Follow this blog:
RSS

Honeywell, Safran eye green airplane taxiing

By | June 19, 2011, 7:11 PM PDT

Honeywell and Safran, a French aerospace company, said they will launch a joint venture to create an electric taxiing system for airplanes in a move that will save money, fuel and carbon emissions.

The companies said the electric taxiing system will use an airplane’s Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) generator to power motors in the main wheels without using primary engines while on the ground.

Today, airplanes use their main engines and taxiing eats up 4 percent of total fuel consumption. That percentage equates to 5 million tons of fuel used just to taxi.

Under the joint venture’s plan, the Honeywell-Safran system will be installed on new aircraft and retrofitted on existing planes starting in 2016. The two companies appear to be a good fit since Honeywell specializes in auxiliary power units and Safran makes landing gear systems.

Safran explained how the system works on its Web site:

From the technical standpoint, each powered wheel in the main landing gear is equipped with an electric motor-reduction gearbox-clutch assembly to drive the wheel. The aircraft’s own auxiliary power unit, or APU, provides the electrical power needed by the motor. The APU is actually a gas turbine/generator unit, generally located in the fuselage tail, that provides the electrical power needed to start the jet engines, power air conditions and supply electricity for other onboard systems, mainly on the ground when the jet engines aren’t operating. With this new system, we can also do away with the tractors that tow the aircraft after the doors are closed at the loading gate. In other words, the aircraft taxis using only electric power until just a few minutes before takeoff – and then again after landing, right after it leaves the runway.

Among the key benefits of this electric taxiing system:

  • Airplanes will be able to push back from the gate and go faster.
  • Fuel costs and related equipment costs such as tugging, brake wear and carbon emissions taxes will decline.
  • Airlines will save “several hundred thousand dollars” per aircraft a year.

The two companies said that they will initially focused on narrow-body aircraft, which are used for short-range flights and are generally more sensitive to fuel costs.

Related: Boeing hosts Paris Air Show preview

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Larry Dignan

About Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is the editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan

Editor-in-Chief

Larry Dignan is editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet and ZDNet. He is also editorial director of TechRepublic. Previously, he was an editor at eWeek, Baseline and CNET News. He has written for WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, New York Times and Financial Planning. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Delaware. He is based in New York but resides in Pennsylvania.

Follow him on Twitter.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan
Larry Dignan does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Power Conversion
"The aircrafts own auxiliary power unit, or APU, provides the electrical power needed by the motor. The APU is actually a gas turbine/generator unit, generally located in the fuselage tail,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plane's own wheels could be used during 'braking' to generate energy to be stored and resupplied to assist in Taxiing, Auxiliary power, etc... Thus, relieving some of the load needed by the APU.
Posted by Don Dewiel
Updated - 20th Jun 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Not likely. It's all about weight.
This only makes sense if the apparatus required is light enough. Remember that it costs fuel to carry weight. Motor technology may have come far enough to create an electric motor that can move a plane weighing over 50 tons that weighs less than 200 pounds. But the batteries required for a regenerative system capable of powering that motor would likely weight tons; The fuel required to fly that extra weight would be far more than any saved in taxiing.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
ORLY?
Pretty conclusive statement there Mr John... guess you've done the math on the companies' behalf? LMAO
Posted by travisjb
4th Nov 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Too much momentum on landing.
To use the landing gear in this fashion would introduce harsh stresses that today's gear are NOT built to handle. Remember, their main function is one of safety, to let the craft reliably land safely.

Future gear designs might change to accommodate such a concept, but regenerative braking would also imply that the power was coming from (heavier-weight) batteries of some kind. Weight is always of primary concern, to an aircraft design.
Posted by Lightning Joe
20th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Regenerative Braking?
I saw nothing in the article, and nothing on Safran's web site about regenerative braking. It appears as if they are using a simple, geared-down electric traction motor. The added weight to the aircraft would be the motors, gearboxes, and the additional wiring.
Posted by bhartmann
24th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Whatever happened to airplane tugs?
Lufthansa has developed an airplane tug that cradled the planes front wheels to lift them for towing instead of pulling on the landing gear, which reduced stress on the landing gear. They had been using it for years when I read about it in the 1990???s. They used it for noise reduction reasons at the Frankfort airport. Planes no longer ran their engines to taxi when night flights landed. At that time the fuel savings was considered a minor bonus compared to ending the noise complaints.
Posted by Hates Idiots
20th Jun 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
The problem with the tugs...
...is that they don't go very fast, and using them for taxing would require many more of them plus an operator for every plane on the runway, the cost of which would likely cancel out any fuel savings.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
why
The article says it will use the APU for power, not regenerative braking... APU energy consumption main engines

As for added weight, will the added electric motors be offset by converting the hyrdraulic landing gear to electric? total system weight may not be too different

Finally, there is a question about any aerodynamic effects... will the system have the same drag profile?

Pending the real math... on balance, seems like a pretty clever approach that will save fuel during taxi reduce emissions etc
Posted by travisjb
4th Nov 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!