Wheeltug - the novel answer to marginal airline profitability
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only replied to other's posts. It is hardly likely that a sale would occur as a result. Neither I or another company person instigated the revival of this thread. I replied out of courtesy.
Hello Leslie...
(Nonplussed) Loose Rivets. The plan is the hub on the front strut. It worked in the 'non flying' proof of concept. See the Boeing video on the web site or YouTube. I shan't give links in case anyone thinks I'm advertising. Last time I looked the (hot) brakes were on the main gear. The motor is indeed very compact yet powerful.
Our wire harness kit suppliers does not perceive the cabling problems you do.
I shall not enter into discussion on your potential investments.
Hello Leslie...
(Nonplussed) Loose Rivets. The plan is the hub on the front strut. It worked in the 'non flying' proof of concept. See the Boeing video on the web site or YouTube. I shan't give links in case anyone thinks I'm advertising. Last time I looked the (hot) brakes were on the main gear. The motor is indeed very compact yet powerful.
Our wire harness kit suppliers does not perceive the cabling problems you do.
I shall not enter into discussion on your potential investments.
Last edited by rahosi; 1st Feb 2009 at 21:52. Reason: Elaboration & clarification.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Last time I checked, PPRuNe was an aviation forum so why the discussion of hybrid technologies for cars?”
The WheelTug subject is an innovation that purports to increase operational efficiency. We can’t yet know if it will work or not. The technology that needs to be proven is whether the extremely high energy density of this Chorus motor will work at all. It may be that the auto industry puts it to use before it makes it through the rigors of the aircraft certification process. How it does in that venue may well have at least partial significance to airborne application.
Some have also objected to the apparent “promotion” of this product by one who has apparently invested in its development. I think it is of value to take in all available information. Efficiencies gained through such innovations are critical to survival in this industry.
I first got involved in 1964. Most of the airlines that were operating at that time do not exist today. The many that are gone were less efficient than their competitors during a some past period of economic stress and had to capitulate, and failed to live to participate in the following upswing. Delta has invested in the development of this technology precisely because they believe that it will make them more efficient.
We should all have an interest in being a part of an efficient operation that will survive the current economic stress. It does not cost us anything to process the facts, and they may help to know where things are going.
The WheelTug subject is an innovation that purports to increase operational efficiency. We can’t yet know if it will work or not. The technology that needs to be proven is whether the extremely high energy density of this Chorus motor will work at all. It may be that the auto industry puts it to use before it makes it through the rigors of the aircraft certification process. How it does in that venue may well have at least partial significance to airborne application.
Some have also objected to the apparent “promotion” of this product by one who has apparently invested in its development. I think it is of value to take in all available information. Efficiencies gained through such innovations are critical to survival in this industry.
I first got involved in 1964. Most of the airlines that were operating at that time do not exist today. The many that are gone were less efficient than their competitors during a some past period of economic stress and had to capitulate, and failed to live to participate in the following upswing. Delta has invested in the development of this technology precisely because they believe that it will make them more efficient.
We should all have an interest in being a part of an efficient operation that will survive the current economic stress. It does not cost us anything to process the facts, and they may help to know where things are going.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Altanta
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some facts to process:
The motor which is now part of the WheelTug system has been in existence for more than 15 years. It was originally called the Borealis Electric Motor. It was later rebranded the Chorus motor. A purpose-built motor controller (inverter) was subsequently designed and built. The product has not been commercially successful in any form and so far the company has not found any customers in ground transportation unless you count elevators. The elevator project was a failure.
The ultimate parent company of WheelTug is Borealis which has a long history of other product failures and Canadian regulatory issues. It also hasn't made any money in years instead relying on the continued recruitment of new investors. This recruitment has now come to PPRuNe.
Personally I would rather see this thread limited strictly to a technical discussion, but if the thinly disguised prospecting is going to be tolerated I think it is important for all of the facts to be on the table.
The motor which is now part of the WheelTug system has been in existence for more than 15 years. It was originally called the Borealis Electric Motor. It was later rebranded the Chorus motor. A purpose-built motor controller (inverter) was subsequently designed and built. The product has not been commercially successful in any form and so far the company has not found any customers in ground transportation unless you count elevators. The elevator project was a failure.
The ultimate parent company of WheelTug is Borealis which has a long history of other product failures and Canadian regulatory issues. It also hasn't made any money in years instead relying on the continued recruitment of new investors. This recruitment has now come to PPRuNe.
Personally I would rather see this thread limited strictly to a technical discussion, but if the thinly disguised prospecting is going to be tolerated I think it is important for all of the facts to be on the table.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nobody's
going to sacrifice ANY MG braking to accomodate a MOTOR. That leaves the NG; does anyone take this seriously? 2 years ago a company put four wheel motors into a mini. Each weighed fifty pounds (~20kg.) and produced 150 bhp. The statistics were exciting in a vehicle weighing LESS THAN ONE TON. The site linked to Delta had a pic of a 777 identified as a 737. This is a JOKE. Off to JetBlast with this nonsense.
AF
AF
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeslieAltoSax,
Thank you.
I have processed your information and looked at the limited information that is available on Borealis.
It is quite interesting to read of the Air Canada, Delta, and Boeing involvement in this project, and then not find subsequent documentation of a solid on going technical development program.
The proof of concept video had me convinced that the significant corporations involved would have carried it forward absent encountering technical limitations.
The recent post regarding funding limitation issues is not consistent with a high level of confidence on the part of the large entities that have been involved with the project.
I totally agree that this forum should be focused on any technical merits that might be presented, and not be used to encouraged any readers to make investments of any sort regardless of merits. Also, there may be no public notice given if Delta, Boeing, and Air Canada have ceased to be interested in pursuing it. If there is an active develoment program we will see further publicity from them.
Thank you.
I have processed your information and looked at the limited information that is available on Borealis.
It is quite interesting to read of the Air Canada, Delta, and Boeing involvement in this project, and then not find subsequent documentation of a solid on going technical development program.
The proof of concept video had me convinced that the significant corporations involved would have carried it forward absent encountering technical limitations.
The recent post regarding funding limitation issues is not consistent with a high level of confidence on the part of the large entities that have been involved with the project.
I totally agree that this forum should be focused on any technical merits that might be presented, and not be used to encouraged any readers to make investments of any sort regardless of merits. Also, there may be no public notice given if Delta, Boeing, and Air Canada have ceased to be interested in pursuing it. If there is an active develoment program we will see further publicity from them.
Psychophysiological entity
2 years ago a company put four wheel motors into a mini. Each weighed fifty pounds (~20kg.) and produced 150 bhp.
airfoilmod I would be interested in any link if you have one. No other interest now except curiosity.
Back to the self towing aircraft: I frankly don't think this idea would get past the first hurdle.
Does any unbiased person think that an aircraft - size say, from the 737 and bigger - could be usefully pulled by their own nosewheel? By this I mean in a day-to-day working environment, not just a flat and dry ground test.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite simple, really. If the NG tires don't have enough traction, merely move all the SLF as far forward as possible, standing up, as needed.
Has an independent body studied the efficiency of powering a motor on the nosegear by a generator on an APU, vs. air propulsion from a wing mounted engine? Each power conversion, from air pressure in the APU spinning the generator that converts mechanical energy to electrical, then converting electrical energy to mechanical to turn the nose wheel has losses.
GB
Has an independent body studied the efficiency of powering a motor on the nosegear by a generator on an APU, vs. air propulsion from a wing mounted engine? Each power conversion, from air pressure in the APU spinning the generator that converts mechanical energy to electrical, then converting electrical energy to mechanical to turn the nose wheel has losses.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the recent issue of promoting / prospecting / advertising.
I am a shareholder. I am not an employee of the company & other than this, I have no involvement with the air industry. I would make a pretty lousy salesman. I never mentioned the main product / company by name even once, neither did I offer a link to its website. The web link I did offer was in response to other posters off topic comments; more of a technical show piece comparing different approaches to hybrid vehicles. I did not prospect (initiate) ANY topic.
Currently there is no product for sale. Thus 'advertising' is a non issue!
I whole heartedly agree that this thread should be focussed on the technical aspects.
HOWEVER if others stray from this and I do not address that needing clarification, the wrong impression might be conceived by readers. I will not stray, if others don't. I certainly don’t want to write such lengthy replies let alone read one... If a simple question is asked, I’ll try to simply answer within NDA limitations. Other than real news, responding as requested or clarifying, as before, I won’t post. Last was Nov07, so not exactly pushing it. My recent answer was specifically requested of me.
WAY off technical topic.
The technology is heavily patented within the family of companies.
Boeing & Air Canada are not involved in the development program. Never were. (Other than the proof of concept). Boeing selected the company to design, build, and operate said system.
Delta IS our launch customer, but has NOT invested (They hold warrants).
Funding issues are not something I am prepared to discuss at all. I am under an NDA. Current public reporting on this is simply Many negotiations continue worldwide with many parties.This I am personally aware of.
Facts.... (should not always be taken as said. Some gross inaccuracies have been posted here)
The Company had a court case against Lehman Bros for 18 years & managed to collect 70% of what was due to them....
The Canadian regulatory issues are very long & (off) topic. The company’s major iron ore mine exploration has been under way for a 3? years in Canada.
A few projects have gone by the wayside or are effectively dormant. Another ore resource. A microphone & something called Green Steel (I think) (before my time). However ALL current / recent technology projects are still firmly active with good prospects. No products have failed as none have been brought to market – to date. Other subsidiaries have patented technologies that will also have major implications for the aircraft industry. But that is a topic THAT WILL BE addressed here as & when.
All the companies report in a very timely fashion every year.
Borealis reported a retained profit of $7.7M last year and $650K the previous year.
Chorus Motors also showed a profit in both years. Whereas its/the sub in question showed losses due to the expenditure on this project.
The iron ore subsidiary (Legal bit This is subject to a NI 43-101 report. However the company conducting the exploration stated on Jan6 - We believe we are within a few weeks of getting the last of the assays.... Once that process is complete we will be able to finish creating our resource model and the NI 43-101 report.)
Over 100 million dollars have so far been spent on the exploration. Offtake agreements for more than 15 million tons (over 10 years) of refined ore exist.
---
This product will be fully certified.
Well renowned companies, individuals & non commercial entities talk to / partner the company. Mostly yet unnamed.
Boeing & Delta. Co-operative Industries (our wire harness partner, offers extensive experience in harness solutions. They design and manufacture electrical wiring harnesses, cables & more. Plus on-site FAA, EASA and CAAC Certified Repair Station),
Luxell (our cockpit controls partner, with a superb track record of providing top-tier Human-Machine Interface (HMI) systems for aerospace, naval and land vehicles),
Newport Aeronautical Development (our certification partner & has an outstanding track record of successfully managing complex certification programs for the world's largest aerospace firms).
The Program Manager - Daniel Barbalata oversaw development, testing, cert and launch of Bombardier Global Express aircraft family (multiple variants). He was also Program Manager at Hispano-Suiza for design, test, cert and launch of L/G and SCU on Dassault Falcon 7X aircraft. Introduced new tools and manufacturing processes in joint program between British Aerospace and Romaero.
The Senior Certification Advisor - Gilbert Thompson has more than 32 years of experience with FAA, including as head of Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). His certification experience includes L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC8, DC9, DC10, MD-80, MD-90, KC-10A, MD-11, Boeing 717-200, C-17 Globemaster. Winner of AW&ST Laurels Award (1999) for outstanding achievement in aeronautics/propulsion.
I have included the above because some here have poo pooed the feasibility of the product. I hope the credentials of the above are enough to allay such comments previously made.
----
Quite a bit of important additional information can be found in last year's article in Flightglobal.
----
Re:- Does any unbiased person think that an aircraft - size say, from the 737 and bigger - could be usefully pulled by their own nosewheel? By this I mean in a day-to-day working environment, not just a flat and dry ground test.
Delta does, as did the Air Canada pilots during the test. Boeing put their name to it. Many companies in the industry see its merits too. Along with airports, regulators & environmentalists. You'd be surprised how long the list is...
Test Quote. The Phantom Works/Chorus Motors team, in cooperation with Air Canada, installed an electric motor drive on an Air Canada 767 and conducted a series of successful tests. Air Canada pilots performed ground manoeuvres on slopes and terrains typical of those at airports around the world, including driving in reverse from a gate and taxiing forward to a runway. Tests also were performed at ramp temperatures exceeding 120 degrees Fahrenheit and at loads of up to 94 percent of the maximum takeoff weight for the airplane.
It should be noted that aircraft so fitted retain their previous mode of operation.
-----------
The technology is ideally suited to replace hydraulics. The 'all electric' aircraft is yet another topic!
I am a shareholder. I am not an employee of the company & other than this, I have no involvement with the air industry. I would make a pretty lousy salesman. I never mentioned the main product / company by name even once, neither did I offer a link to its website. The web link I did offer was in response to other posters off topic comments; more of a technical show piece comparing different approaches to hybrid vehicles. I did not prospect (initiate) ANY topic.
Currently there is no product for sale. Thus 'advertising' is a non issue!
I whole heartedly agree that this thread should be focussed on the technical aspects.
HOWEVER if others stray from this and I do not address that needing clarification, the wrong impression might be conceived by readers. I will not stray, if others don't. I certainly don’t want to write such lengthy replies let alone read one... If a simple question is asked, I’ll try to simply answer within NDA limitations. Other than real news, responding as requested or clarifying, as before, I won’t post. Last was Nov07, so not exactly pushing it. My recent answer was specifically requested of me.
WAY off technical topic.
The technology is heavily patented within the family of companies.
Boeing & Air Canada are not involved in the development program. Never were. (Other than the proof of concept). Boeing selected the company to design, build, and operate said system.
Delta IS our launch customer, but has NOT invested (They hold warrants).
Funding issues are not something I am prepared to discuss at all. I am under an NDA. Current public reporting on this is simply Many negotiations continue worldwide with many parties.This I am personally aware of.
Facts.... (should not always be taken as said. Some gross inaccuracies have been posted here)
The Company had a court case against Lehman Bros for 18 years & managed to collect 70% of what was due to them....
The Canadian regulatory issues are very long & (off) topic. The company’s major iron ore mine exploration has been under way for a 3? years in Canada.
A few projects have gone by the wayside or are effectively dormant. Another ore resource. A microphone & something called Green Steel (I think) (before my time). However ALL current / recent technology projects are still firmly active with good prospects. No products have failed as none have been brought to market – to date. Other subsidiaries have patented technologies that will also have major implications for the aircraft industry. But that is a topic THAT WILL BE addressed here as & when.
All the companies report in a very timely fashion every year.
Borealis reported a retained profit of $7.7M last year and $650K the previous year.
Chorus Motors also showed a profit in both years. Whereas its/the sub in question showed losses due to the expenditure on this project.
The iron ore subsidiary (Legal bit This is subject to a NI 43-101 report. However the company conducting the exploration stated on Jan6 - We believe we are within a few weeks of getting the last of the assays.... Once that process is complete we will be able to finish creating our resource model and the NI 43-101 report.)
Over 100 million dollars have so far been spent on the exploration. Offtake agreements for more than 15 million tons (over 10 years) of refined ore exist.
---
This product will be fully certified.
Well renowned companies, individuals & non commercial entities talk to / partner the company. Mostly yet unnamed.
Boeing & Delta. Co-operative Industries (our wire harness partner, offers extensive experience in harness solutions. They design and manufacture electrical wiring harnesses, cables & more. Plus on-site FAA, EASA and CAAC Certified Repair Station),
Luxell (our cockpit controls partner, with a superb track record of providing top-tier Human-Machine Interface (HMI) systems for aerospace, naval and land vehicles),
Newport Aeronautical Development (our certification partner & has an outstanding track record of successfully managing complex certification programs for the world's largest aerospace firms).
The Program Manager - Daniel Barbalata oversaw development, testing, cert and launch of Bombardier Global Express aircraft family (multiple variants). He was also Program Manager at Hispano-Suiza for design, test, cert and launch of L/G and SCU on Dassault Falcon 7X aircraft. Introduced new tools and manufacturing processes in joint program between British Aerospace and Romaero.
The Senior Certification Advisor - Gilbert Thompson has more than 32 years of experience with FAA, including as head of Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). His certification experience includes L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC8, DC9, DC10, MD-80, MD-90, KC-10A, MD-11, Boeing 717-200, C-17 Globemaster. Winner of AW&ST Laurels Award (1999) for outstanding achievement in aeronautics/propulsion.
I have included the above because some here have poo pooed the feasibility of the product. I hope the credentials of the above are enough to allay such comments previously made.
----
Quite a bit of important additional information can be found in last year's article in Flightglobal.
----
Re:- Does any unbiased person think that an aircraft - size say, from the 737 and bigger - could be usefully pulled by their own nosewheel? By this I mean in a day-to-day working environment, not just a flat and dry ground test.
Delta does, as did the Air Canada pilots during the test. Boeing put their name to it. Many companies in the industry see its merits too. Along with airports, regulators & environmentalists. You'd be surprised how long the list is...
Test Quote. The Phantom Works/Chorus Motors team, in cooperation with Air Canada, installed an electric motor drive on an Air Canada 767 and conducted a series of successful tests. Air Canada pilots performed ground manoeuvres on slopes and terrains typical of those at airports around the world, including driving in reverse from a gate and taxiing forward to a runway. Tests also were performed at ramp temperatures exceeding 120 degrees Fahrenheit and at loads of up to 94 percent of the maximum takeoff weight for the airplane.
It should be noted that aircraft so fitted retain their previous mode of operation.
-----------
The technology is ideally suited to replace hydraulics. The 'all electric' aircraft is yet another topic!
Psychophysiological entity
Let me first say that I realize the importance of stopping taxi fuel waste and pollution. A vital issue.
Also, I should say that I feel like a little old engineer in a flat-hat, shaking his head as he smokes his Woodbine. " It'll never work. "
No knowledge on the subject, just an engineer's gut feeling that the numbers just don't come together.
Decades of sitting in aircraft with a huge tug belting out black smoke to get us rolling. Fear for me nose-gear as the load threatens to buckle something expensive. Relief, as we start to roll, turning to that tight gut again as the whole lot clankels to a stop. Horrible forces on that NG, all to be replaced by a very few square inches of rubber? Mmmm...I've been wrong before. Takes flat'at off to scratch head.
Also, I should say that I feel like a little old engineer in a flat-hat, shaking his head as he smokes his Woodbine. " It'll never work. "
No knowledge on the subject, just an engineer's gut feeling that the numbers just don't come together.
Decades of sitting in aircraft with a huge tug belting out black smoke to get us rolling. Fear for me nose-gear as the load threatens to buckle something expensive. Relief, as we start to roll, turning to that tight gut again as the whole lot clankels to a stop. Horrible forces on that NG, all to be replaced by a very few square inches of rubber? Mmmm...I've been wrong before. Takes flat'at off to scratch head.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gut
Imagine the power needed to overcome inertia on your type. engines spooled up, sucking fuel. Now imagine all that power needs to come from a teeny APU.
wheeltug? the energy needed is the same. Now throw in a stop or two, and a repeat of inertia capture. No Sale.
AF
wheeltug? the energy needed is the same. Now throw in a stop or two, and a repeat of inertia capture. No Sale.
AF
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tugs are responsible for a lot of damage and pollution. The potential savings are substantial. There are numerous benefits.
It is kinder to the NG than existing methods. Much kinder than extended towing....
The electric motor industry has flat-hat tendencies.
As far as traction is concerned, it evidently worked. Main Engines used for taxiing are hopefully running at a fraction of their potential yet unnecessarily gulp copious quantities of fuel. Actually less fuel would then need to be loaded as much less would be required to taxi out AND TAXI IN on landing.
A 737NG APU is orders of magnitude more efficient at generating power and capable of providing the required power for taxiing. The Chorus Motor under design & development is fit for purpose.
Most pilots would be thrilled to be in total control of their craft, gate to gate. Besides they do tend to be more caring than some tug drivers. Certainly more qualified. There are numerous 'incidents' every year in this sphere of operation. More potential for savings.
Main Engines would only be spooled up some minutes before takeoff (as per manufacturers requirements.) Similarly on landing. The previous 'Test Quote' modus operandi was designed to ensure that it is fit for purpose. It satisfied Boeing.
It is kinder to the NG than existing methods. Much kinder than extended towing....
The electric motor industry has flat-hat tendencies.
As far as traction is concerned, it evidently worked. Main Engines used for taxiing are hopefully running at a fraction of their potential yet unnecessarily gulp copious quantities of fuel. Actually less fuel would then need to be loaded as much less would be required to taxi out AND TAXI IN on landing.
A 737NG APU is orders of magnitude more efficient at generating power and capable of providing the required power for taxiing. The Chorus Motor under design & development is fit for purpose.
Most pilots would be thrilled to be in total control of their craft, gate to gate. Besides they do tend to be more caring than some tug drivers. Certainly more qualified. There are numerous 'incidents' every year in this sphere of operation. More potential for savings.
Main Engines would only be spooled up some minutes before takeoff (as per manufacturers requirements.) Similarly on landing. The previous 'Test Quote' modus operandi was designed to ensure that it is fit for purpose. It satisfied Boeing.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
As an ancient, I readily admit to no longer having all the figures at hand to do a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation.
My gut reaction is that it will take less fuel to just taxi to the take-off point, and then back from the turn-off after landing, than it will take to carry the (few hundred pounds?) WheelTug across the Atlantic.
Not to mention the WheelTug will still need fuel for the APU.
Does anybody have an envelope handy?
CJ
As an ancient, I readily admit to no longer having all the figures at hand to do a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation.
My gut reaction is that it will take less fuel to just taxi to the take-off point, and then back from the turn-off after landing, than it will take to carry the (few hundred pounds?) WheelTug across the Atlantic.
Not to mention the WheelTug will still need fuel for the APU.
Does anybody have an envelope handy?
CJ
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydrostatic
Glum's idea has merit. The hyd pumps are already onboard, and the plumbing is already in the nose gear well. A hydraulic motor is lighter and more compact than equivalent electric motor, especially if gear reduction is needed for the electric motor.
In other words, most of what's needed for hydrostatic nose drive is already onboard and used at other times, and used very little during ground taxi.
Not only do big tugs use hydrostatic drive, but small riding garden tractors as well.
GB
In other words, most of what's needed for hydrostatic nose drive is already onboard and used at other times, and used very little during ground taxi.
Not only do big tugs use hydrostatic drive, but small riding garden tractors as well.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight. There is a net gain in weight (hardly a secret). Fuel v motor and associated kit. This was known very early on & was fully allowed for in the calculations.
There were many such considerations. (Most engineering decisions involve a tradeoff.)
'A few hundred pounds' Considering the NG hub space available, that would imply motors made out of lead. However be assured the production motors will be robust yet relatively light with a very high MTBF.
Hydraulics (expensive, heavy and require a lot of servicing) is one of the systems Boeing is targeting in future designs.
I have covered the traction issue before. The plane moved - repeated stops & starts backwards, forwards, left, right, up slopes, down slopes. Traction was sufficient. If it wasn't, Neither the test pilots (One of whom was Air Canada's Chief Test Pilot) or Boeing would not have reported so favourably.
There were many such considerations. (Most engineering decisions involve a tradeoff.)
'A few hundred pounds' Considering the NG hub space available, that would imply motors made out of lead. However be assured the production motors will be robust yet relatively light with a very high MTBF.
Hydraulics (expensive, heavy and require a lot of servicing) is one of the systems Boeing is targeting in future designs.
I have covered the traction issue before. The plane moved - repeated stops & starts backwards, forwards, left, right, up slopes, down slopes. Traction was sufficient. If it wasn't, Neither the test pilots (One of whom was Air Canada's Chief Test Pilot) or Boeing would not have reported so favourably.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the addition of a hydraulic drive really that heavy? You already have the pressurising device and pipework, all you would be adding is the drive section to the wheel hubs, and if there was one per hub in the main gear then the motors could be smaller as you would have 8 of them (for example), meaning the individual stresses would be lower, and the redundancy higher.
Maybe this should be a new thread?
Maybe this should be a new thread?
