If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is a Turn Coordinator an electric motor or powered by fan? | kickinwing | Piloting | 5 | June 11th 05 12:25 PM |
Cherokee Electric Pitch Trim | Jonathan Goodish | Owning | 4 | November 18th 04 02:43 AM |
Piper Arrow electric fuel-pump | MC | General Aviation | 7 | June 3rd 04 02:50 AM |
taxi in reverse? | Malcolm Teas | Home Built | 10 | February 21st 04 12:26 AM |
More on the electric verses turbojet | cdubya | Soaring | 8 | September 25th 03 09:16 AM |