The Boeing 787 Dreamliner: A Flying Nightmare?

With a Japan Air Lines Boeing 787 Dreamliner recently having its auxiliary power unit’s batteries catching fire, is the new jumbo jet a “flying nightmare”?

By: Ringo Bones

Maybe its just due to the inevitable technical “teething problems” of a new product being introduced into a rather “technically conservative” market of the currently financially austere airline industry, but probably all frequent flyers still hope that the glitches currently plaguing the recently introduced Boeing 787 Dreamliner won’t result in a rather tragic crash in a near future. Unfortunately as of late, certain shaken passengers and JAL executives back in Tokyo now harbor the impression that Boeing’s latest headlining product – the Boeing 787 Dreamliner – could be a “flying nightmare”.

With a much delayed rollout that its maiden flight only happened near the tail end of 2011, Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner had been plagued by a recent spate of technical difficulties that now endanger the plane’s long-term economic viability in the currently financially austere global airline industry. There had been only 46 Dreamliners had been delivered by Boeing to its customers so far, and now, 5 of them had been grounded for thorough preventive maintenance due to the recent problems experienced by a couple Japan Air Lines owned 787 Dreamliners.

Back in Monday, January 7, 2013, a Japan Air Lines operated Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s auxiliary power unit’s batteries caught fire while waiting for its scheduled flight in Boston which resulted in an emergency evacuation of passengers and crew. A few days before, another JAL owned 787 Dreamliner’s scheduled flight was cancelled due to a fuel leak. Fortunately, both harrowing incidences never resulted in a single loss of life, but will it tarnish the image of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner as a “flying nightmare”?

It seems that every relatively newly rolled-out plane tends to experience technical teething problems during the first few years of regular service. Back in November 4, 2010, Qantas had experienced problems with the Rolls Royce Trent 900 turbofan engines used in their then newly acquired Airbus A380 Superjumbo – i.e. the Qantas Flight 32 incident. Fortunately, the problem too was resolved by the plane’s heroic flight-crew with no loss of life. Maybe the Boeing 787 Dreamliner needs new “fireproof” batteries to prevent another battery fire. 

BAE – EADS Merger: Economically Freshly Still-Born?

Slated to supposedly result in the biggest non-American aerospace firm, is the BAE – EADS merger be freshly still born due to insurmountable regulatory hurdles and declining defense markets?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though concerned parties may have until Wednesday, October 10, 2012 to decide to give the green light of the proposed merger of BAE – EADS, regulatory hurdles permitting. And at the proverbial “11^th Hour” of the proposed merger, there is still no agreement between the governments of France, Germany and the UK despite Number 10 Downing Street stating that state ownership of the resulting aerospace firm should be limited. Given the seemingly insurmountable regulatory hurdles, politics and the “declining defense markets”, will the BAE – EADS merger, if it goes through, result in an economically viable merger?

INVESCO – the main underwriter of the merger was never shy in recently stating that there’s no strategic logic in the proposed merger. And to “seasoned observers” in the post Cold War development of the global aerospace / defense industry – a.k.a. the proverbial “Military-Industrial-Complex”, the oft quoted buzzword of the “declining defense markets” seems to be a euphemism for Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban not having a preexisting aerospace industry in which the remaining superpower has to destroy as the world’s aerospace and defense industries’ makes a really handsome profit. So if the merger goes through, how will it ever make a profit?

In our post-9/11 world where America and her NATO allies are currently busily involved in the “War on Terror”, the only pieces of military hardware oft used in this on-going conflict are large propeller driven military troop carriers and long-haul subsonic high capacity long jumbo-jet like cargo planes. Not to mention the odd unmanned aerial drone or two. The truth is, the post-9/11 War on Terror is not just as profitable to established global aerospace and defense firms as the saber-rattling between the US and USSR during the height of the Cold War.  

JAL Relisting: The Airline Industry Still Profitable?

With the recent relisting of Japan Air Lines in the Tokyo Stock Exchange since filing for bankruptcy two years ago a sign that the airline industry is still profitable?

By: Ringo Bones

With an IPO valued at 8.5 billion US dollars – second only to the recent Facebook IPO as the biggest share sale for 2012 - and currently the most actively traded stock in the Tokyo Stock Market as of September 19, 2012, JAL, Japan Air Lines is now relisted and back in the black. It seems like one of Asia’s biggest airlines was destined for a “disappearing act”, but will this recent rally be the signal that the global airline industry is still profitable?

Around the start of the global economic downturn back in 2008, the two biggest “threats” endangering the long-term profitability of the airline industry are sky-high fuel prices and the decline in international tourism – which is primarily caused by the global economic downturn in the first place. Japan Air Lines was delisted back in February 2010 and had been running on Japanese government bailout money since. Thankfully, JAL’s profitability is now on a level that not only enables the airline company to pay back the government bailout funds but also to be able to have it relisted on the Tokyo Stock Market and issue IPOs.

Potential investors are warned, though, because tenured financial analysts still have caveats over the rather short return to profitability of JAL given the size of the airline company and the scope of its financial losses back in 2010. And given that the Japanese government had recently given the green light for a quantitative easing to stimulate flagging business in the country, JAL’s position of being the most actively traded stock in the Tokyo Stock Exchange today could, hopefully, last for sometime. 

The Saab J35 Draken: The Most Beautiful Jet in the World?

It was designed back in the mid 1950s as a state-of-the-art supersonic capable interceptor for the Swedish Air Force as a defense against marauding Soviet-era bombers, does the Saab Draken still deserve the title as the most beautiful jet fighter in the world?

 By: Ringo Bones

 As it was slowly phased out during the latter half of the 1990s, quite a large number of Seattle Grunge Rock fans have noticed that somewhat obvious Swedish Saab J35 Draken flyby 4 minutes and 4 seconds into the music video of Burden In My Hand by Soundgarden back in 1996. Many of the "Young Turks" marveled the beauty of the Draken's double-delta design and was somewhat crestfallen when they found out a few weeks later that the jet was made in Sweden as opposed to being made in the good old US of A. So there are still people who marveled at its beauty near its retirement back then - but 15 or so years on, can the Swedish Saab J35 Draken still deserve being called the most beautiful jet aircraft in the world?

 Well, given that the F-22 Raptor has been described as a "bad elementary school origami" by some under-15 aerospace enthusiasts, and it seems like Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda never established their own aerospace industry to rival the big-wigs Boeing and Lockheed-Martin into some form of post Cold War aerospace beauty pageant using new generation of fighter planes. Then, it seems like the Swedish Saab J35 Draken may be in the foreseeable future may still be called and deserving of the title as the most beautiful jet fighter in the world - bar none.

 Looking back, it seems like the Saab Draken's most striking feature of it's "beauty" was its double-delta wing design that not just enable it to fly at very high speeds and altitutes to intercept incoming squadrons of bombers, but also to enable the jet to carry more fuel and weapons that conventionally-winged designs. Oh by the way, most Swedish jet fighters designed after World War II are capable in taking off and landing on ordinary asphalted motorways - which is a plus if your lucky enough to afford a mothballed second hand Saab J35 Draken these days. Which some say only the XB-70 Valkyrie rivals it in sheer beauty, right?

Why Do In-Flight Meals Taste Different?

Despite the lavish menu offered on those rare occasions that you manage to afford to fly first class; have you ever wondered why in flight meals / airline food taste different in comparison to their ground-level counterparts?

By: Ringo Bones

Imagine that this is one of those rare occasions that you’ve managed to afford yourself to fly first class and you’ve been served a course that previously you can only get when a wealthy relative or co-worker has a lavish wedding reception. Have you ever noticed how that well-reviewed up-market white wine that you’ve just been served tasted a little more sour compared to the last time you tasted one in a rich co-workers wedding reception? Or come to think of it, why the sudden craving for tomato juice?

Recent studies conducted on in-flight meals / airline food served by major airline companies have shown that lowered cabin pressure and lowered prevailing relative humidity in the passenger plane’s cabin as soon as it has reached cruising altitude of around 35,000 feet affects how most foods and beverages taste compared to the ones served at ground-level. The average cabin pressure of a plane in a typical airliner reaching cruising altitude of 35,000 feet is similar to the prevailing air pressure found on top of a mile-high / 5,000 feet high mountain. But to what extent does the lowered cabin pressure and relative humidity affect the taste of airline foods and beverages on offer?

To wine connoisseurs, heavy earthy wines tend to retain their ground-level taste even after the plane reaches a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet while lighter white wines tend to taste more sour. And to those watching their salt/ dietary sodium and sugar intake, be careful, because a reduced air pressure and humidity can reduce our tongues’ ability to perceive saltiness and sweetness by as much as 30%, so airline foods tend to contain 30% more sugar and salt than average. And for some strange reason, tomato juice tend to taste better in the reduced air pressure and relative humidity of an airliner reaching their cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, so be prepared for tomato juice cravings if you have ever tried drinking one in-flight.

The Paperless Cockpit: Low Carbon Flight?

Given that unnecessary weight is the bane of practical aviation, will the ditching of heavy and bulky paper-based flight manuals in favor of much lighter digital PDA based devices result in a more eco-friendly flights by lowering fuel consumption?

By: Ringo Bones

A news story was aired on the BBC back in July 6, 2011 on a planned phase-out of bulky and heavy paper based pilot’s flight manuals in favor of much lighter “digital” flight manuals apps stored on personal digital assistant like devices – i.e. i-Pads – in order to lower fuel consumption during flights. But will this work? After all, being dependent on i-Pad and other supposedly lighter-than-paper tablet type computers could introduce its own host of problems in a contemporary commercial airline cockpit.

Ever since the very early days of aviation, weight reduction has always been part and parcel that makes powered long-duration manned flight possible. Early aircraft engineers had been heard of talking – albeit apocryphally – of selling their grandmothers into slavery just to lower a few pounds of airframe deadweight without sacrificing airworthiness. Nowadays, aerospace engineers aim for deadweight reduction in order to lower a typical commercial airline’s carbon footprint in a typical 18-hour long haul flight.

Back to the potential hosts problems that supposedly lighter-than-paper i-Pads and other tablet computers could introduce in a contemporary cockpit. To anyone who’s been a “frequent-flyer” since the 1980s, its been already standard operating procedure that the flight and cabin crew in a typical commercial airline flight had always been prohibiting us from using our Walkmans, mobile phones and other portable consumer electronic gadgets during “critical” portions of the flight. Citing reasons of electronic / electromagnetic interference on the vital cockpit avionics and the plane’s flight control systems. Could the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer’s use of a tablet computer / i-Pad instead of a non-electronic paper-based flight manual generate electronic interference that could wreak havoc on the vital cockpit avionics during critical portions of the flight?

And another thing, making sure that your “digital” tablet computer / i-Pad-based flight manuals have enough juice or battery power for the whole duration of a typical long-haul 18-hour flight is a Sisyphean task in itself. Charging your “digital” flight manuals on the same power source that powers the plane’s vital avionics is a sure recipe for unwanted electronic / electromagnetic interference; Electromagnetic compatibility review of digital flight manuals and avionics, anyone?

Battery Powered Propeller Airplanes: The Future of Aviation?

Long deemed to be an aviation engineering impossibility due to the low power-to-weight ratio of existing battery technology, are the newfangled airworthy battery powered propeller planes represent the future of aviation?

By: Ringo Bones

With the advent of battery technology of the last few years that now have almost similar power-to-weight ratio of gasoline powered piston engines, battery powered planes had made their mark for a few years now – in the remotely-controlled scale-model world at least. But are battery-powered propeller planes capable of carrying a pilot and significant payload represents the cleaner and greener future of aviation?
The Elektra One, designed by aviation engineer Calin Gologan is probably the first ever battery-powered propeller driven aircraft capable of carrying its own pilot that had been successfully flown and landed safely. Elektra One uses advanced lightweight rechargeable lithium polymer batteries – i.e. lithium iron phosphate batteries - that can make the plane fly 500miles non-stop on a single-charge. Though the design represent one step in making general aviation more climate friendly, making and designing one capable of flying with hundreds of passengers and tens of tons of payloads and capable of flying halfway around the world on a single-charge is still probably decades away.

Despite its unassumingly conventional design, the Elektra One is one aviation engineering tour-de-force. Its wings are made of high-strength composites having only a total weight of 30-kilograms but are designed to bear loads of up to 900-kilograms during dramatic maneuvers. The Elektra One’s electric motor – the main thing that makes it fly – weighs in at just 4.56-kilograms but is capable of generating 4-kilowatts or around 5-horsepower that drives a highly-efficient propeller design – capable of converting over 85% of its rotational energy into forward thrust - to send it into flight.

And fly it does using current rechargeable lithium iron phosphate batteries that still have less power-to-weight ratio than conventional petrol-fueled aircraft piston engines. But if rechargeable battery technology advances to the point where their power-to-weight ratio equals that or exceed petrol-fueled piston engines, then battery-powered propeller airplanes could truly represent the more environmentally-friendly future of aviation; unless of course another clever aviation engineer could figure out on how to make battery-powered jet engines.