Wikipedia has a nice article about how the air is heated/cooled inside an aircraft. Quite complex, really.
I think I read somewhere that the 787 will use more recirculated air than other aircraft.
One of the advantages of electrical systems Boeing claims, is that aircraft tend to have all kinds of strange systems being powered by pneumatic air. Systems, which are normally powered by electricity when they are not being installed on aircraft. The problem with this is that you need special, pneumatically powered systems for aircraft. Nobody else uses these. The limited production of these makes them expensive. Now, if everything is electrical, you can use cheaper off the shelf systems which everybody else uses. This saves costs both for the initial system and maintenance (cheap replacement parts, no need for special training for maintenance of pneumatic systems, etc).
Boeing also has some plans to replace the APU turbine with a fuel cell at some point.
Bleedless engines
Moderator: Latest news team
Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Is contaminated bleed air harmful? YES...
Conclusions of The Contaminated Air Protection Conference, London 20/21 April 2005.
The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) invited every leading airline, aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer, lubricant manufacturer, regulators and every person who has ever had an input into the issues of contaminated air, whether independent or from industry to make a presentation at what was a very well organised conference by BALPA. BALPA also sensibly invited experts from issues which appear to have very similar medical effects to those being reported in crews and passengers, issues related to the Gulf War Syndrome and the Sheep Dippers.
Everyone who wished to present a paper was accommodated by the conference organisers BALPA. This only reinforces the conclusions drawn as a result of some 25 presentations made over the two days by the doctors, regulators, scientists, industry representatives and interested parties.
The conclusions were very clear, alarming, simple and included:
‘There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew)’.
‘Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew’.
‘Fume events are clearly being under reported’.
‘This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications’.
‘Pregnant passengers are probably most at risk’.
'It is most likely the synergistic effect of the chemicals being breathed in by crews and passengers that is causing these medical effects.'
'Filters exist to remove most of these contaminants but airlines have not chosen to fit them'.
www.aopis.org
Conclusions of The Contaminated Air Protection Conference, London 20/21 April 2005.
The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) invited every leading airline, aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer, lubricant manufacturer, regulators and every person who has ever had an input into the issues of contaminated air, whether independent or from industry to make a presentation at what was a very well organised conference by BALPA. BALPA also sensibly invited experts from issues which appear to have very similar medical effects to those being reported in crews and passengers, issues related to the Gulf War Syndrome and the Sheep Dippers.
Everyone who wished to present a paper was accommodated by the conference organisers BALPA. This only reinforces the conclusions drawn as a result of some 25 presentations made over the two days by the doctors, regulators, scientists, industry representatives and interested parties.
The conclusions were very clear, alarming, simple and included:
‘There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew)’.
‘Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew’.
‘Fume events are clearly being under reported’.
‘This, we conclude, is resulting in significant flight safety issues, in addition to unacceptable flight crew personnel health implications’.
‘Pregnant passengers are probably most at risk’.
'It is most likely the synergistic effect of the chemicals being breathed in by crews and passengers that is causing these medical effects.'
'Filters exist to remove most of these contaminants but airlines have not chosen to fit them'.
www.aopis.org
There was no bird in that enigne. It's just that the air-fuel mixture was too rich. When the mixture is too rich you'll be able to see a flame formed because of the unburned carbon which is glowing.vc-10 wrote:I have just thought, was there someting combustible (Bird?) in that engine? I have been on a BAe 146 at night with a window seat next to the engine, and I did not see this sort of thing!!!!!
In this specific case the plane was in maintenance and there is nothing serious happening.
Chris