Display:
The problem is that the landing gear has no traction and the planes use their turbines to taxi.

It can't be that costly to add an efficient motor to the landing gear so that the engines only need to be fired up once the plane is ready for takeoff at the head of the runway.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This idea is not new. So far, the extra weight(motor,energy-source, wiring...) added to the plane to achieve this nullifies the effort: all that weight has to be flown around wich costs extra fuel.

But for now everybody is looking for eliminating weight.
For instance: stewards have to calculate before the flight how much coffee will be needed ( number of passengers, adults, duration..) so they can load the coffee-machine with what is needed and not a liter more.

Also the constructors try to find ways to eliminate weight:
Boeing: Boeing Completes 737 Carbon Brakes Certification Testing

SEATTLE, May 02, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE:BA] recently completed certification testing of new carbon brakes designed for the Next-Generation 737 airplane family by French supplier Messier-Bugatti.

A Next-Generation 737-900ER (Extended Range) airplane is shown performing a high-speed rejected takeoff test, designed to verify that an airplane at maximum weight with greatly worn brakes can stop safely after a refused takeoff decision. Boeing will submit the test results to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for certification the second quarter this year. Entry into production is expected by third quarter. Boeing will offer a retrofit program for airplanes already in service.

Through a month-long test program, Boeing reached its goal to show equivalent performance between steel and carbon brakes, and verified a weight savings of 700 pounds (320 kg) compared to high-capacity steel brakes for Next-Generation 737-700/800/900ERs, and 550 pounds (250 kg) on standard-capacity steel brakes for Next-Generation 737-600/700s. Reduced weight contributes to reductions in associated fuel burn and CO2 emissions depending on airline operations.

 

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure I read that Branson was planning fleets of tractors (not sure at what airports) to shift the planes from the gate to the take off holding points....

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a much better idea. It would be very expensive to add built-in traction, because the torque needed to move a plane is not small, and the extra fuel needed to keep the extra hardware in the air would be traded off against fuel savings.

Tractors solve all of those problems, at the cost of some extra traffic control on the ground and perhaps some extra waiting around.

Airliner tugs were standard issue at airports thirty years ago. I'm not sure why they disappeared.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 at 06:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They are still used to reverse planes out of parking slots.  Don't see why, perhaps with the addition of some power, they can't be used to haul a plane a couple of KM to the take off point or very close to it.  (Presumably jet engines also need to be warmed up and may have to be started some way ahead of the take-off point in any case).

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jun 4th, 2008 at 06:40:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series