Lithium ion/Boeing 787

I'd be interested if anyone has more info, what chemistry/cell was it? Was it the cells which burned? The pictures I saw on the news of the "battery" didn't look like a recognisable battery cell to me.

 

My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Lithium ion batteries suspect in 787 fire and Boeing 787 Batteries Same As Those In Electric Cars? Umm, NO points to lithium cobalt oxide. My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Lithium ion batteries suspect in 787 fire has some claims about the different chemistries. (I've personally never followed this stuff closely. Side note: Tony Williams over there is a former airline pilot.)

 

Um, a little tweaking here and there and it will be good as new.

Looks like the I/O is part of the encasement.

 

That's a good image. The fire really doesn't look that bad though.

 

They are Lithium Cobalt, very different then what is used in the Plug-In Prius. Very very different. These chemistries are extremely exothermic when over-charged. So the first whammy is their charging circuitry is obviously crap not accounting for the change in battery properties over pressure changes. When you go high into the air, you can't assume you are charging like at sea level. The second whammy is the poor choice of chemistry means that when it does overcharge, it doesn't just fizzle and die, it pretty much explodes the outer casing and starts a fire.

Remember a few years ago when laptop batteries were catching fire? Same thing. Same chemistry.

 

Just like a collision at sea can ruin your whole day, any fire in an aircraft is usually serious.

 

Here is an example

 

You won't catch me in one LOL. Let somebody else be the guneiua pig. (I know I can't spell)

 

I would also expect that before introducing a battery system technology into the aircraft they would have thoroughly studied the various failure modes and done adequate design and testing to assure they were reliable and safe. It makes me wonder if the Boeing suits subbed the battery system work out to some outside low bid "experts" that weren't as versed in reliability and safety as long time Boeing people.

As far as counting on thermal unloading, any modern commercial or military aircraft need to be able to operate stuck on a runway in places like Saudi Arabia or Dubai for hours at a time without catching on fire.

I hope Boeing manages to fix this in time to save their 787 business, Boeing has been a great company and is important the to the US economy. This whole thing sounds more like something Airbus would have done.

 

Boeing outsourced various parts globally far more than any plane they built previously...accounting for many of the 787 delays.

 

I hope they learn their lesson from that. Outsourcing to buy expertise you don't have inhouse can be a good thing as long as you have enough competence inhouse to know what you are buying and the funding to use that expertise.

Outsourcing just to save money also often includes a lack of oversight because the bean counter based decisions that caused the outsourcing in the first place often cut the funds needed for proper oversight.

 

Boeing continues to become more and more of a industrial conglomerate/political entity than aircraft manufacturer. In the space business, what happened to all the companies making rockets? Right now Space-X is doing the latest rocket builds. Boeing is on a downhill trend just like GM went downhill once they thought they owned the market. The "old" Boeing would have never let something like this happen.

(P.S. The companies move to Chicago is another example. Locating the HQ far from all engineering and production can only be motivated by reasons "more important" than the products.)

 

^^^
When Boeing did that, my guess was so that their executives could be insulated from labor disputes and protests that occurred rather frequently. I doubt most protesters would fly to Chicago to picket in front of their HQ.

 

That certainly could have been a factor. On the humor side, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

1. When a controversial decision needed to be made, they could wait till the nastiest, coldest winter days. Frozen protester are easier to get by than soggy protesters.

2. The protesters that do fly would likely have to fly in a Boeing jet....a win-win situation for both sides.

3. Chicago has taller buildings. More distance from the riff-raff.

 

The word here is that each battery is 1.5 to 2 times the size of common automotive 12V batteries. The pictures betray no cooling system.

Besides the two main engines and APU, commercial jets typically have a ram air turbine that can be popped out into the airstream if all engines fail. Older jets use it at least for hydraulic power, not sure about electric. I'd be surprised if the 787 doesn't also have it, for electric power.

 

Chicago Tribune