Taxi on electrical power
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 172
Likes: 3
From: EU
Taxi on electrical power
Just saw on flightglobal.com. Quite promising, isn't it?
VIDEO: L-3 and Lufthansa get moving with e-taxi demonstrator
VIDEO: L-3 and Lufthansa get moving with e-taxi demonstrator
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Isn't it more efficient to use ground based systems like jetTRACS?
Attaching electrical motors to the MLG increases ac weight.
This is reducing efficiency during flight.
Furthermore, visibility for pilot is limited when going backwards, even
when using a camera systems.
Attaching electrical motors to the MLG increases ac weight.
This is reducing efficiency during flight.
Furthermore, visibility for pilot is limited when going backwards, even
when using a camera systems.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: UK
Attaching electrical motors to the MLG increases ac weight. This is reducing efficiency during flight.
Furthermore, visibility for pilot is limited when going backwards, even when using a camera systems.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: UK
Extra fuel is gone after taxi and before going airborne, but motor is still there.
You'll consume extra fuel at about 4% of the weight of the motors per hour of flight. The maths shouldn't be too difficult.
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
So you have to stop somewhere approximately 2 minutes taxi time from the runway to start your engines. Then when one doesn't start eco taxi back to the ramp to get maintenance to have a look before having another go. Meanwhile everyone else in the queue is fighting over when to stop and start engines.
For some overcrowded hubs at rush hour this may be ok but can you imagine being in the 40 minute taxi queue at JFK only to have to taxi back in with a problem?
For all the other times when your taxi is less than 10 minutes this just will never pay for itself. A ground based solution is a much better idea as it adds no extra weight.
But when you're driven by a tech company trying to sell stuff and confused by illogical "green" arguments I guess you'll give anything a go.
For some overcrowded hubs at rush hour this may be ok but can you imagine being in the 40 minute taxi queue at JFK only to have to taxi back in with a problem?
For all the other times when your taxi is less than 10 minutes this just will never pay for itself. A ground based solution is a much better idea as it adds no extra weight.
But when you're driven by a tech company trying to sell stuff and confused by illogical "green" arguments I guess you'll give anything a go.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
From: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
When I was at school, energy could not be created or destroyed, merely converted from one form to another, and undesirable losses normally occurred during the conversion processes.
I am not a physicist, but surely the conversion chain from chemical to electrical then to kinetic is a longer and more wasteful one than chemical to kinetic. Then as mentioned above, the carriage of motors, cabling and coolant would be very wasteful over time.
The green argument is looking a little thin.
I am not a physicist, but surely the conversion chain from chemical to electrical then to kinetic is a longer and more wasteful one than chemical to kinetic. Then as mentioned above, the carriage of motors, cabling and coolant would be very wasteful over time.
The green argument is looking a little thin.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: earth
How is that relevant?
