I don't see this happening any time soon... At a lot of airlines, weight savings are a HUGE thing these days, so lugging around extra kilos is something which is really frowned upon.

Which ever way you put it, this system is not needed per se, since the tug really is doing a good and efficient job. You'll still need ground crew anyway, and on most airports the savings on the ground won't even be that much except on airports with long taxis like EHAM, KJFK, KLAX,... In the air, it'll be a whole different story. It's an unnecessary part, which just adds weight, and thus fuel burn. Not to speak about maintenance, the system going out of service,.... If your tug fails, you just get another one. If this system fails you just get... Well, a tug, really. So you still need to have tugs around, people who are around to drive em when necessary, and putting a tug through maintenance won't delay your aircraft...

All in all, I don't really see this going far.

All in all, I don't really see this going far.

 

I agree there. The only way I could see it taking off is if the government somehow pushes the issue (as they are already with noise abatement rules about length of APU use and so on). In any case, you're definitely right about the weight issue. Weight is more fuel burned, and more fuel burned is more money burned, potentially offsetting the fuel "savings."

Eh, not liking it and hope it never happens!

I'd personally love to see this in a Service Pack on the NGX. It would be fantastic.

I'd personally love to see this in a Service Pack on the NGX. It would be fantastic.

 

I have it already. Shift-P and running :Party:

 

Eric

I have it already. Shift-P and running :Party:

 

Eric

 

:LMAO:

That video seems slightly skewed. The counter should start once the wheeltug aircraft has finished pushback - instead it's already 30+ seconds into counting. Not exactly a legit comparison of turnaround times if you begin your timer before your ship has sailed.

FYI. The "red" counter represents the time waste or (-), the "normal" aircraft is behind the "tug aircraft" 30 sec already when the pushback-truck is pushing.....

Anyway it's up to the airlines, if they can save money with it they'll buy it.

FYI. The "red" counter represents the time waste or (-), the "normal" aircraft is behind the "tug aircraft" 30 sec already when the pushback-truck is pushing.....

Anyway it's up to the airlines, if they can save money with it they'll buy it.

 

Obviously, but that shouldn't matter. The fact is, at the end of the day, the Powered Pushback Aircraft pushed back about 30 seconds before aircraft 2. In the real world, that's really all that matters. It's irrelevant if the Powered Pushback aircraft got its doors open on gate arrival first, because all airlines care about is the total turn-around time. It's a little misleading to a company looking to save time on its turn-around, because they'll look at this and go "We are going to get an aircraft onto the taxi-way 2 and a half minutes early" when in reality, it's only 30 seconds.

 

That's what I meant about the timer being slightly skewed. While it does show that you can disembark quicker, the loss of 1 ground crew means that the total turnaround time isn't as impressive as shown.

Oh my God. Just amazing. :Applause: . I hope that PMDG make this happen any day in the flight simulation world. Why not? :pardon:

I wonder how this thingy is gonna move a fully loaded T7-300ER fueled for 15 hours flight

I think it's a cool idea, but would take away from some of the feel of flight. Wouldnt the captain like that time to taxi to be able to feel out the engines and make sure nothing is wrong with them? I'm not a pilot, but am studying to be one, and I would definitely like to know if something is wrong on the ground during taxi instead of on my climb out! Starting on the ramp would give them time to run the engines, settle em in, and get the feel before departing with 150+ people in tow. Just my two cents.....

I think it's a cool idea, but would take away from some of the feel of flight. Wouldnt the captain like that time to taxi to be able to feel out the engines and make sure nothing is wrong with them? I'm not a pilot, but am studying to be one, and I would definitely like to know if something is wrong on the ground during taxi instead of on my climb out! Starting on the ramp would give them time to run the engines, settle em in, and get the feel before departing with 150+ people in tow. Just my two cents.....

 

Well think about airports where the taxi time out is only a few minute s becaause the airport is relatively small. you dont have time to "feel out the engines" in those situations. Besides the engines have a mandatory warm up time before take off anyways. They'll be on for several minutes for takeoff no matter what.

 

I wonder how this thingy is gonna move a fully loaded T7-300ER fueled for 15 hours flight

 

for now they're only planning on the 737 and a320

 

Eh, not liking it and hope it never happens!

 

it appears to be in the very near future. I for one am for it. it reduces engine wear, decreases noise ( since the engines will be off) and pollution/ fuel consumption. What's not to like?

 

Might be a good idea to have a ground override to let the crew chief push the plane out, +1000 on them having a far better view of whats going on during pushback. However this system would be useless if the APU is inop and many engines still require a 3 minute warmup or cool down period so you will be taxing at some point under engine power.

 

If the APU is inop, then you simply would use a traditional tug. Note also that if the APU is inop at least one of the engines would have to be started at the gate anyways, since the APU supplies the Air to get the engines starting. In which case the crew would taxi out in the tradional manor. Thats one of the benefits of this prouct. If anything goes wron, you simply use traditional taxiing and pushback.

Well think about airports where the taxi time out is only a few minute s becaause the airport is relatively small. you dont have time to "feel out the engines" in those situations. Besides the engines have a mandatory warm up time before take off anyways. They'll be on for several minutes for takeoff no matter what.

 

 

 

for now they're only planning on the 737 and a320

 

 

 

it appears to be in the very near future. I for one am for it. it reduces engine wear, decreases noise ( since the engines will be off) and pollution/ fuel consumption. What's not to like?

 

 

 

If the APU is inop, then you simply would use a traditional tug. Note also that if the APU is inop at least one of the engines would have to be started at the gate anyways, since the APU supplies the Air to get the engines starting. In which case the crew would taxi out in the tradional manor. Thats one of the benefits of this prouct. If anything goes wron, you simply use traditional taxiing and pushback.

 

i agree with you 100%, this is a vital technology

Fantastic idea!!

 

Think of the savings and co2 emission reduction,

 

 

Especially for heathrow ;)

What savings? You still need exactly the same energy to move the aircraft and that comes from the APU, which is creating at least as much CO2 and a lot more noise at high power than the main engines at idle.

 

Seriously, a dedicated tug is much more efficient and there is no weight penalty to carry around in flight. Not only would the drive motor be needed, the APU would have to be a more powerful unit.

All I can say is 'Thank the lord that our contributors are not the airlines' accountants'. Let's wait until an airline implements this before we ask the software developers to provide the facility.