RST Engineering wrote:
And those of us on usenet seeing a possible breakthrough in engineering
technology saying, "why the hell did I spend all that time in engineering
school when these uninformed idiots comparing 1950s technology on usenet
have all the answers".



I'm not dissing their breakthrough on motor technology at all.

What I see from their publicly released design information is a system
that will add at least several hundred pounds of weight to the aircraft
and add significant maintenance problems to the gear as well as makeing
it even more complicated than the nose gear of the B-58 and the mains
on the F-111. Fixing the drive motor within the fuselage and then
having to transmitt the energy from there to the landing gear, down
the gear leg itself and then tee it to both wheels really drives up the
complexity. The test rig is a giant strap on box hanging off of the
back of the gear and uses belt drive to power one wheel. Even they
admit that they encountered significant engineering problems with the
test rig and the 767.

One of the things they don't seem to address anywhere is how or if they
are going to decouple the drive system for takeoff and landings. Also,
there is no mention of the actual speeds accomplished with the system.

When they get their motor package down the the point where it can be
mounted within the front wheel assmeblies and keep the installed weight
under a couple of hundred pounds and be able to taxi the bird at
10-15mph for several miles, then they will have a really viable product
that will have everyone clamoring for it.

BTW..Lufthansa tried a program for a number of years where the tugs
supplied motion to the aircraft as well as airconditioning and
eletrical power. The aircraft were towed ammost all the way to the hold
line prior to engine start. If I remember right, what they saved in
fuel and engine time costs was surpassed by labor and turn around time
costs and they dropped the program.

Craig C.