Wheeltug - the novel answer to marginal airline profitability
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DUBAI
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe,
Agreed, there might be situations that this device as stated might not be able to ovbercome, But, for the vast majority of flights worldwide, I can see the advantages.
Agreed, there might be situations that this device as stated might not be able to ovbercome, But, for the vast majority of flights worldwide, I can see the advantages.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CATII- I don' think for the vast majority. There will still be a high proportion of flights where because of weather, wind, unservicability or taxiway slope, full pushback facilities (and staff to go with it) will still have to be available, therefore it's difficult to justify the alleged savings.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so you know, all 18 wheels on the 747 (all series) are the same size and interchangeable.
Imagine the burnouts you can achieve by parking the brakes (or is there an interlock?).
Rgds.
NSEU
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM - sorry, I posted in a hurry, our paths previously crossed on a different forum. Raging Bull is the principal forum home for the ultimate parent company, Borealis Explorations Ltd.
The WT system is intended for the nose wheels without brakes, not the main bogeys.
The traction 'problem' isn't. The whole point of the system is that the main engines won't be started until warm up / the penultimate minutes before take off. Weighty (largely offsetting the weight of WT) and expensive fuel savings are substantial. The fuel burn difference between a main engine & an APU is significant. Other savings can be made in main engine servicing & wear & tear on the engines. Then there is the redundancy of most of the tug fleet & crew, who are also responsible for a large percentage of ground collisions. There will be significant reductions if air pollution noise and jet blast around apron. There are other features yet to be made public.
The heart of the system, the Chorus Motor, is what makes the whole concept possible. It has an amazing power density and efficiency. The available APU power is fundamental.
The system would be utilised the vast majority of the time.
The dimensional constraints along with customers requirements will vary between aircraft models and airlines.
WT will initially only pursue certification for one type of aircraft.
Sophisticated software will run the system, avoiding the possibility of contradictory operational situations.
On the WT site, the details of some of the staff and companies hired are available. The finest in the industry. WT will not fail as a result of elementary oversight.
The WT system is intended for the nose wheels without brakes, not the main bogeys.
The traction 'problem' isn't. The whole point of the system is that the main engines won't be started until warm up / the penultimate minutes before take off. Weighty (largely offsetting the weight of WT) and expensive fuel savings are substantial. The fuel burn difference between a main engine & an APU is significant. Other savings can be made in main engine servicing & wear & tear on the engines. Then there is the redundancy of most of the tug fleet & crew, who are also responsible for a large percentage of ground collisions. There will be significant reductions if air pollution noise and jet blast around apron. There are other features yet to be made public.
The heart of the system, the Chorus Motor, is what makes the whole concept possible. It has an amazing power density and efficiency. The available APU power is fundamental.
The system would be utilised the vast majority of the time.
The dimensional constraints along with customers requirements will vary between aircraft models and airlines.
WT will initially only pursue certification for one type of aircraft.
Sophisticated software will run the system, avoiding the possibility of contradictory operational situations.
On the WT site, the details of some of the staff and companies hired are available. The finest in the industry. WT will not fail as a result of elementary oversight.
Last edited by rahosi; 6th Nov 2007 at 10:52.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The whole point of the system is that the main engines won't be started until warm up / the penultimate minutes before take off."
Interesting thought: Most airlines have the ground engineers monitor engine startup(e.g. if flames are shooting out the back of the engine, they alert the flight crew). Are the engineers expected to chase the airplane to the threshold to monitor startup?
Also, I agree with ChristiaanJ.... For example, if startup fails and the airplane is already in a long queue of aircraft taxying to the runway.... I can see there will be problems getting the aircraft back to the gate if there is nowhere for the aircraft to turn around.
Has this company really thought of everything?
Sorta reminds me of the in-air wheel spinup devices designed to save wear and tear on tyres on landing (see forum for further info).
Rgds.
NSEU
Interesting thought: Most airlines have the ground engineers monitor engine startup(e.g. if flames are shooting out the back of the engine, they alert the flight crew). Are the engineers expected to chase the airplane to the threshold to monitor startup?
Also, I agree with ChristiaanJ.... For example, if startup fails and the airplane is already in a long queue of aircraft taxying to the runway.... I can see there will be problems getting the aircraft back to the gate if there is nowhere for the aircraft to turn around.
Has this company really thought of everything?
Sorta reminds me of the in-air wheel spinup devices designed to save wear and tear on tyres on landing (see forum for further info).
Rgds.
NSEU
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remote hold startups are common- you don't need external monitoring these days. However I think we are dismissing the traction problem to easily. Moving 80 tons of aeroplane through 2 untreaded nosewheel tyres on wet, oily aprons and taxiways with some quite significant slopes (I saw on the north side of AMS yesterday a significant slope up to a bridge)? I really can't see it. I don't think we can dismiss all the pushback crews yet- so if we have to retain them for wet , windy days, the savings are not really there- or we accept on those days, operations will be disrupted.
I know the pressure is on to make sales, but we really need to see this thing prove itself instead of hearing all the hype. If it works, it will sell itself. The only answer is to get a system working and demonstrate it.
What taxi speeds is this thing anticipated to produce?
I know the pressure is on to make sales, but we really need to see this thing prove itself instead of hearing all the hype. If it works, it will sell itself. The only answer is to get a system working and demonstrate it.
What taxi speeds is this thing anticipated to produce?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:Just so you know
Hence WT's tie up with Delta, Newport Aeronautical & employing Gilbert Thompson - nothing but the finest.
Has this company really thought of everything?
Everything is an unreal expectation, but WT are striving for that! It is expected that, on balance, WT will be a 'no brainer'.
demonstrate it.
See the video. If it wasn't feasible at the simple terrain obstacle level, WT wouldn't be at the development stage it currently is. Inclines etc were part of the joint WT/Boeing proof of concept test.
For example, if startup fails.
The system will have a very long service life / MTBF. Besides if it were to fail (to a 100% safe condition), the fall back is to the traditional methods. The only issue might be a shortage of fuel. If you mean a main engine fails to start, that situation would occur some ~5 minutes before take off and (sorry if my terminology is wrong, I'm in business development) usually there is an escape route away from the runway. It is most unlikely that WT & BOTH engines would fail at the same time. (Such craft would have no business being anywhere near a runway anyway!)
Taxi Speeds.
That is a variable design parameter. Trade offs between speed, acceleration, motor weight, available power and the requirements of the customer.
Dismiss all the pushback crews
Certification will be handled one model at a time. Installation will take time to roll out too. Thus even with a satisfactory development outcome, it will not be an overnight changeover.
in-air wheel spinup
except that that would then be a flight system, for which WT are not currently planning the system to be so certified.
The pressure is on
True. The pressure is on the industry to green up. WT really is something the industry can offer that lobby AND save itself an awful lot of money..
Quote, Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 20/27, Page 60
"Tough Road" Pressure builds on Industry as calls for greener aviation increase Robert Wall/Paris
"....Taxing without engines running could also yield substantial savings that Airbus estimates at 10,000 metric tons of fuel during the life of an A320...."
Hence WT's tie up with Delta, Newport Aeronautical & employing Gilbert Thompson - nothing but the finest.
Has this company really thought of everything?
Everything is an unreal expectation, but WT are striving for that! It is expected that, on balance, WT will be a 'no brainer'.
demonstrate it.
See the video. If it wasn't feasible at the simple terrain obstacle level, WT wouldn't be at the development stage it currently is. Inclines etc were part of the joint WT/Boeing proof of concept test.
For example, if startup fails.
The system will have a very long service life / MTBF. Besides if it were to fail (to a 100% safe condition), the fall back is to the traditional methods. The only issue might be a shortage of fuel. If you mean a main engine fails to start, that situation would occur some ~5 minutes before take off and (sorry if my terminology is wrong, I'm in business development) usually there is an escape route away from the runway. It is most unlikely that WT & BOTH engines would fail at the same time. (Such craft would have no business being anywhere near a runway anyway!)
Taxi Speeds.
That is a variable design parameter. Trade offs between speed, acceleration, motor weight, available power and the requirements of the customer.
Dismiss all the pushback crews
Certification will be handled one model at a time. Installation will take time to roll out too. Thus even with a satisfactory development outcome, it will not be an overnight changeover.
in-air wheel spinup
except that that would then be a flight system, for which WT are not currently planning the system to be so certified.
The pressure is on
True. The pressure is on the industry to green up. WT really is something the industry can offer that lobby AND save itself an awful lot of money..
Quote, Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 20/27, Page 60
"Tough Road" Pressure builds on Industry as calls for greener aviation increase Robert Wall/Paris
"....Taxing without engines running could also yield substantial savings that Airbus estimates at 10,000 metric tons of fuel during the life of an A320...."
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is most unlikely that WT & BOTH engines would fail at the same time. (Such craft would have no business being anywhere near a runway anyway!)
usually there is an escape route away from the runway.
Rainboe said:
You would still need investment in all the pushback tugs (and their groundstaff) for windy or wet days.
Rgds.
NSEU
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....Taxing without engines running could also yield substantial savings that Airbus estimates at 10,000 metric tons of fuel during the life of an A320...."
OK, I'll be honest.
I see this as somebody trying to make another quick buck from the aviation bashing lobby.
Selling better smoke stack cleaning equipment to the Chinese coal firing power stations (one going on-line every week) would seem a better idea than selling an unproven gadget to reduce arcraft "emissions" (currently at about 2%) by 0.01%.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I did say I wasn't technical, I'm in business development. I bow to your superior operational knowledge. Having declared my association to WT, why would I want to insult anybody?
Of course it would have to return to gate with a single engine failure. I covered the hypothetical unlikelihood of a multiple engine failure blocking a taxiway. I had already detected negativity here & I was trying to answer questions before they were asked. For the first time a pilot will truly be in control of his flight from gate to gate.
I didn't detail the departure sequence. Naturally everything will have to be done safely. There will be NO blind or unsafe procedures. I fly too you know! I cannot see the point of me doing a cut & paste of the entire WT web site. If interested, DYOR. All being well, roll out is planned to commence in a couple of years or so.
It was an Airbus quote not a WT quote.
What ever any saving, no matter how small, airlines quite rightly will chase it down. For a large airline, say 100 aircraft, The cost of 1 million metric tons of fuel is serious money.
If universally adopted by major US airlines, it equates to about 320M gallons of fuel per year. It also equates to 3M metric tons of CO2 a year. Then there are the other emissions including noise. Just by modifying the take off & landing. Some while ago, single engine taxiing became fairly standard fuel saving procedure. WT takes it one step further. On the single engine taxi point, how often does an aircraft have to abort take off when the pilot discovers, on powering up the hitherto idle engine, that it has a problem? What procedure does the pilot then follow? I guess the utilisation of WT will double this frequency on a 2 engine a/c.
Of course WT is trying to make money. Lots of it. But for fair return. (Does anybody here work for free?) If WT were attempting to bash the industry, why would Boeing, Delta & Newport Aeronautical, all prestigious companies in the industry, allow their names to be publicly associated with WT? Other names will go public as & when. WT also had an article in The Times and numerous other prestigious publications. Googling WheelTug scores 540. A lot of info can be found.
Who would honestly believe an unproven gadget, could interest airlines, be allowed to be fixed to aircraft, or be allowed to fly by the FAA/CAA? In case you hadn't noticed, aircraft are already rather complicated 'gadgets'. When the Boeing test was run in Arizona, not even a single screw was permitted to be fitted to the test aircraft.
Its strange the mention of better smoke stacks. Did you read up on one of the parent companies other projects? PowerChips. Direct conversion of (waste) heat into electricity, at high efficiency. Similarly CoolChips. They will be employed on aircraft. When the R&D is complete. When the certification is complete.
The companies scientific projects each try and stand up in their own right both economically & environmentally.
And we have an iron ore mine (in development) too. Roche Bay in Canada. No we don't intend on building cast iron aircraft.
(Disclosure. I am a shareholder in all the companies mentioned)
Of course it would have to return to gate with a single engine failure. I covered the hypothetical unlikelihood of a multiple engine failure blocking a taxiway. I had already detected negativity here & I was trying to answer questions before they were asked. For the first time a pilot will truly be in control of his flight from gate to gate.
I didn't detail the departure sequence. Naturally everything will have to be done safely. There will be NO blind or unsafe procedures. I fly too you know! I cannot see the point of me doing a cut & paste of the entire WT web site. If interested, DYOR. All being well, roll out is planned to commence in a couple of years or so.
It was an Airbus quote not a WT quote.
What ever any saving, no matter how small, airlines quite rightly will chase it down. For a large airline, say 100 aircraft, The cost of 1 million metric tons of fuel is serious money.
If universally adopted by major US airlines, it equates to about 320M gallons of fuel per year. It also equates to 3M metric tons of CO2 a year. Then there are the other emissions including noise. Just by modifying the take off & landing. Some while ago, single engine taxiing became fairly standard fuel saving procedure. WT takes it one step further. On the single engine taxi point, how often does an aircraft have to abort take off when the pilot discovers, on powering up the hitherto idle engine, that it has a problem? What procedure does the pilot then follow? I guess the utilisation of WT will double this frequency on a 2 engine a/c.
Of course WT is trying to make money. Lots of it. But for fair return. (Does anybody here work for free?) If WT were attempting to bash the industry, why would Boeing, Delta & Newport Aeronautical, all prestigious companies in the industry, allow their names to be publicly associated with WT? Other names will go public as & when. WT also had an article in The Times and numerous other prestigious publications. Googling WheelTug scores 540. A lot of info can be found.
Who would honestly believe an unproven gadget, could interest airlines, be allowed to be fixed to aircraft, or be allowed to fly by the FAA/CAA? In case you hadn't noticed, aircraft are already rather complicated 'gadgets'. When the Boeing test was run in Arizona, not even a single screw was permitted to be fitted to the test aircraft.
Its strange the mention of better smoke stacks. Did you read up on one of the parent companies other projects? PowerChips. Direct conversion of (waste) heat into electricity, at high efficiency. Similarly CoolChips. They will be employed on aircraft. When the R&D is complete. When the certification is complete.
The companies scientific projects each try and stand up in their own right both economically & environmentally.
And we have an iron ore mine (in development) too. Roche Bay in Canada. No we don't intend on building cast iron aircraft.
(Disclosure. I am a shareholder in all the companies mentioned)
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine start problem at the holding point is a complete red herring (ie not a factor at all). Remote holds are common now, with aeroplanes starting engines unmonitored by ground staff. Engine start failures are extremely unusual. I don't see why that was raised. Aeroplanes can go around breakdowns, and those breakdowns can easily be taxied eventually out of the way. Not a problem to this system.
I would be interested in seeing if the system can work. By all means it should be installed in a test aircraft and prove itself on different types and in different weather conditions. I'm still sceptical, but from the number of times I have been totally wrong in the past, that is certainly no disadvantage to Wheeltug! Let's see it work, and do its thing, even in the wet, without overheating or causing a hazard of its own. If it works, it will sell.
I would be interested in seeing if the system can work. By all means it should be installed in a test aircraft and prove itself on different types and in different weather conditions. I'm still sceptical, but from the number of times I have been totally wrong in the past, that is certainly no disadvantage to Wheeltug! Let's see it work, and do its thing, even in the wet, without overheating or causing a hazard of its own. If it works, it will sell.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 73
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's see it work, and do its thing... If it works, it will sell
More news soon.
Last edited by rahosi; 7th Nov 2007 at 16:21.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concern should be that if one or indeed both fail, ie motors, batteries, power supply, whatever, on push back and the A/C is already moving backward, how will you stop the aero? Use the main gear brakes and you will lift the nose off the deck and possibly sit in on its tail. Now that will cost ya.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Aeroplanes can go around breakdowns, and those breakdowns can easily be taxied eventually out of the way.QUOTE]
That's not to say that there are international airports where you can't taxy out of the way/go around aircraft easily. e.g. Sydney 16R/34L departures.
Seems like a great idea for taxy-ins... no worries about jet blast. Those single engine taxys on 777's scare the hell out of me (especially where there is a slope up to the gate).
You just have to convince every airline and aviation authority that this is as safe as monitored starts.
I'd be interested to know if they've done a proper study on the wear and tear of the nose wheel/tyres and supporting structure.
Rgds
NSEU
That's not to say that there are international airports where you can't taxy out of the way/go around aircraft easily. e.g. Sydney 16R/34L departures.
Seems like a great idea for taxy-ins... no worries about jet blast. Those single engine taxys on 777's scare the hell out of me (especially where there is a slope up to the gate).
Remote holds are common now, with aeroplanes starting engines unmonitored by ground staff.
I'd be interested to know if they've done a proper study on the wear and tear of the nose wheel/tyres and supporting structure.
Rgds
NSEU
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see all this as a problem. This is a taxi device. If an aeroplane has a failed engine on start, it can simply taxi under ATC control using this device until it is out of the way and making its way back to the apron. What is the problem? If it fails on push, presumably friction of the motor will provide braking, or automatic safety devices? It will only be pushing back at walking pace- what's the problem? You may as well ban pushbacks in case the towbar fails. You can easily stop gently- just brake very lightly.
I see a problem in getting it out of the apron depressions at the parking spots in the first place!
I see a problem in getting it out of the apron depressions at the parking spots in the first place!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If it fails on push, presumably friction of the motor will provide braking, or automatic safety devices?"
Nothing can go wrong ..... go wrong ..... go wrong ... go wrong....
Nothing can go wrong ..... go wrong ..... go wrong ... go wrong....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I sounded critical earlier.
So far WT has done a proof-of-concept test, and that's about it.
Let's leave them to get on with it.
They've probably already been through all the arguments we can come up with.
If they end up being able to demonstrate a useable system and propose a valid business case, everybody will be using it in a few years from now.
If not.... nice idea. Next idea?
So far WT has done a proof-of-concept test, and that's about it.
Let's leave them to get on with it.
They've probably already been through all the arguments we can come up with.
If they end up being able to demonstrate a useable system and propose a valid business case, everybody will be using it in a few years from now.
If not.... nice idea. Next idea?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it fails on push, presumably friction of the motor will provide braking?
I can't imagine this system would ever be used for pushbacks. The pilot would have no idea what is going on behind/under him/her. The engineers are not going to be able to guide a pilot out (l can just imagine the engineer saying... left hand down a bit, right hand down a bit....).
The risks seem to be too great:
1) Engineer getting run over (happened recently)
2) Headset lead getting stuck under the nosewheel (=lost comms). Wireless headsets have been trialed here.. and they failed the initial tests.
At least with a tug pushback, the tug driver can see the engineer and respond immediately.
3) Ground vehicles ignoring rotating beacons (common)
"WT Trial... cleared for powerback after Bugsmasher123 has taxied behind you... "
On some aircraft types, you are lucky to be able to see the wingtips, let alone directly behind you.
Rgds.
NSEU