Boeing tests electric motor for airliners
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing tests electric motor for airliners
Article found here
An interesting idea. Could potentialy save an airline millions in annual fuel bills. Thats a good 10 to 20 mins average taxi time cut off the fuel bill for each flight. Could be as much as an hour if you factor in the taxi to gate on arrival at some busy airports. Then you also have savings by not needing a tug either.
I think this has lots of potential if they get it to work.
Opinions?
An interesting idea. Could potentialy save an airline millions in annual fuel bills. Thats a good 10 to 20 mins average taxi time cut off the fuel bill for each flight. Could be as much as an hour if you factor in the taxi to gate on arrival at some busy airports. Then you also have savings by not needing a tug either.
I think this has lots of potential if they get it to work.
Opinions?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed looked at a similar idea in the 60/70's for the Tristar.
They also looked at a ground railway system for airports like the SF trams.
At the time the fuel saving did not justify it but now ?
They also looked at a ground railway system for airports like the SF trams.
At the time the fuel saving did not justify it but now ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the fuel savings are probably what would make this the best thing since sliced bread.
Think about it, hook it up to a generator feeding off of the APU and you have an unlimited electrical powersource which uses a fraction of the jet A that 2, 3 or 4 full size jet engines use.
If trials are successfull, I'd bet the 787 will come with these babies installed as standard.
Think about it, hook it up to a generator feeding off of the APU and you have an unlimited electrical powersource which uses a fraction of the jet A that 2, 3 or 4 full size jet engines use.
If trials are successfull, I'd bet the 787 will come with these babies installed as standard.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Environmental issues: this is an excellent idea, for reducing the amount of atmospheric and noise pollution on the ground. Admittedly, there'd still be the pollution caused by the APU, which tend to make rather more noise nuisance due to their higher position and 'pink' noise signature.
You'd probably still want a headset person to monitor pushback and engine start, unless you went for a more sophisticated camera system. This has long been advocated for monitoring the exterior - the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Bedford, England had a setup fitted to a BAC 1-11 twenty-odd years ago. It could now find that its time has arrived.
This could change the face of aircraft ground handling. No more 'sorry, Ground, we'll have to cancel our pushback, our tug hasn't arrived!'
Cheers,
The Odd One
You'd probably still want a headset person to monitor pushback and engine start, unless you went for a more sophisticated camera system. This has long been advocated for monitoring the exterior - the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Bedford, England had a setup fitted to a BAC 1-11 twenty-odd years ago. It could now find that its time has arrived.
This could change the face of aircraft ground handling. No more 'sorry, Ground, we'll have to cancel our pushback, our tug hasn't arrived!'
Cheers,
The Odd One
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheOddOne
I thought it was implied this electric motor could be used to taxi, not just puchback.
Therefore at a busy airport where you could be looking at 30 mins taxi time, you need not turn the engine on untill you were number 3 or 4 for take off.
The fuel saved with this method would be a very strong selling point for this.
I thought it was implied this electric motor could be used to taxi, not just puchback.
Therefore at a busy airport where you could be looking at 30 mins taxi time, you need not turn the engine on untill you were number 3 or 4 for take off.
The fuel saved with this method would be a very strong selling point for this.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking strictly as Devils's Advocate I'd have thought this idea a non-starter. It clearly takes several hundred horse=power to shift a big jet on the ramp, and the size of the electric motors, their oversized generators (APU) and not least the huge power transmission system would weight tons and tons, cost many millions to fit, more to maintain and probably billions to develop, and do no more than a hundred grand of tug does every day using bus technology and a pint or two of Dieso. So why not just tow the things to the runway?
Well, partly because you need all the systems - ie engines - everything - running for several minutes to get thru the checks etc, and that just happens to be the length of the average taxi - more or less. Tug to the end of the runway and you'll sit there burning fuel for 15 minutes doing checks and going nowhere...
Anyway, what Reuters reported isn't quite what the headline said...
[insert only slightly tongue-in-cheek icon here]
"...had used the nose-wheel motor, built by Gibraltar-based Chorus Motors Plc, to move around an Air Canada Boeing 767 jet in tests simulating..."
Note, they said, and I quote; "used the nose-wheel motor" ... "to move around an Air Canada Boeing 767...".
Apparently he motor was used to move around a 767, not to move a 767 around - which is a totally different proposition. Any half competent electric wheelchair (or pair of roller skates/sneakers) can do that... And any half competent student of basic English knows the difference... mangle the grammar equals mangle the meaning...Poor practice in Aerospace!
As in, " Wanted. Commode, by old lady on castors".
duh!
Well, partly because you need all the systems - ie engines - everything - running for several minutes to get thru the checks etc, and that just happens to be the length of the average taxi - more or less. Tug to the end of the runway and you'll sit there burning fuel for 15 minutes doing checks and going nowhere...
Anyway, what Reuters reported isn't quite what the headline said...
[insert only slightly tongue-in-cheek icon here]
"...had used the nose-wheel motor, built by Gibraltar-based Chorus Motors Plc, to move around an Air Canada Boeing 767 jet in tests simulating..."
Note, they said, and I quote; "used the nose-wheel motor" ... "to move around an Air Canada Boeing 767...".
Apparently he motor was used to move around a 767, not to move a 767 around - which is a totally different proposition. Any half competent electric wheelchair (or pair of roller skates/sneakers) can do that... And any half competent student of basic English knows the difference... mangle the grammar equals mangle the meaning...Poor practice in Aerospace!
As in, " Wanted. Commode, by old lady on castors".
duh!
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 1st Aug 2005 at 22:55.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is a dud right out the door. looks real good on paper, but when you look at actual airline operations it stinks to high heaven.
It will weigh several hundred pounds and be one more complex problem to break and then you need to find a tug and there is NEVER an extra one around.
The cost in fuel to carry that several hundred pounds around will negate an economic benefit from not running the engines for taxi. the environmental benefit will also lose because of the extra fuel needed to carry it being dumped in the high altitude where it does most damage and not on the ground.
The noise will still be there because the APU is louder than the engines until about 50-60 percent full takeoff thrust.
Just think of the horsepower required to get a 765K 777 moving again after stopping on a 1 degree incline. the motor might get it going again but it will be several minutes before it will be moving faster than a few MPH and if there happens to be a 20 knot headwind forget it.
It would be easier to put some kind of in ground tram that hooked to the nose gear and pulled it around kind of like a steam catapult, but even then you will have to start the engines and wait for warmup and then start pre flight check.
Nope, 3 million spent on this already and its never going to see the light of day.
It will weigh several hundred pounds and be one more complex problem to break and then you need to find a tug and there is NEVER an extra one around.
The cost in fuel to carry that several hundred pounds around will negate an economic benefit from not running the engines for taxi. the environmental benefit will also lose because of the extra fuel needed to carry it being dumped in the high altitude where it does most damage and not on the ground.
The noise will still be there because the APU is louder than the engines until about 50-60 percent full takeoff thrust.
Just think of the horsepower required to get a 765K 777 moving again after stopping on a 1 degree incline. the motor might get it going again but it will be several minutes before it will be moving faster than a few MPH and if there happens to be a 20 knot headwind forget it.
It would be easier to put some kind of in ground tram that hooked to the nose gear and pulled it around kind of like a steam catapult, but even then you will have to start the engines and wait for warmup and then start pre flight check.
Nope, 3 million spent on this already and its never going to see the light of day.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
747FOCAL
A most comprehensive post - idea suitably de-bunked!
Wonder why Boeing wasted 3 million on it?
Cheers,
TheOddOne
A most comprehensive post - idea suitably de-bunked!
Wonder why Boeing wasted 3 million on it?
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an APU can provide significant thrust to increase take off performance, then it would sure as hell be able to provide the thrust to taxi a heavy a/c on the ground, and retain all the benefits of a standard apu, without increasing the aircrafts weight. Would this not be a more logical solution?
When it comes to eletrical motors on the nosegear- well most likely not usable on wet or slippary taxi ways (which it is half the time in northern Europe at least)!
Sounds like a waist of $ to me!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly 747Focal is not aware of the developments in electrical motors
There are some pretty heavy duty machines going about, shifting hundreds of tonnes of intact buildings and even scrapped aircraft, all using a flatbed type vehicle with electric motors. Heck I think even such a vehicle is being used to shift parts of the A380 about.
Thus I think we can dispell the thought that an electric motor cannot shift a 777 or even a 747. With the correct gearing, even I could shift one.
I have no idea how much all this would weigh though, so I can't argue with you on that.
I think the potential benefits to the environment and the fuel bill will make this a top notch idea if Boeing can make it work, efficiently and with managable weight. I think we shouldn't de bunk it so easily.
There are some pretty heavy duty machines going about, shifting hundreds of tonnes of intact buildings and even scrapped aircraft, all using a flatbed type vehicle with electric motors. Heck I think even such a vehicle is being used to shift parts of the A380 about.
Thus I think we can dispell the thought that an electric motor cannot shift a 777 or even a 747. With the correct gearing, even I could shift one.
I have no idea how much all this would weigh though, so I can't argue with you on that.
I think the potential benefits to the environment and the fuel bill will make this a top notch idea if Boeing can make it work, efficiently and with managable weight. I think we shouldn't de bunk it so easily.
A more sensible solution would be to use the aircraft hydraulic system (typically pressurised to 3000 psi) to run hydraulic traction motors built into the main wheel hubs.
As an example have a look at these units
There are plenty of road vehicles that carry heavy loads that use this sort of propulsion..........
As an example have a look at these units
There are plenty of road vehicles that carry heavy loads that use this sort of propulsion..........
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the fuel savings are probably what would make this the best thing since sliced bread.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, if you could make those hydraulic wheel-motors big enough, and with big hyd. pumps on engines, think of what they could do to the takeoff roll!
Move over fuel dragsters, the the cloud of smoke on the runway is a hvy 747 "burning out" his tyres in preparation for T/O!
To add the icing, if motor/pumps were used, the wheel-pumps could feed power back into the engines, providing wheel braking, augmenting reverse thrust, and reducing fuel cons. during the reverse cycle simultaneously.
Ha! which way to the patent shop?
Seriously, in respect of a low power taxi system, the proof of the pudding would be the economics of the extra weight and complication versus the fuel savings.
Move over fuel dragsters, the the cloud of smoke on the runway is a hvy 747 "burning out" his tyres in preparation for T/O!
To add the icing, if motor/pumps were used, the wheel-pumps could feed power back into the engines, providing wheel braking, augmenting reverse thrust, and reducing fuel cons. during the reverse cycle simultaneously.
Ha! which way to the patent shop?
Seriously, in respect of a low power taxi system, the proof of the pudding would be the economics of the extra weight and complication versus the fuel savings.
Last edited by ZQA297/30; 2nd Aug 2005 at 11:17.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASKATOON9999,
The thrust generated by the APU on any aircraft is in the tenths of a percent of thrust increase vs. the engines. The extra thrust would not even add one passenger worth of capable MTOW.
Bmused55,
You have no idea what your talking about. Ron Woodard (EX-Boeing BAS President) has a company that makes electric motors that generate 500 horsepower and weigh only 75 pounds. Tugs have big tires for a reason. The skinny small tires on the nose gear of aircraft are not ideal for pulling that much weight. You need a lot of torque to even get the thing moving.
One of the bigger challenges is how to transfer the power to the ground. Imagine the complex gearing system required that would need to be built into the front gear. Gear are already draggy enough. Imagine the cost of a failure of the system where it locks the front gear from rotating. I am sure you can remember the pictures of that Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel and busted the front gear on landing.
Technological advances are always tough in this industry. But, like I said above..... This one looks good in theory, but once you get down to the nitty gritty of airline operations it all falls apart.
The thrust generated by the APU on any aircraft is in the tenths of a percent of thrust increase vs. the engines. The extra thrust would not even add one passenger worth of capable MTOW.
Bmused55,
You have no idea what your talking about. Ron Woodard (EX-Boeing BAS President) has a company that makes electric motors that generate 500 horsepower and weigh only 75 pounds. Tugs have big tires for a reason. The skinny small tires on the nose gear of aircraft are not ideal for pulling that much weight. You need a lot of torque to even get the thing moving.
One of the bigger challenges is how to transfer the power to the ground. Imagine the complex gearing system required that would need to be built into the front gear. Gear are already draggy enough. Imagine the cost of a failure of the system where it locks the front gear from rotating. I am sure you can remember the pictures of that Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel and busted the front gear on landing.
Technological advances are always tough in this industry. But, like I said above..... This one looks good in theory, but once you get down to the nitty gritty of airline operations it all falls apart.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not have an electric tractor that tows you out to the holding point, then the handler brings it back and recharges it, that way you get the benefit without the weight penalty.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jericho:
And you think this saving would be passed onto passengers? Forgive my cynicism.
And you think this saving would be passed onto passengers? Forgive my cynicism.
747FOCAL who says this technology will be limited to the nose gear?
Sure the tests are being conducted on such, but that doesn't mean its limited to nose gears.
Have an open mind.
Last edited by Bmused55; 2nd Aug 2005 at 15:13.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Added Hazard
When they put folding wings on fighters that flew off aircraft carriers, it was only a matter of time before one (and then another) took off with its wings folded.
Surely the hazard here is the odd aircraft getting airborne after forgetting to start engines. Once the bean counters get onto that it will be made compulsory for maximum fuel savings.
Surely the hazard here is the odd aircraft getting airborne after forgetting to start engines. Once the bean counters get onto that it will be made compulsory for maximum fuel savings.