Видео

Whichever method used its an expensive process - I am involved at the other end of this process with Rubber plantations in Liberia where almost all of the production of natural rubber is exported for the manufacture of aircraft tyres.

If you really wanted to save weight on a plane, you'd fly it empty. But then you'd be missing the entire point of venturing into the air in the first place! (Putting passengers on a diet might make sense though. Of course this would just give them more reason to pack another bag!)

I will admit I've asked myself this question many times in the past during my 59 years on planet earth. Had no idea the rubber build up on the runway required it be scraped off! Knowing that, I am only more curious... resumes video.

Bugger. I thought this was my secret idea that was going to make me gloriously rich!

While watching this. I noticed that at the 2:28 mark. I recognized that test equipment. I ran that dyno for years! Just wondering how they released that footage? But if you are wondering. This was taken at Honeywell aerospace test lab in South Bend, IN. That is the EI dyno, specifically, the B end. This did bring back some great memories of the testing done there.

UKRAINIAN ANTONOV

The reason they clear the runway of rubber is so the plane doesn't crash... Think of that...

Dad worked for Lockheed back before and into the early WW2 years. They looked into the same problem, with the scarcity of rubber. They found that no amount of spin stopped the smoke and wear on bomber tires. They found it was caused by the transfer of the aircraft weight to the ground. Spinning the tire made it worse. I worked fighters during and just after the Vietnam War. Fighters like the F-105 got something like six or eight landings per tire. Doing touch and go practice landings amounted to doing an approach and not landing, but flyby and go around to save tires.

No. TYRES.

5:30 here is actually easy to notice with a naked eye that the runway IS wavy. Is does not appear flat at all.

Wow, a microcar that allows you to lane split between cars in heavy traffic, or park between cars while blocking them in?

Great video, nice explanation. Great job. Although, kilometer is km, not kms or klms.

25k from half a kg. garbage!! If thats the case they would make everyone take a dump before boarding and save a half a million.

Everyone loves ramps, duh!

boing is not a reputable source anymore.

1:38 Antonov is Ukrainian, not russian... 💩💩💩

@5:17 "Furthermore, the bulk of the wear on aircraft tires is during taxiing -- not landing." I was simpatico with our host's explanations, until the above assertion. A single landing will strip far, Far, FAR more rubber off of the tires than miles and miles of taxiing. Heat destroys tires. That skidding effect during landings makes those tires extremely hot. That makes the rubber softer, and more will peel away (or melt off). That one second of skidding, during a landing, is what kills the tires. Also, the now very hot tires are running at nearly 200 MPH, which continues to heat up the rubber. Then, the braking also heats up the rubber. So a single landing will eat away more of the rubber than hundreds of taxiing operations. @0:14 "...leaving behind melted rubber, which then has to be cleaned off the runway, regularly." The frequency of cleaning that rubber off of the runway far, Far, FAR exceeds the infrequent cleaning of rubber off of taxiing areas. That is because the taxiing areas do not get loaded up with rubber from the tires. It does not happen during taxiing (perhaps only slightly, over long periods of time). Taxiing is not a tire eater. Yes, it contributes to the wear and tear of the tires. But the tires are rated for X number of landings -- not for X miles of taxiing. As technology improves, a safe, reliable, cost effective way to spin up the wheels will eventually be invented and adopted.

Rubber doesn't melt.

Airplane tickets should be priced by weight of the passenger.

'Big Airplane Tire' is fighting it tooth and nail!

Because they don't need to ffs.

5:57 i have a feeling that this statistic (since it is from the designer) is for an entire product line. half a pound removed from a 737 will save up to 11,000 gallons from ALL 737s.

5:18 thats the answer. the bulk of wear occurs during taxiing

Because of gyroscopic force.

Don't they _want_ the plane to stop? I thought the idea was to stop. It's during takeoff that spinning the wheels up would be useful. Didn't understand the idea that the brakes couldn't stop the wheels spinning if they had vanes. I've always wondered why the runway is passive. Extra weight on the runway doesn't cost fuel.

1:39 "WAS" the largest plane in the world. 😞

Hopefully, good pay and work-life balance for their hardworking flight attendants and other employees was prioritized before adding cup divots to the other side of the trays (speaking as a lefty). Other than that, seems cool. Sweet video! The latest on what's going on in aviation is always interesting.

Sponsored video?

All sounds good until you learn that a tire manufacturer paid SAE Aerospace to do the study. I don't know this to be true. I am just pointing out that you can't trust the study if you don't know who paid for it. Studies say what the money wants them to say.

Seriously…you have to ask why? Seen many rubber roads lately?

Retractable aerovanes

There is one very simple reason: With peroration the breaking distance would be extended - not too much, but this is completely against the primary use case to bring the airframe to a full stop after touch down.

You could land a big jet on Courchevel, but taking off... Most likely not...

NO. The primary problem is that pilots are idiots and/or improperly trained, along with insufficient runway length. When they touch down, there is no need otherwise, to apply braking immediately instead of letting the tires get up to speed, let the plane slow down a little, and then apply the brakes. I am certain there will be faux-experts out there that try to argue against this basic physics problem, trying to selectively ignore some portion of what I wrote to make their argument. No. Tires skid because of rodeo cowboys who don't know how to land, unless the runway is just to short to do so in a sane way. You don't need any kind of nonsense like motors or wind vanes. Instead, deduct tire wear from the pilots' salary so they give a fsck. Only an idiot thinks that tires that don't have brakes applied prematurely, skid like that. Again I will state, some of it is the length of the runways, not something worthy of this video which is hmm, crazy. It is truly insane that you try to delve into all the nonsense you did, while ignoring that we just need to stop excusing pilots acting like toddlers. If you are a pilot that can't do better, then you are mentally deficient at half the flight process. Anyone can just hold a stick in the air. If you can't land without blasting your tires, you fail.

Thank you. This was a question I had when I was a kid. My Dad tried to answer it by saying "why would you put motors on the wheels? You're trying to slow down, not speed up." That didn't satisfy me at all and it's been bugging me ever since.

All I hear is "Because of profit we do not want to do something to pollute the environment less then we do now anyway" . Thanks. I also had the idea that rotating the wheels could increase the number of tires the planes use each year. A lot! This is just a challenge for engineers. it can be done. No matter the cost - this would be a revolutionary milestone in the flight industry and from there on it would pay off quite quickly. But yeah, let's not make it better...

5:37 -- "retard, retard, retard!"

Question (don't take this too seriously): Why don't all aircraft have boat hulls to enable safe landing on the water?

There is a nosewheel spin-up STC for the Citation 560 series of business jets. Uses bleed air to speed up the nosewheel for landings on gravel strips to reduce the gravel being spit up on to the aircraft and engines.

I had a brilliant idea! Why dont we make a pree spinning RUNWAY? Make planes land on giant threadmills!

Conversely: Dunno if it's the flattest, but the Space Shuttle runway in Florida is no more than 2/10 per 1000 feet. So on it's 15000 foot runway, that's no more than a 3 foot difference the whole length.

I'm wondering how can author , who tells us aviation stories doesn't know whos Antonov planes had been built ?

Достаточно верным способом устроить аэррдинамику колеса, точнее диска с помощью лопастей и они сами раскрутятся.

I heard once someone explaining to a guy making jokes about the hard "unprofessional" landings of Ryanair pilots that it’s even better landing that way, because the difference between the 0 rpm’s of the wheels and the rpm’s they will have after contact result in a huge absorption of the kinetic energy of the plane because of the friction the tires have. That means that the plane will loose velocity in the moment the airplane touches the ground without yet before braking. But I also asked myself why other airline pilots don’t land in that "shitty" way if it is so useful

That A380 landing was wild. Would it feel like being tossed around inside the aircraft?

because pilots like the smell of burnt tires on landing

JFK is busier than ATL?!?!? I don't think so...

I think a Tesla Turbine Brake Disk could be a solution.

I just realized you only have 4K subscriber, wtf ? I honestly thought this come from hundreds thousands of subscriber channel. Hope this channel grow up well in the future.

03:40 great edit timing. This is why I love your channel, you actually care what kind of footage shown, not just slapping generic footage to accompanying the narration.