Tire burn
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
From: cornwall UK
Tire burn
Every time I see a big/fast aircraft land and see the smoke as the wheels are spun up by contact I wonder if any work has ever been done to see if wheels could be spun up to landing speeds prior to touchdown. Would a set of small fan blades mounted on the sides of each wheel have any effect?
Joined: Aug 1998
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 847
From: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
It has been done, and is still done on some aircraft fitted with gravel landing kits. You can see the nose-wheel spin-up gear on this citation:
Photos: Cessna 550 Citation II Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Photos: Cessna 550 Citation II Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
From: Near sheep!
This has been discussed before.
The initial cost of the equipment, the space it occupy's, the fuel used carrying it, and the maintenance cost's towards running it......by far outway's the cost of the tread loss off the re-moulds!!
Although, with intense flying programmes surrounding e.g ryanair's 738's...maybe something like that would be viable.
Boffins...??
The initial cost of the equipment, the space it occupy's, the fuel used carrying it, and the maintenance cost's towards running it......by far outway's the cost of the tread loss off the re-moulds!!
Although, with intense flying programmes surrounding e.g ryanair's 738's...maybe something like that would be viable.
Boffins...??
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: Between East and West Poles.
Back in the mist of times in the 1950`s the company that I worked for had Lockheed L749 aircraft. On the outboard side of the nose wheel tyres were flaps that opened into the airstream to rotate the wheel before landing. However never saw a tyre as such as they were fitted with the flaps cut off. No idea of the reason why the flaps were removed.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Denmark
Tire burn......
I once had a senior Boeing engineer sitting in the cockpit on a flight to Seattle from Copenhagen (before 9/11). He had a fantastic knowledge of aviation, and he had an answer to the question in this thread.
He said that the main reason for not having such a system installed is, that the rotational speed of the wheels MUST match the actual ground speed closely in order to get any significant decrease in tire burn. This close match is very difficult to achieve for several reasons, so combined with the other negative factors (weight, costs etc...) makes an "anti tire burn" system a non starter.
He said that the main reason for not having such a system installed is, that the rotational speed of the wheels MUST match the actual ground speed closely in order to get any significant decrease in tire burn. This close match is very difficult to achieve for several reasons, so combined with the other negative factors (weight, costs etc...) makes an "anti tire burn" system a non starter.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,061
Likes: 20
From: My views - Not my employer!
JSP - I'm guessing that DERG is referring to the small amount of kinetic energy taken out of the landing aircraft when the wheels spin up (spin up wheels requires a force which comes from the velocity of the a/c), though I would think that it is less than a knot....
...Probably wrong tho'
...Probably wrong tho'
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
From: Durham
Yes Cough I am. Every time I fly as a passenger on short haul jets these days I note the hard and short braking done on landing. The conclusion I came too: brake maintenance is cheaper than jet fuel and engine maintenance.
There are always jobs advertised for guys who maintain the brakes so I would guess the life of the brake components is short.
There are always jobs advertised for guys who maintain the brakes so I would guess the life of the brake components is short.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena
Re: Wheel spin up energy loss
Cough - I've used this as a first-year physics example.
Spinning up the wheels should soak up about 0.6% of the kinetic energy when landing a 747 at M = 300 tons. This is equivalent to 0.3% of the speed, so less than a knot is right.
I assumed a moment of inertia of about I = 45 Kg-square-meter for a 747 tire, a mass of M_W = 200 Kg (guess) and a radius of R_W = 66cm.
The 0.6% number should be almost independent of R_W, but scales with the mass ratio M_W/M, and the moment of inertia to mass-radius-squared scaling value of I/(M_W * R_W * R_W), which I took to be 0.5. It's independent of landing speed. Landing light soaks up more of the total energy to spin the wheels.
Spinning up the wheels should soak up about 0.6% of the kinetic energy when landing a 747 at M = 300 tons. This is equivalent to 0.3% of the speed, so less than a knot is right.
I assumed a moment of inertia of about I = 45 Kg-square-meter for a 747 tire, a mass of M_W = 200 Kg (guess) and a radius of R_W = 66cm.
The 0.6% number should be almost independent of R_W, but scales with the mass ratio M_W/M, and the moment of inertia to mass-radius-squared scaling value of I/(M_W * R_W * R_W), which I took to be 0.5. It's independent of landing speed. Landing light soaks up more of the total energy to spin the wheels.
Hiya fhegner
