wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of

fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.


Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?

They don't fly, so they're not drones.

They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.

If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to

push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.

Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the

aircraft go forwards.

Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.

At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.

Name one.

Borispol, Kiev.

https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-pushback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html

https://youtu.be/7ifDnXNNeLM