No More Pushbacks?

Manufacturers develop electric motorized systems to allow for engine-off taxiing.


Attendees of the Paris Air Show tend to look skyward to take in new aircraft showing off its best moves while in the air.

But at this year’s show, eyes were cast decidedly downward as attendees caught a demonstration of an A320 moving backward and making sharp turns on the tarmac at Le Bourget Airport. All with the jet’s engines switched off. And without a tug in sight.

The A320 used electric motors developed by Honeywell and Safran SA attached to both sides of the plane’s main landing gear and powered only by the APU.

“The system would, therefore, reduce, if not remove altogether, the need for aircraft ground equipment to maneuver aircraft in and out of stands,” according to a press release.

The joint venture’s product could save up to $200,000 per aircraft per year in fuel costs, according to the companies.

The aircraft, however, showed off just the latest system designed to save jet fuel, cut carbon emissions and save time while jets are at their least efficient place – on the ground making the turn at the gate and taxiing to takeoff.

The Honeywell-Safran joint venture has company with at least one other competitor working toward similar ends for a greener ramp. WheelTug, another exhibitor at last June’s air show, has gained the most traction among potential customers with its system that fits into the nose landing gear.

At the show, WheelTug announced yet another agreement with Icelandair. With the new reservations on its order books, the company has deals with 11 airlines from Europe, America, the Middle East and the East Asia.

The two systems bare some similarities:

  • Both systems are geared toward narrow-body aircraft that typically fly frequent short-haul flights and spend an inordinate amount of time on the ground.
  • Both systems are essentially an electric motor run by the APU, which is at the same time a simple idea and an incredibly difficult process to integrate into aircraft.
  • Both systems provide full mobility to the plane while it’s on the ground without the use of the aircraft’s jet engines or tugs for pushback and taxi operations.
  • Both systems add weight to the aircraft, which makes the approval process for the equipment that much more difficult. Both companies say that the cost-savings would more than justify the added pounds.

But from those basic similarities, each system splits between the merits of either pulling the plane with motors in the nose landing gear or pushing it with motors in the main landing gear.

 

PULLING

WheelTug’s electric motors power the nose gear in a package that fits into the existing wheel well space that’s 5 inches wide and weighs 300 pounds. By outfitting the nose landing gear, the company says that reduces the weight of such a taxiing system and makes approval of the system less complicated since the noise landing gear does not affect the aircraft’s braking system.

“We’re turning the airplane into a hybrid,” company CEO Isaiah Cox said over the summer on CNBC.

The company says the electric unit needs only 4 pounds of fuel per minute by using the APU, representing an 80 percent reduction in ground operation fuel consumption.

“It’s like packing an elephant into the nose wheel,” Cox told us.

The company’s business plan is to install its electric system into existing aircraft, something Cox says can be done overnight.

To persuade airlines to make the modification, Cox offers his product on very generous leasing terms – as low as “free” with WheelTug sharing in the cost savings.

“Airlines can enjoy cost-savings from Day One,” Cox says, “with no capital expenditures.”

WheelTug’s sales literature offers a generous range of cost-savings with its system that ranges from $785,000 to $2.5 million per plane per year.

Right off the bat, the WheelTug system would eliminate the cost of pushback, which Cox says ranges from $50 to $150, and the consumption of about 55 gallons of fuel spent while taxiing before and after takeoff, based on average burn rates and ground times at U.S. airports.

This content continues onto the next page...

We Recommend