it's actually an O.G. BMW M1.....


O.G...... seriously?! Autoblog?... *palmface* Autoblog we're auto enthusiasts, not gangsters.

if you don't know what it means, urban dictionary it.

@why not the LS2LS7?

If you even read the article, it clearly states the whole point of this taxi bot is to tow it to the runway for takeoff. I also mentioned in my posts, so did others, that this is being used to tow the aircraft right to the position before takeoff. I also gave a bunch of stats regarding fuel consumption by a B777 at idle for between 10 and 20 min, average taxi times, to give an idea what a jet burns in fuel during taxi... hinting at what these taxi bot's would save the airline in fuel if they used the taxi bot...

I seriously don't understand your post. I read them like 20 times last night and thought maybe I was tired and I wasn't getting it, although I'm wide awake now and I still don't understand. It's extremely frustrating as you seem to have completely ignored what was said in my posts (especially since you're replying to my post!), and you seem to have not read the article at all.

I really don't think you even know what this taxi bot is for. It was NOT designed for pushback.... pushback is the part where the tug hooks up to the nosewheel at the gate and pushes them back a very short distance. They do not push them to a taxiway. They are pushed back a short distance from the terminal to start their engines and are still on the apron. The pilots would not be able to control the taxi bot for pushback because they're going backwards and do not have sufficient viewing area to safely pushback by themselves.

What you described in your 3rd post is EXACTLY what happens right now... the whole point of taxi bots is to NOT have the aircraft start it's engines AFTER pushback, the purpose of the taxi bots is to tow the aircraft from the pushback position (the position away from the terminal) to the start of the runway, eliminating the need for the jet to start it's engines for taxiing and burn that extra fuel.

Another reason why I think you don't understand this article is because you say in your 3rd post that the jets are efficient at taxiing. I don't know what you classify as efficient, but if you read in one of my posts I showed that a B777 would burn 857 litres during a 20 min taxi. That is the figure used for engine idle fuel burn. So if they had to wait another 20 min for all the planes in front to take off, they just doubled the burn and now burned over 1700 litres of fuel to taxi. That is just under the amount of fuel the average car burns in 1 year of driving!! And that was just idling for 40 min! I don't know how to say this but that is NOT efficient!!! Hence, why Ricardo thinks that taxi bots are the solution.

I agree with Ricardo and many others that they should work on eliminating this extra fuel burn, however, reading my posts you would see I don't really agree or think Ricardo's proposal is a realistic one. It would be far easier to just have the tug driver stay inside the tug and tow the jet all the way to the end of the runway than to build automatic taxi bots... that would be a nightmare of control issues for the airport authority.

yes, thank you!.... and having unmanned tugs that weigh thousands of pounds running around the airport?! no thanks

@why not the LS2LS7?

"These would be used for more than just pushback, they would taxi the plane to the taxiway. This portion of the ground travel can be quite substantial at some airports."

have you read any of my posts?

@tankd0g

you bring up a good point. the tug driver tows the aircraft away from the gate and all the ground equipment and usually situates it on an angle so it can safely start it's engines. it's called pushback. it's a very short distance. it would be a lot easier, if they really wanted to accomplish their objective, to keep the driver in the tug and have him tow it out so that he can unhook and bring it back himself safely. the only reason i can see them having it with noone in the tug is for cost, however, making it auto i think would be a far greater cost than having a tug driver, already being paid for the job, tow it out himself. Ricardo's proposal just doesn't make sense.

@purplewon

your idea seems the easiest, however, all they would need to do is use the current tug machines and just have the operator tow them to the runway and come back. that's the easiest and most cost effective way right now and they still haven't done it, obviously for some reason.

here is some data on the GE90 engine, which two of them are fitted to most Boeing 777 airliners. they burn 0.291kg/s at idle. if you do some math you will find that they burn 857 litres (226 US gal) in total for two engines during a 20 minute taxi, if it only took 15 min to taxi it would be 643 litres (170 US gal) and 10 min would be 429 litres (113 US gal).

during a 12 hour flight, not uncommon on a B777, it would burn about 124,242 litres (32,821 US gal) at cruise, not including extra thrust needed for takeoff and the time spent taxiing on the ground. this is just a rough average as many things will affect this burn especially over a long period of 12 hours. its probably +/- 10,000 litres.

considering that, only burning 429 litres on a short taxi is not really the problem. i think the bigger benefit would be felt if they focused on making the engines more fuel efficient and finding ways of cutting emissions, which manufacturers currently are doing.

reading the press release it says that it is people operated presently while they are testing and in the future they plan to have it completely auto.

yes the airport would obviously need to be modified, hence the building of the rail system, however, aircraft would not need to be modified. the rail system could be built to handle the current nosegear towing system.

please understand that I believe both systems are unrealistic at this time!

just thinking about it.... the rail system would be very complicated... each aircraft is a little different and most big airliners need to turn very wide to make a corner. even if the rail system tracked the widest so to ensure every aircraft made the corner, one aircraft might have a wider center gear which would get dragged over the grass and possibly sink in the ground. they'd have to study current aircraft and taxiways to ensure they would work. it is possible that they could make it work and then future aircraft would be built to have dimensions that would allow them to use the rail system, and of course aircraft would have a choice to use the rail system. you could also taxi using engine power, general aviation aircraft and business jets would most likely use that.

this is just me thinking aloud haha... but i don't think this system or the taxi bot is a practical solution to saving fuel and cutting emissions, at least at this time.

I'm a pilot and the practicality of this is not there. what happens to the taxi bots once the jet taxis to the runway ready for takeoff? it is possible to have GPS equipment put into the tug and using WAAS or LAAS type systems to guide it back to the terminal or parking space and be used again to pull a jet to the runway. in reality this just isn't going to happen anytime soon tho. They don't even have LAAS reliable enough for a Cat III ILS approach so even if they did use GPS technology they'd have to wait before they'd be able to get the accuracy needed to trust the GPS to safely maneuverer this huge, heavy machine back to the airport terminal safely with 100% accuracy so it doesn't smash into an airliner or other vehicle or structure causing massive damage.

if you want reliability and a proven system i believe this would work. installing rail systems down the centerline of all taxiways and designated taxi areas towards the terminal. the jet would pull up to a starting point, latch on to this rail system using the nosegear, and the rail system would tow the aircraft to the runway with the pilot acting as the controller. the rail system would be powered by electricity and therefore you wouldn't even have the emissions of the taxi bot's 2 500hp V8 engines.

however, both ideas are extremely expensive and as you can imagine, dealing with airplanes the reliability and safety measures will have to be very high. the reality of either one of these systems coming into play with in the next few years is very very low. the payoff is just not there. i could see the rail system being used but not for at least 10 years.

Displacement is a lot more important than the number of cylinders for performance. It actually has 4 less cylinders and 2.3l less displacement, and those are not huge turbos. The output is quite good considering it's only a 4.2 l V8. Yes they could get a ton more out but then ur bumping up the cost and significantly decreasing reliability. I think this is a pretty good avg between performance and reliability. I'd say it's an an avg turbo tune and in the future you'll see more aggressive tunes.