[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Aditya

They can accelerate fast compared to other fire tenders and are able to negotiate rough terrain outside the runway and airport area. In order to avoid wasting time, the dash to the crash spot must not only be as fast, but also as short as possible during which obstacles like fences and hedges are driven over. A Crash Fire Tender should also be able to cross difficult grounds at a very high speed.

Yes, scientists at erstwhile Top Gear have conducted some experiments on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27oVdvb3Z8

[virajmore03]

I would also like to share these unique Mobile Lounge vehicles I experienced at Washington D.C.'s Dulles International Airport.

They are used to transport passengers between the plane and the terminal.

Pic courtesy - Google

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

This is very interesting to watch! Is this standard practice? The ATR-72 is very common in India but not sure if this is done here.

Interesting if DGCA allows it in India at all. Can Indian pilots here comment?

A lovely MD80 backing up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zkxh903s_w

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by virajmore03

I would also like to share these unique Mobile Lounge vehicles I experienced at Washington D.C.'s Dulles International Airport.

They are used to transport passengers between the plane and the terminal.

Thanks for sharing. I do remember these. I believe they are used for first / business class passengers only?

Concorde used something very similar at various airports round the world. Can’t expose these VIPs to bit of warm/human air, let alone let them walk for miles from the lounge to the gate!

Jeroen

[Foxbat]

Very interesting thread, I didn't know there were so many different types of vehicles.

Some people like to collect scale models of these vehicles along with the aircraft itself (not me I only have one set )

[arindam.dino]

Thanks for the topic!
Recently spotted this on its way to a distant land..



The differential! The Tyre!!



Spotted this a lot parked just beside the road on the flatbed, dunno why it was there though.
The airport would be like 5 kms away from where this picture was taken.

[Labrador]

Originally Posted by arindam.dino

Thanks for the topic!
Recently spotted this on its way to a distant land..
========
Attachment 2054386

So this Saab along with a few Volvo V90s are used by my organization (Airports Authority of India) for conducting friction test for runways. Mumbai has 2 airports namely Juhu Aerodrome and CSIA and this particular Saab does not have registration plates so had to be carried on a flatbed from Juhu to CSIA or to our Western Region Headquarters which is quite close to the airport.

[nikhilarni]

Originally Posted by Aditya

Airport Ground Support Vehicles

Here’s a look at some ground support vehicles that we get to see at most airports.

Hi Aditya,
Thanks for posting this Thread. Loved reading it.

I have always been amazed and excited by the vehicles ( Ground Support Vehicles ) at the airport.

It's like another world on the other side of the terminal, where these vehicles are seen.

Each having a unique shape associated with its functions.

[mmxylorider]

While not special equipment, our own M&M tractors are quite prominent at airports in the US. They serve the role of baggage haulers and with a low initial cost and rugged build, quite suitable for the climate extremes.
Anecdotal and off topic: I started my career in the MMFES (Farm Equipment Sector) in late 90s and was on the tractor assembly line. Every now and then, there would be an export order and line planning. Power steering, suspension under the seat and a bare-bones-cover for the driver were the main differentiators. There would be a mad rush to use them to drive from the line to the officers' cafeteria!!! Come 2000 and I fly to JFK and I see an M&M tractor hauling stuff. Quite sure, I had some role to play in that tractor's journey.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Thanks for sharing. I do remember these. I believe they are used for first / business class passengers only?

Concorde used something very similar at various airports round the world. Can’t expose these VIPs to bit of warm/human air, let alone let them walk for miles from the lounge to the gate!

Jeroen

While it makes sense, there are exceptions. I was lucky to be onboard one at CDG in 2001. I had a tight connection and the ground staff were redirecting PAX to multiple of these buses. In essence it was an apron side transit between aircraft. IIRC, the bus lined up for boarding via the rear right hand side door.

[AirbusCapt]

A couple of observations:

1) modern jets brake mainly using wheel brakes and ground spoilers. Engine reversers contribute as little as reducing landing distance by 20 meters on the A320. Besides reversers take up a lot of fuel (extra 100 kgs per landing on full reversers). A320 is prohibited from reversing using reversers (can it do so, is a different question).

2) taxibots are highly efficient both in reducing fuel consumption in taxi and reducing carbon emissions. The engines remain switched off until the airplane reaches near the runway, then engines are started and taxibot is disconnected. Infact, the more the taxi time (busy airports) the more sense it makes to connect a taxibot.

3) Bangalore and Hyderabad airports have started using the Tata Hexa as a follow me car. I guess they see the advantages of this highly underrated SUV. On a lighter front, may be they saw the Hexa towing a plane video as well

[vigsom]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

modern jets brake mainly using wheel brakes and ground spoilers. Engine reversers contribute as little as reducing landing distance by 20 meters on the A320. Besides reversers take up a lot of fuel (extra 100 kgs per landing on full reverse)

Thanks for the input @AirbusCapt

This confirms my observation - I have never seen full reversers deployed on all flights that I've taken in the last 2 years (all of them Indigo).

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by vigsom

Thanks for the input @AirbusCapt

This confirms my observation - I have never seen thrust reversers deployed on all flights that I've taken in the last 2 years (all of them Indigo).

Adding a little correction. Every airline, every pilot will take max reverser then almost immediately apply idle reversers when landing. It is mandatory and is required as per flight safety. Max reversers will always be used in wet, slippery conditions or whenever the captain feels he/she needs it

[Rahul Bhalgat]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

3) Bangalore and Hyderabad airports have started using the Tata Hexa as a follow me car. I guess they see the advantages of this highly underrated SUV. On a lighter front, may be they saw the Hexa towing a plane video as well

What advantage does Hexa offer as a follow-me car? A common passenger feels that any car is suitable for this duty; the pilot just has to follow this car visually.

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by Rahul Bhalgat

What advantage does Hexa offer as a follow-me car? A common passenger feels that any car is suitable for this duty; the pilot just has to follow this car visually.

A follow-me also needs to do high speed runway inspections, sometimes travel off tarmac into the kaccha. Hence a powerful SUV kind of vehicle is needed. They carry bird scaring equipment, other equipment like cones, tapes. They have a big follow-me lighted board (weighs a lot) for guidance and follow-me duties. The car carries a driver plus 2/3 personnel. The other people on board get off, pick up FOD from the runways/taxiways and get back into the car , doing all this within the shortest possible time (to ensure they don't hold up departures or arrivals). In Bangalore or Hyderabad, a follow me vehicle is supposed to cover the entire 4 km runway in less than 2 mins. You may calculate the average speeds needed.
An airbus 320 which I fly, uses up 15 liters of ATF a minute holding for the inspection vehicle to finish it's job, so you may imagine the urgency.
Hence a simple car will not suffice.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

1) modern jets brake mainly using wheel brakes and ground spoilers. Engine reversers contribute as little as reducing landing distance by 20 meters on the A320. Besides reversers take up a lot of fuel (extra 100 kgs per landing on full reversers). A320 is prohibited from reversing using reversers (can it do so, is a different question).

Engine reversers on modern jet were never envisaged as reducing brake distance really. When used in conjunction to auto-break systems, which gives us a set braking deceleration rate, they reduce break wear considerable. But to your point little effect on actual brake distance.

Why is this not necessary / used on Airbus?


The actual physics behind thrust reverse, especially the non bucket type of reversers is often misunderstood. At least, according to this gentleman.

Quoting from Henri Spencer:

In most thrust-reverser designs, little or none, despite the name. The
key purpose of the thrust reversers is not actually to reverse thrust, but
to kill thrust by sending the exhaust off in a useless direction -- more
or less sideways in most modern designs. The braking effect comes from
the fact that the engine is swallowing very large amounts of air, creating
a considerable drag on the engine, without producing any compensating
thrust. Almost all of the braking comes from intake drag, not from the
forward component of the exhaust.

...The braking effect comes from the fact that the engine is swallowing very large amounts of air, creating a considerable drag on the engine, without producing any compensating thrust. Almost all of the braking comes from intake drag, not from the forward component of the exhaust.

Viewed from the engine's point of view... As the incoming air is
compressed in the inlet (and compressor), it is also decelerated to quite
low speed within the engine. The engine very nearly brings the air to a
halt, creating a great deal of drag on the engine. After adding some
heat, the engine then expands and accelerates the air through the exhaust
nozzle (and turbine), creating thrust.

Using the terminology loosely, the net useful thrust of the engine is
nozzle thrust minus inlet drag. Nozzle thrust and inlet drag are both
typically several times the net thrust; an engine with 20klb of net thrust
may well be generating 100klb of nozzle thrust and 80klb of inlet drag.
(This is one reason why the net-thrust/weight ratios of jet engines are so
puny compared to rocket engines, which are all nozzle and no inlet.)

So killing the nozzle thrust while retaining the inlet drag instantly
gives you a *lot* of braking force, and it's not really necessary to
divert the exhaust forward.

I have come across very few pilots that agree with the above. What is your view/thought.

A little known anorak fact: There are a few airplanes (commercial jets) that can use reverse thrust during flight. (DC8, Concorde)

Jeroen