Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Heres A Great Way To Save Fuel!  
User currently offlineBoeingforever From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13357 times:

could this ever work..its a great way to save fuel..

after pushback from the gate, the tug doesnt disconnect from the plane. instead, it pulls the plane all the way to the runway. once they get cleared, the tug disconnects, the aircraft starts its engines, and off she goes. this can save tons of fuel..especially when there are delays and backups on taxiways.

furthermore, the tugs can have apu's(auxiliary power unites) so that you can operate all the aircraft systems(lights, ac, avionics etc.) while taxiing.

even though the tug burns fuel too,,its not nearly as much fuel as a jet burns taxiing to the active..

whaddya think??

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13338 times:

Thought about this in this thread.

Best Airport Design (by RichPhitzwell Jul 31 2006 in Aviation Polls & Prefs)

I wonder, is it possible to have an ac turn off a runway and have a device like a car wash, bring it to the gate then back to appropriate runway eliminating taxiway/runway incursions?


User currently offlineSAS333 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13310 times:

Actually Delta is trying to save some fuel, by operating only one engine till the runway is reached.
The same after landing, one engine will be switched off immediately.

But just in general, I had also an experience with UA, when we had bad weather-conditiones, and ORD was closed for a couple of minutes. Our A-320 Crew switched off the engines completely for the remaining time on the taxiway.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2933 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13256 times:

Well, I'd think this would be logistically a nightmare. Imagine 40 aircraft waiting in line at ORD for take-off; 40 tugs, also idling taking up additional space between aircraft. When they reach the runway and detach, then there has to be extra roadways etc. so the tugs could return to the gate. Add the expense of the extra tugs, time lost as everything is now slowed way down, and extra staff to accomplish this, and the current system probably works much easier and cost effective.

User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13251 times:

Tugs can simply stay put until next plane...if they were automated or enough traffic justifies the labor staying put.

User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13194 times:

It would require too much manpower and ground equipment. This would take workers away from turning other flights and there might not be enough tugs available to push the next flights on time.

User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 13101 times:

Quoting SAS333 (Reply 2):
Actually Delta is trying to save some fuel, by operating only one engine till the runway is reached.
The same after landing, one engine will be switched off immediately.

Many airlines besides DL are doing this, including CO, CO Connection, Expressjet, and WN. But you are true, taxiing on one engine does save fuel.


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 13086 times:

And if the tugs are hybrid or alternate fuel then it would be even better. Make it so that when at idle, it shuts off and can be turned on quickly. Kind of like they buses being used in Japan.

Or better yet. Build in a tug into the taxiway system like a conveyor belt. Before entering the runway, it disattaches and goes into the ground to circulate to the needed place.

That would be a technical nightmare though.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently onlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5080 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 13077 times:

But.... We all know that these tugs eat fuel like crazy too. The costs associated with towing a plane to the runway could be high. Imagine having to tow a plane from one end of the airport to the other end? Then the costs of maintenance on them would be high too. Then if you have a breakdown, it would be a mess in itself, causing a possible delay.

I love the idea though, but I could not see it being much of a cost saver. Then you got all these subcontractors now. Imagine Menzies towing Alaska planes to the runway? It would be a disaster!!!! It is scary enough to watch them push airplanes back 25 yards as it is.

Just my penny to add.  Smile



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 13041 times:

Quoting SAS333 (Reply 2):

But just in general, I had also an experience with UA, when we had bad weather-conditiones, and ORD was closed for a couple of minutes. Our A-320 Crew switched off the engines completely for the remaining time on the taxiway.

I had the same situation with AA at ORD with some bad weather two months ago. We sat on taxiway Y (I think) near the maintenence hangars for a good 45 minutes until we were cleared for t/o. The Pilot had turned both engines off and we just ran on APU power.


User currently offlineMATURRO727 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12984 times:

hey.

i love the idea but as you guys said it would be a pain in the ass the technical, ground personal, maintenance, fuel etc.

and also is it safe to start the engines and 1 minute later apply full power ??


Just my two cents.

Regards

MATURRO727


User currently offlineBoeingForEver From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12984 times:

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 8):
But.... We all know that these tugs eat fuel like crazy too. The costs associated with towing a plane to the runway could be high. Imagine having to tow a plane from one end of the airport to the other end?

are you kidding...a 747 burns more fuel getting to the runway, than your car will burn in 4 years..those tugs burn nothing compared to jet engines..especially jet engines having to push aircraft at max gross!

Quoting Bohica (Reply 5):
It would require too much manpower and ground equipment

still wayyy cheaper than fuel..especially with the price per barrel heading towards 100$

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 3):

i dont see why..just tugs dropping the plane at runway and driving back to get another


User currently offlineFlyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12959 times:

There would still have to be a very large amount of auxillary power for the air conditioning systems. The tug would either have to have a huge engine/generator or the APU would have to be running. I think in combination with the concerns that others have raised about traffic, number of tugs, personnel, etc. that these factors in total make the running of one engine the best alternative.

Mike


User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12837 times:

So, what about an automated system? would this not negate misunderstandings and reduce mishaps on the taxiway?

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12730 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 3):
Imagine 40 aircraft waiting in line at ORD for take-off; 40 tugs, also idling taking up additional space between aircraft. When they reach the runway and detach, then there has to be extra roadways etc. so the tugs could return to the gate. Add the expense of the extra tugs,

Have you seen the height of tugs? They usually fit under the nose of the aircraft, even the ones with the tow bars.

http://airliners.net/open.file/0473520/L/
http://airliners.net/open.file/0474436/L/

And unless it's a 737, A320, or Md-80, the tug can just pass beneath the wing, so you don't need any additional roads. Not to mention, that almost all major airports already have service roads interlocking the entire airfield.

And the tugs do use up way less fuel than when aircraft are taxiing. I guess the only downside to this idea is that airlines would have to purchase additional tugs. But I guess when fuel prices get even higher, this will be justifiable.

By the way, what happen to Boeing testing a nose-wheel taxi motor on an AC 767? Wasn't that supposed to happen a few months ago? Does any one know how it went?


User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7311 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SAS333 (Reply 2):
Actually Delta is trying to save some fuel, by operating only one engine till the runway is reached.

Majority of airlines employ this method already. This is why you hear a rev up on the engine and rapid deceleration on it prior to take-off.

Airlines don't use power backs anymore. This is a 60% savings in fuel alone prior to departure.

Source: FX mechanic at AUS.

[Edited 2006-08-07 09:23:19]


I miss the old Anet.
User currently offlineDesertFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12628 times:

I couldn't believe how many powerbacks I saw NW DC9s doing at MSP last month. It would be great to think of new, inovative ways to save fuel. I do agree with the other posters that it's a good idea to taxi on one engine. It must add up over time.

User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12525 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 14):
And unless it's a 737, A320, or Md-80, the tug can just pass beneath the wing, so you don't need any additional roads. Not to mention, that almost all major airports already have service roads interlocking the entire airfield.

Yes, lets complicate the hell out of airport ops  sarcastic 

Tell me, what reason do you want a tug right up next to an active runway? To increase runway incursions? To see a tug get into a GE-90?

Quoting RichPhitzwell (Reply 13):
So, what about an automated system?

Why is it when I hear automated and airport in the same sentence I think of bags being chewed up at DEN?





If it's not broke, the airlines will sure as hell try to break it!


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12502 times:

One thing that hasn't been brought up it the fact modern day turbofans just can't be started and taken off. There is a warming up period that needs to taken into consideration prior to takeoff.

Having a tug pull the aircraft to the number one position and then start might not be practical in light of any warmup that needs to be done. Another down side would be any MEL issues that occur. The entire MEL concept assumes starting after pushback. That wouldn't happen, now we have a situation where a MEL item occurs out at the number one position, you have to be towed to another location and the entire flow is disrupted.

Personally I'd rather see a system where you taxi to a point after landing, shutdown (after waiting the required amount of time) and shut down. Now we can be tugged to our parking spot.


User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1020 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12472 times:

Quoting RichPhitzwell (Reply 13):
So, what about an automated system? would this not negate misunderstandings and reduce mishaps on the taxiway?

I think that would work too. Especially at airport like Atlanta.
My idead is to put something like a catapult rail on carriers on the taxiway that would tow the plane till the runway.

2. question: Doesn't jet engine need to run a few minutes before the turbine reaches working temperature?


User currently offlineAmazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12453 times:

Quoting MATURRO727 (Reply 10):
i love the idea but as you guys said it would be a pain in the ass the technical, ground personal, maintenance, fuel etc.

and also is it safe to start the engines and 1 minute later apply full power ??



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 18):
One thing that hasn't been brought up it the fact modern day turbofans just can't be started and taken off. There is a warming up period that needs to taken into consideration prior to takeoff.

A turbine engine can in most intances, on a standard FAA 59F deg. day and above, accept takeoff power after 3 minutes from the initial start time.

amazonphil



If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
User currently offlinePhelpsie87 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 498 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12207 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 6):

Many airlines besides DL are doing this, including CO, CO Connection, Expressjet, and WN. But you are true, taxiing on one engine does save fuel.

UA does the same, as well as OO. I think almost every airline does this.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7384 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11942 times:

Here's another, let change the legal definitions of what "On time" means back to what it was, that way when congress see's how bad performance at airports are they will release funds to improve the situation.

Your flight pushes back within 5 mins of its actual departure time, then you sit on the taxiawy for an hour, your flight is ontime, and this situation is already built into your flight schedule and times.

Really want to save fuel, get the airports / airlines more in league with WN system of operations. Go by your local airport on a good weather day, start in the terminal by the boards and see how many airlines have departures within a single hour timeframe, then take a look outside to see if the airport can really handle that traffic.

When the economic loss of having airlines wasting fuel waiting to take off becomes great enough, you will see downsizing of airports in terms of departures / arrivals within an hour, and those slots being tied more tightly to each airlines schedule.


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8683 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11502 times:

US does this too. All my flts did this.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineDrinkstrolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11290 times:

How about getting the passengers to push it to the threshold in exchange for a discounted ticket?  Wink

25 StarGoldLHR : less airlines.. better timetables.. bigger planes.. means.. less fuel, less costs, cheaper fares.. Why does it have to be that 4x flights leave LHR fo
26 Gopal : The old practice of taking the passengers to the aircraft by bus could help in fuel savings. The aircraft could be parked close to the runway in alloc
27 Gearup : An adaptation of a coomon industrial system might be a good idea. AGV's or automatic guided vehicles have been in use in manufacturing for years. Typi
28 Birdbrainz : There's a simple reason why it's not done: Too much strain on the nose gear. There was an article on this exact topic in Boeing's Airliner Magazine. T
29 Adh214 : Didn't UA try do this in Chicago at one time for some 747's that were headed out on very long flights? I think it was ORD-DEL. Of course, I may be mis
30 FlyPrivate : you have a copy of that article.i would love to read it.
31 F9Widebody : As I understand it, UA regularly does this with their ORD-HKG flight because it is so tight on fuel anyway. Regards
32 Thegooddoctor : This is a nice idea, but remember that your average aircraft tug (one for small to mid size aircraft) costs around 150,000 USD. So cost is going to be
33 Post contains images Skywatch : After my delay in ORD last week, I can say that that idea would probably turn into a nightmare. Saving fuel is great, but the delays caused would cost
34 Birdbrainz : If you has asked me 3 months ago, I would have said yes. I've since moved, and haven't seen it. I do remember that it was from 1989. I'll keep an eye
35 Post contains links AirSean : At Virgin Blue in OZ we have an electric pushback device that is remote controlled by the engineer departing the aircraft. They surround the left rear
36 Post contains images Backfire103 : I found this 737 being taxied by a tug at AMS. Dose KL do this for all their aircraft?
37 Mcr : I can't find the reference right now, but I was reading an article about the explansion plans for LHR and their impact on local air quality recently.
38 Morvious : Nope, only when they go or come from maintanence, or you see (Sometimes) a B747 combi being tugged from the cargo hold to the gates. The idea is not
39 Swissy : Phil has a point with above and it would work easier than tow them for t/o, sure you need more tugs and at some airports it takes a while to get to t
40 Zamaria : I think this is a better fuel saving idea than using the tugs - though the extra weight and complexity could be an issue. I searched around for info
41 Samair : i think its a very good idea but if it can go wrong it will! the tug braking down building the new 'tug' taxi ways the tow bar breaking !
42 Post contains links AirCanada014 : There was a talk with Boeing and Air Canada to do a test trial on B767. Its Here's the link http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q3/nr_050801a.htm
43 Jetdeltamsy : I don't know what United's policy is, but while on the bus from employee parking to the terminal, i frequently see UA747's with all four engines runni
44 Md80fanatic : It's somewhat amusing to see all the great ideas on how to save fuel....especially when the world is bursting at the seams with crude oil. We now see
45 MrMcCoy : Personally, I think that some variation of this idea (original post) is fantastic. Yes, it would require certain elements of airport reorganization, b
46 F14ATomcat : How about dead stick landings?
47 Post contains links AirCanada014 : If you click on this page you will see what the motor looks like when its hook up to the nose gear. http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Art...ticleID=373
48 Supa7E7 : Another idea is an electric motor driving the rear gear wheels. Powered by the APU.
49 Tozairport : You are both right with the exception that we don't do it anymore. When Boeing got wind of this, they pretty well freaked because the -400 nose gear
50 RAPCON : Would create a nightmare for the ATC brothers. This would be the end of rolling take-offs! Bad Idea! SOP for military. Next time you see a USAF/USN/US
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Great Way To Start A Holiday...(Excel Airways) posted Wed Aug 9 2006 14:53:20 by Gkirk
American Airlines Digs Deep To Save Fuel posted Sun Jul 3 2005 22:19:37 by KarlB737
Way To Save USA Major Carriers posted Sat Apr 16 2005 23:49:00 by Remymartin11
PDX-SEA Over The Years, A Great Way To Experience posted Sun Feb 20 2005 22:13:03 by RWA380
Measures Airlines Are Taking To Save Fuel posted Mon Jun 14 2004 17:03:14 by Oobitsa
Yet, A Great Way To Fly! posted Fri Nov 3 2000 21:26:11 by Erela
Why Not Tow Plane To Runway; Save Fuel? posted Fri Jun 1 2001 04:15:35 by LAX
Please Sign This Petition To Save A Concorde posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:01:59 by Gh123
What A Way To Trave posted Wed Nov 8 2006 05:17:08 by Fiedman
Any Way To Know Exact Reg Of Specific Flight? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 04:55:03 by VikingA346