) containment system, some type of fire-extinguishing capability that routes directly into said containment system, and supporting peripheral equipment (charging/monitoring, etc).

There will be a lawsuit from the airlines asking for damages from lost revenue. It will take three years, and be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Boeing stock will dip until the new system is certified, the aircraft get back in the air, and no fires happen for a week or two.

Remember: technically, a nightmare is still a dream.........liner.
I hope your 'in the ballpark' for Boeing's sake, as well as the Company's.

Let's just hope one guy's opinion, out of MIT, does not come to fruition as he plays his own round of "Nostradamus".

MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014 - Forbes
SoCalGuy is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:08 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Flyguppy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
I'm going with 90 days. Boeing will push for 30, the FAA will want 120; compromise will be 90.

Outcome will be a new type of Lithium battery (less subject to impact damage/thermal runaway), an improved (and heavier) containment system, some type of fire-extinguishing capability that routes directly into said containment system, and supporting peripheral equipment (charging/monitoring, etc).

There will be a lawsuit from the airlines asking for damages from lost revenue. It will take three years, and be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Boeing stock will dip until the new system is certified, the aircraft get back in the air, and no fires happen for a week or two.

Remember: technically, a nightmare is still a dream.........liner.
Based on the limited training they gave us on Li-On batteries, halon is ineffective on these types of fire and even exacerbate the situation.

Only way to stop the thermal runaway is liquid.....water, etc.

And a "containment system" would smother the fire as well. And again, exacerbate the problem by keeping the heat in.

These fires do NOT need oxygen to burn. They produce their own O2!!!!
Flyguppy is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:44 AM
  #17  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default Drop and Roll

Originally Posted by Flyguppy View Post
Based on the limited training they gave us on Li-On batteries, halon is ineffective on these types of fire and even exacerbate the situation.

Only way to stop the thermal runaway is liquid.....water, etc.

And a "containment system" would smother the fire as well. And again, exacerbate the problem by keeping the heat in.

These fires do NOT need oxygen to burn. They produce their own O2!!!!
Yes, that is my thinking. (ie, Halon and CO2 are no good, but you still need them for general cargo suppression). I am assuming some type of liquid and/or liquid-chemical could at least reduce the ferocity of the fire (I've seen the FAA demo movie, very disconcerting).

If one of the other sub-types of Lithium battery were used (and I'm not an expert here, I just know there are many types), it could be contained in a steel box. (I think the original battery already is, from the pictures of the BOS aircraft). It should have its own pressurized-liquid suppression system. That would also mean a dedicated vent-tube to outside the hull in order to displace the air if the liquid was dispensed, then a valve to seal it when the containment box filled. The valve would also have to be a pressure-relief if the liquid boiled.

The containment box could still get smoking hot, so it would probably need to be suspended between the passenger floor (ceiling in the battery-bay) and hull to provide a large air-gap, for cooling. The current design seems to have the containment box bolted to the battery-bay floor. They could even go a box within a box, with the second box filled with an inerting agent (baking soda?).

I just read the link from the MIT Professor. Interesting. It might make more sense to make each battery (eight, according to him) in a seperate containment box. And each box would need an internal cooling system.

I'm guessing it will add 500-1000 lbs to the aircraft, which is the anethma of an aircraft boasting of how much weight was saved by going all-electric.

With the economic impact involved, I don't think Boeing or Thales would take a year to get it certified. They would work overtime to git 'er done.

But it would be a far cry better than shutting it down.

If one of these airplanes catches fire in the middle of the ocean it's all over with no other recourse but to park it side by side with the Caravelle.
The Caravelle had a fairly successful career. I think you meant the Comet, which only really had any success (very limited) in the RAF as the Nimrod.

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 01-28-2013 at 05:01 AM.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:58 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 234
Default

Originally Posted by Ottopilot View Post
7 737-500 gone this year
15 757-200 gone this year

? (Not sure how many) 737-900ER will be delivered as replacement.

Should be a wash.
17 I think are being delivered. replacements? Not sure on that one.
bearcat is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:59 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 234
Default

How quickly we forget that the 737 had rudder issues and killed hundreds. They will figure it out before long. Even the A 3 Stupid was grounded
bearcat is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 06:42 AM
  #20  
SLI best wishes!
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default

Originally Posted by bearcat View Post
How quickly we forget that the 737 had rudder issues and killed hundreds. They will figure it out before long. Even the A 3 Stupid was grounded
The B737 had been out of assembly line for a very long time and thoundsands of airframes were on the line worldwide by the time the rudder problem surfaced in 1989. The rudder issue ADs were quick.
The B787 fix is no where in sight...Every day whistleblowers are coming forward with information about all these outsourced sub contractors. The latest info is on the Batt chargers factory in 2006 that burned to the ground after one of these then test units caught on fire. It does not look good at the moment.
LeeMat is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bill Lumberg
Major
2
06-15-2012 07:14 AM
Regularguy
United
57
03-12-2012 04:46 PM
Regularguy
United
69
10-18-2011 09:34 PM
Cardinal
Major
0
11-04-2006 11:02 AM
HSLD
Major
14
01-30-2006 01:08 PM

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices