TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3693 posts, RR: 34 Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2835 times:
Does anyone understand how this is?
The normal jet aircraft air conditioning pack takes all the water out of the air.
The old B737-200/300 type had a bag type water separator, which just about worked when it was new, and then a 35degF sensor that kept the air above freezing to stop the remaining water freezing in the heat exchangers.
Later packs from B757/ B734/A320 onwards had really efficient water extractors which guaranteed that all the water was removed. The packs could then run down into Minus temps, and M15degC is not unusual. This greatly increased the efficiency of the pack. On the ground in the humid Middle East this was greatly appreciated.
But the air in the cabin was very dry as a result. Hunidifiers were tried on some long haul aircraft for the flight deck, but not very successfully.
Now long ago I remember flying on the Gulf Air VC10s, and when we descended into BAH the roof vents rained on us as we descended into the humid air of the Gulf. Not very nice! The VC10 had rootes blowers instead of engine bleed air to produce the air supply. The B787 has something similar, but electric powered instead of driven off the engine gearbox. Perhaps this is how they get more humidity in the cabin (but hopefully not too much!)
All this is OK below say 10000ft.
But 90pc of the B787 flying will be at 37000ft where the air is dry outside. Where will the more humid air come from? Will they carry water on board? Or is there something I don't understand?
Another point from the roll out show was the claim that the B787 can be more humid because carbon fibre does not corrode so much and aluminium aircraft must be kept dry!
Well I meet B777 that arrive from the Far East where it rains a lot. As they taxy in there is water draining out of all the fuselage drains. Water that was on the freight as it was loaded, and had drained into the bilges, and is now draining out as the aircraft has depressurised. If aircraft had to be kept dry, everyone would fit these Swedish Dryers that are advertised in Flight, but very few do.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
Evaporated perspiration and moisture in exhaled breath. The resulting humidity of the cabin is controlled by how much of this moisture you remove; in practice there is never a need to humidify the cabin.
I've also wondered how the higher humidity level (and corresponding condensation on the inner surface of the fuselage skin) would be feasible. I once lived in a top-floor apartment with poor roof insulation, and the ceiling was constantly moist in the winter. Sure enough, after two years I had a massive bloom of mold. How will the growth of various hardy organisms behind the cabin walls (and potential cabin air contamination) be prevented?
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2695 times:
Just today I was training some guys, and was telling them about a Dash8 that had proximity sensor problems, that in the end were due to condensation ( a big Dash problem) dripping on to the computer, producing faults that grounded the aircraft. The Dash8 often drips condensation onto the pax from the overhead. There's an aircraft that certainly doesn't need more humidity!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
The specs I have seen for the 787 say the cockpit humidifies are an optional item, I know for example Air Mauritius also has the Airbus optional humidifiers on their A343s.
BTW I dont see the 787 spending most of its time at 39000ft, I expect it initial cruise to be low 30s on long haul operations, much the same as a 773ER.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Trent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 422 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 4): BTW I dont see the 787 spending most of its time at 39000ft, I expect it initial cruise to be low 30s on long haul operations, much the same as a 773ER.
This might be the case. Wasn't part of the 787 marketing that it would fly higher than other current commercial aircraft and that this would also result in a smoother ride (less turbulence)?
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3693 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13342 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 422 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
