ROBOTIC tractors could one day be used to tow aircraft between the airport gate and the edge of the runway. This could save airlines $7 billion a year in fuel costs and cut 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from aviation's annual emissions.
Jet engines run at their most inefficient when used to propel planes around the taxiways. To get around this problem, the European aircraft manufacturer Airbus and the military robot maker Israel Aerospace Industries are working together to create a "taxibot" that docks with an aircraft's nose landing gear to tow the plane.
Pilots would guide the taxibot using their regular joystick and pedal controls. "To the pilot it would feel no different to normal taxiing with the engines," says Airbus engineer Marc Lieber.
- New Scientist
- Not just a website!
- Subscribe to New Scientist and get:
- 51 issues of New Scientist magazine delivered to your door
- unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues
- Subscribe Now and Save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
So does the taxibot run for free? Is it power source 100% efficient? are the massive savings the difference between what the plane would have used and what the taxibot uses?
Obviously yes it does use power. Equally obviously any vehicle that is not being propelled by jet engines will be drastically more efficient. Hence the figures.
Great to hear about a simple, workable concept. I'd like to hear more about increasing the efficiency of planes through design. I read about new wing/profile designs being announced a year or two ago that reduce engine noise as heard on the ground (engines above the wing) and improved efficiency in landing. Any progress on that NS?
Before take-off the engines need to reach working temperature and stabilise so there would still be some need to run them up. A better use would be on landing to pull the plane back to the stand. How long is the coupling and uncoupling likely to take though, it could add significantly to the time to get to and from the runway.
Rob
Parking?
Mon Jul 20 09:04:28 BST 2009 by Allen
http://www.aircreworld.com
The run up time will never be more than 5 minutes, and that is not a real limiting factor.
The taxi in phase (after landing) is very short, and the engines need cooling time that will probably make the towing less attractive.
But the Taxi out phase, in condensed airports can take more than a hour.
Savings there are potentially very big
"To the pilot it would feel no different to normal taxiing with the engines,"
Until someone forgets to uncouple it when they try to take off,.. then I'm sure it'll feel different as it drags the nose of the aircraft back into the ground.
& if the pilot remotely steers this thing from teh cockpit, what happens whan he's taken off ??
How does it get back to the terminal for the next plane & what happens when one goes wrong, & decides to drive itself across the runway when someone is landing ?.
Having anything apart from planes, especially automated anythings, on or near the runway is asking for trouble. :-((
If you must do it, why not just have a few human driven tractors, like they do now to back the aircraft away from the terminal. If there's a huma at the controls, at least you've got some to blame when things go wrong
Well obviously all your questions are part of the engineering problem.
It's a problem they're planning to solve. There's a reason why a high-tech aerospace company is trying to solve this and not someone like you :)
Who are you to say there isn't a safe effective solution?
Your last point is hilarious - if it's safer to use a robot, you'd still advocate a human because there's someone to blame? :)
It seems New Scientist is increasingly read by luddites.
Luddites.
Please stop trying to sound cleverer than you are.
"There's a reason why a high-tech aerospace company is trying to solve this"
what, like the one that designs planes that fall into the sea when they meet a thunderstorm??
Oh don't tell me that was you?
"Your last point is hilarious",.. it was meant to be LOL.
"It seems New Scientist is increasingly read by luddites.",.. yes,.so it would seem :-)
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
