Boeing tests electric motor for airliners
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now thats grasping at straws.
These electrics motors would be for taxi speeds max, not to propel aircraft to take of speed.
And only a total idiot would not notice that an engine or two had not been turned on when they advance the throttles slightly before applpying take off power in order to check engine sync and functionality.
Next excuse for not using this technology...
These electrics motors would be for taxi speeds max, not to propel aircraft to take of speed.
And only a total idiot would not notice that an engine or two had not been turned on when they advance the throttles slightly before applpying take off power in order to check engine sync and functionality.
Next excuse for not using this technology...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying as a pax with a work colleague a couple of weeks ago and he was relating a problem on a previous flight where they had had to get a tug because the a/c could not get over a bump. When I suggested this could have been a potential jet blast problem I was astonished to hear that he thought that the wheels were powered for taxi and take off. 
He is the head bean counter but reading this thread perhaps he had insider information and was playing dumb.
He is the head bean counter but reading this thread perhaps he had insider information and was playing dumb.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah right - hold short of runway while the engines are fired up from cold, then move onto runway for immediate application of take-off power - have they factored the reduced engine life into their projected fuel savings!
Psychophysiological entity
Electric powered cars have been a pipe dream for me for 25 years. One of the things that I have become ‘certain’ about, is that the windings or stators will have to be in the periphery of the wheels. i.e. no drive train and high torque.
An aircraft might have the non wound part of the motors in the main-wheel rims and devices that travel with the aircraft, perhaps owned by the airport, that then peel off at the appropriate time. This way there is no need for the aircraft to power the units and most of the added weight gets left behind.
As for operational suitability. Well, not to make use of the energy for takeoff would be a blatant waste of potential, but most crew have a high enough work-load at commencement of roll anyway…monitoring the departure of any device still in the equation at this late stage, is perhaps more than should be undertaken. We certainly couldn’t just trust the system to leave the aircraft cleanly.
One thing is certain, we cannot keep wasting fuel the way we do now, and computer controlled devices will be taking us to the holding point, liberating the crew to start an monitor the engines at an appropriated time. It’s just a matter of deciding on a system.
An aircraft might have the non wound part of the motors in the main-wheel rims and devices that travel with the aircraft, perhaps owned by the airport, that then peel off at the appropriate time. This way there is no need for the aircraft to power the units and most of the added weight gets left behind.
As for operational suitability. Well, not to make use of the energy for takeoff would be a blatant waste of potential, but most crew have a high enough work-load at commencement of roll anyway…monitoring the departure of any device still in the equation at this late stage, is perhaps more than should be undertaken. We certainly couldn’t just trust the system to leave the aircraft cleanly.
One thing is certain, we cannot keep wasting fuel the way we do now, and computer controlled devices will be taking us to the holding point, liberating the crew to start an monitor the engines at an appropriated time. It’s just a matter of deciding on a system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah right - hold short of runway while the engines are fired up from cold, then move onto runway for immediate application of take-off power - have they factored the reduced engine life into their projected fuel savings!
It is, or was common pratice for 3 or 4 holers to shut 1 or 2 engines down when in an extended queue, then re light when number 2 or 3 for take off.
So, out the window goes that excuse.
Last edited by Bmused55; 2nd Aug 2005 at 20:25.
Evertonian
Lets see that smug little barstard, the Energiser Bunny pull a 747!!!
They should be researching the Nuclear powered airliner. That'd make the FO's gonads glow in the dark!
They should be researching the Nuclear powered airliner. That'd make the FO's gonads glow in the dark!
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere in that article does it say that this is meant to be a system that gets airborne - the article doesn't give enough information to work out exactly what it does.
All it suggests to me is an electric motor for moving B767s around that attaches to the nose gear and gets its power from the APU. In the Air Force we used "Yellow Perils" for one man to move a helicopter about on his own. From what the article says it could easily be such a ground handling device for large jet transports that eliminates tugs. As to doing away with the use of main engines, though British LAEs seldom do it, US A&Ps and plenty of others generally move aircraft about by taxi-ing them.
All it suggests to me is an electric motor for moving B767s around that attaches to the nose gear and gets its power from the APU. In the Air Force we used "Yellow Perils" for one man to move a helicopter about on his own. From what the article says it could easily be such a ground handling device for large jet transports that eliminates tugs. As to doing away with the use of main engines, though British LAEs seldom do it, US A&Ps and plenty of others generally move aircraft about by taxi-ing them.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ISTANBUL
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I do not understand why Boeing is spending millions of $ for this. Instead they could buy and place tow vehicles on airpots where the taxi time is exceeding 15mins. And Boeing A/Cs will be towed until they will start the engines.
OK I accept that the driver of the vehicle will have to make some maneuvering around !
OK I accept that the driver of the vehicle will have to make some maneuvering around !
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alexmcfire, seat1aplease:
Unmanned tugs, that attach themselves to the front-wheel do exist. I saw them at Marseille Provence Airport. They were used by Air France to push back their B737s and A320 away from the ramp, then the aircraft taxied under their own power. I don't know if they were electrical but they were surprisingly very small: less than half the size of a car.
Unmanned tugs, that attach themselves to the front-wheel do exist. I saw them at Marseille Provence Airport. They were used by Air France to push back their B737s and A320 away from the ramp, then the aircraft taxied under their own power. I don't know if they were electrical but they were surprisingly very small: less than half the size of a car.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone remember the little machines they used for pushback on aircraft at BRU about 15 years ago? They were hand steered and battery powered. They used very little power and could be recharged using ground power. They were approved for use on aircraft up to 757 size.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Does anyone remember the little machines they used for pushback on aircraft at BRU about 15 years ago? They were hand steered and battery powered. They used very little power and could be recharged using ground power. They were approved for use on aircraft up to 757 size."
Yes, I used to use them too on the 737 but there were problems.
Firstly they just drove one main wheel and the aircraft had to be steered by the captain moving the tiller the wrong way whilst pushing back, not ideal, and you had to keep your feet firmly off the brakes to avoid banging the tail. Then the ground man had to walk alongside giving steering instructions because you can see nothing.
The aircraft had to have its own brake and steering circuit powered so no lock out pin fitted. I think overall it was a triumph of accountancy over safety, as it was a completely different SOP procedure and one you might only do every other month.
Yes, I used to use them too on the 737 but there were problems.
Firstly they just drove one main wheel and the aircraft had to be steered by the captain moving the tiller the wrong way whilst pushing back, not ideal, and you had to keep your feet firmly off the brakes to avoid banging the tail. Then the ground man had to walk alongside giving steering instructions because you can see nothing.
The aircraft had to have its own brake and steering circuit powered so no lock out pin fitted. I think overall it was a triumph of accountancy over safety, as it was a completely different SOP procedure and one you might only do every other month.
Last edited by Seat1APlease; 5th Aug 2005 at 18:10.
Paxing All Over The World
A tug that does the push and then tows out to a suitable holding point is only a matter of time. The problem is trying to make it unmanned - they will want to save the manpower. Since this process could be initiated now, I wonder what is holding the airports back.
Oh, silly me. The airports say that the carriers benefit more than they do, so they should take all the costs. The carriers say that the airports will be able to meet their noise regulations more easily and so they should pay more ...
If there WERE tug assist to the hold, it would certainly fix the problem, recently discussed, of not having anough tugs to go around to carry out all the pushes on time.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Oh, silly me. The airports say that the carriers benefit more than they do, so they should take all the costs. The carriers say that the airports will be able to meet their noise regulations more easily and so they should pay more ...
If there WERE tug assist to the hold, it would certainly fix the problem, recently discussed, of not having anough tugs to go around to carry out all the pushes on time.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 63
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about some realistic solution. Buy more diesel tugs, hire more drivers (low cost labor) and the existing tugs tow us towards the runway. The diesel engine is far more effective than the RB-211 when idling. On the grand scale, wouldn´t this be a realistic fuel saving solution?
