Boeing's Electric Jet

PropsR4Boats

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
121
Total Time
4gs
Boeing Tests 'Electric' Jet
August 1, 2005 Boeing has tested an electric motor that could allow commercial jets to taxi around airports without using their engines or ground-based towing vehicles, the planemaker said on Monday.

Chicago-based Boeing said its Phantom Works unit had used the nose-wheel motor, built by Gibraltar-based Chorus Motors, to move around an Air Canada Boeing 767 jet in tests simulating various runway conditions in June.

The system could offer a glimmer of hope to US airlines, which have been looking for cost savings amid record fuel prices, by directing pilots to taxi with one engine operating, among other steps.

It was unclear how soon the motor would be ready or how much it would cost. Boeing said the companies are working to overcome various technical issues that had surfaced during the tests.

The motors could save airlines money by eliminating the use of airport tow tugs and boost efficiency by running their jets less, as well as reduce emissions, the companies said.
 

Bdfg1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Posts
347
Total Time
.
This is actually a good idea. Maybe we can convince Bedford we'll continue to fly 100 seaters for 50 seater rates in order to get these engines outfitted on our fleet! SWEET!
 

wheelsup

Non-Registered User
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Posts
737
Total Time
>1
Will this really stem the of $1 billion in losses? Airplanes are almost as efficent as they can get, I think more needs to be done with alternative fuels/engines.


~wheelsup
 

Tarzan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Posts
2,073
Total Time
.
wheelsup said:
Airplanes are almost as efficent as they can get, I think more needs to be done with alternative fuels/engines.


~wheelsup
I honestly believe we are a long way from that. If they can do something on with the scram jet, the future is wide open.

But so far as the electric motors, sounds like a great cost cut. I'm sure the tow trucks cost a bundle and you have to pay the guy to drive one plus train him plus insure him. I'd reckon it would add up if this thing comes to pass. This is just one more thing that is a byproduct of deregulation even though it happened so long ago.

Hopefully once this has all come to pass, we'll be in a much better profession even if the $300K+ jobs may be gone. There are still the 200K+ jobs I guess I could make due with.
 

Smacktard

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
967
Total Time
4000+
PropsR4Boats said:
The motors could save airlines money by eliminating the use of airport tow tugs and boost efficiency by running their jets less, as well as reduce emissions, the companies said.

Here's a picture of this new beast. It's all about winglets these days...

(ASA is looking into these for SLC, in fact, this is a picture of one just leaving B4A taxiing up to spot 5.)

http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/bean/bus.jpg
 

DoinTime

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
This will most likely end up in the scrap heap along with the little invention that spun up the landing gear wheels while on approach. This would have saved airlines millions of dollars in replacement tires so Goodyear bought the patent and killed the program.
 

J32driver

Strokin it...
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Posts
716
Total Time
8000+
Sounds like a danged fine idea to me. Imagine a 2 hour outbound taxi with nothing running but the APU. I know that would save me 1400 lbs of gas on that one taxi alone. Thats what... about $400 at current gas prices.

I wonder how fast the little electric motor can drag my airplane down a taxiway?




edit---- BWAHA... the "nasty word" editor just changed dam ned into danged. Thats funny. Wheres the "big boys" table so I can say what I want?
 
Top