★★★ *FACT UPDATES / ANSWERS TO FAQ's* ★★★ *1) Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, is the Busiest Airport in America, but also the Busiest Airport in the world.* Which handles over 2,100 flights per day. So with an average of 8 wheels per plane, that equates to about 11 pounds of rubber per plane x 2,100 planes per day = 23,100 pounds or about 10,477 kilograms of rubber left on the runways per day. So if JFK Airport are cleaning the runways 5 times per week, I can imagine Atlanta Hartsfield, must be doing cleaning the runways every day. *All the information in the video is accurate based on JFK Airport with 1200 flights per day.* *2) People have asked, why not just add motors in the wheels to get the spinning up to speed before landing.* I have not researched this and I am sure there is a good engineering answer why not. But years ago a company invented tyre tread mounts that would fit on a truck in front of the tyres, incase of an emergency stop they would unroll under the wheels and help stop the truck quicker. it was a good invention that would save lives and stop accidents, but no truck driver uses them because it added extra weight to the truck, which lowered how much cargo they could carry, and in turn how much money they could make per run. Maybe they don't want to fit extra motors because it adds extra weight, to an already heavy aircraft. There is one other reason I thought of for not having wheels spinning pre landing, as a spinning wheel acts like gyroscopic stability. This phenomenon occurs due to the conservation of angular momentum. When a wheel is spinning, it tends to resist changes to its axis of rotation, making it difficult to tilt. Maybe this would hamper the pilots ability to fly the plane if he decides to abort landing and go around for another try. again, no idea myself, just a guess. *NOTE: I have created a video covering the question of "why not just add motors in the wheels to get the spinning up to speed before landing"* - ua-cam.com/video/v5WSB8dAAUQ/v-deo.html
@@andrewkirch5920 google "what is the busiest airport in the world" it's at No.1 on everyone's Top 10 busiest airport list. Your airport you mentioned does not even get mentioned on top 10 lists, not that I am using top 10 lists for info. But google it. "at Wittman and other airports in east-central Wisconsin. According to EAA, there were 21,883 aircraft operations from July 20 through 30 at KOSH 2023" that puts it at 729 planes per day." Where did you get your info from?
@@FusionAviation That knob end andrewkirch5920 is just trying to get his name up in lights; rather like the sad sacks that want to be 'first' in the comments section of youtube videos! Anyway, very informative video. Thanks 🙂🙂
Where are you getting an average of 8 per plane? E175s, CRJs, 737s, A320s (19@ and 21s), a220s all have 6 wheels. And are by far the majority of operations at ATL
You should be looking at the 1.2 lbs per tire/per landing number. A 737 tire, brand new, weights about 210 pounds. If it lost 1.2 lbs per landing, it would be completely gone, not just the tread, the whole tire, after 166 landings. 737 tires typically last 200 to 400 landings, and when they are retired they are obviously not completely gone. So at 1.2lbs per landing, a standard 210 lb tire, that does 200 landings would weigh negative 30 lbs but that's not possible. Question the validity of that 1.2 lbs per tire per landing number as it is much more likely that the average airliner loses 1.2 lbs of rubber per landing total, not per tire.
Absolutely underrated video! As a plane spotter, I’ve often wondered about this. Also, JFK has multiple runways, so the 1200 planes are distributed over them. Single runway airports like LGW or BOM may require cleanings at shorter intervals.
A onetime flight instructor told me that at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida (where he had gone), an assignment given to the students every year is to assess why/how to spin up the tires immediately before landing. For reasons not told to me, the conclusion is always that it's not worthwhile. I was left with the impression that the combination of weight, complexity, cost, and limited benefit always combine to produce that negative result, but I wasn't told of any one factor that was the main reason.
My father worked at Lockheed Aircraft from the early 1940's through his retirement in 1972. He said that spinning up the tires had been tried on several of their aircraft, but that the costs outweighed the advantages. For one thing, you need a heavy motors to spin-up the tires, adding that much more weight to the plane. Then the motors themselves seemed to run into mechanical issues. It was just too costly for too little benefit.
As a 23 year USAF crew chief aircraft tires have either a hydraulic or mechanical stop to prevent spinning in wheel wells as the gyroscope effect would cause issues in control! Also no aircraft looses that much rubber per landing that’s insane!
A fin or deflector weighing less than 100 grams will be enough to start the wheels spinning. And then only when they are outside the wheels bay. But Goodyear won't like it.
"Master Blaster" was the name of the big rig that my brother and friends used to clean the runways in the mid 80's. It had two water tanks on both ends of the trailer with two truck engines, two pumps, and the high pressure nozzle deck in the middle. They were driving all up and down the East Coast. It output so much pressure that it would start cutting into the concrete if it was running and sitting in the same spot too long. Very loud and dirty job. Had to scream and use hand signals. The guy walking next to it would inspect and tell the operator up or down and make sure it removed the rubber as intended. Eventually, as described in the video chemicals, smaller cheaper to run machines were used.
Yes i saw some footage of high pressure wash rings cut into the runway surface, but i did not show it, only 2 seconds of footage, and did not show which vehicle made it.
@@Davyjones777yt Sure, also potentially some gusty winds as well. There was a clear attempt to flare, but I think he just mis-judged his height and ended up driving the wheels into the ground. Simple mistake, it happens, he just needed to flare a little earlier. My first landing was very similar and I imagine he probably expressed his dis-satisfaction the same way I did, lol.
My brother was a surveyor and worked on a number of airport construction projects. He was regularly working evening shifts and would see this going on. One job was at our local regional airport and it was just about every other evening that they cleaned the single runway used by the commercial jets. Also a smaller runway used by light private planes but he only remembered seeing that cleaning done once. The airport was closed from 11PM to 6:30AM and it was always a beehive of activity out on the runways and surrounding fields doing repair or maintenance work on all the equipment.
@@limatngho9428 not sure what they say but I think a huge difference f1 isn't just a straight line, I would ask drag racers if rubber on a concrete surface helps or not.
This is misleading and also false. Aircraft wheels are carefully designed and maintained to be used in tandem with special asphalt made specifically for airports. Having a bunch of rubber gunk up the surface of the asphalt overtime completely ruins this design as it alters the texture, causing wildly different friction characteristics which can make landing planes make sudden 90 degree turns straight into the ground. Airport asphalt is also not porous like 99% of the time, maybe for some freak super-heavy rain areas.
One important factor is weight of the airplane. JFK has way more heavy jets than ATL. And ATL has more smaller aircraft. Heavy’s have 8 or more main tires. Large and smaller only have 4 tires. I don’t have the statistics but I’m pretty sure it matters somewhat. Also JFK usually only lands on a single runway, sometimes 2. And ATL always has 2 or 3 for simultaneous landings. So based on that, there may be more rubber buildup at JFK, just a thought.
Top notch video! The narration was clean and crisp, the topic was interesting and engaging but no too long and detailed. I think you found a winning formula for this style of short and concise video.
Good video, just one thing though, runways are not made from tarmac as that material isn't strong enough to land planes on, they are made of asphalt and concrete.
The last video of a commercial plane landing shows a bird being ingested into the right engine within seconds of touchdown and during the initial reverse thrust phase. 😮
I just looked for it and now see it, you have good eyes, I never noticed that during editing and I have watched the video multiple times now and never saw it.
@@FusionAviation In the video it's not very clear whether the bird flies away or gets ingested inside the engine. If it were to be ingested, we could have seen blood stains everywhere around the engine.
The bird appears to be a bit higher than the engine when it passes, but then gets sucked back behind the wing and to the left of the engine. There’s a bit of a dark spot tucked behind the wing, and it looks as if it could be the bird. It’s really difficult to see.
CORRECTION...Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport is the BUSIEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLD which handles over 2100 flights per day and over 104 million passengers last year alone.
well firstly I never said the world I said America, but yes you are correct. not sure why I got a different answer, when I was researching busiest airport in America and it came back JFK with 1200 flights per day. and now that I do a similar search again, it comes back with Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, with 2100, I can't recall the exact wording of my questions, but I am pretty sure I just asked "what is the busiest airport in America"
@@FusionAviation JFK is the busiest in the US by international passenger traffic whereas Hartsfield is the busiest by overall volume(the vast majority of which is domestic). That is probably where any confusion arose. As an aside, Memphis is the busiest by cargo volume.
It does seem like a design oversight that the landing wheels aren't spun up before landing to prevent this massive contact shearing. Guessing it's a cost/benefit thing and would probably cause reliability issues.
Maybe the footage is a bit old, if I'm not mistaken, when one of the thrust reversers is not operational, it's common not to use them at all, to avoid situations like the one that led to the TAM 3054 crash. I'm guessing the hard landing was due to the crosswind. It's not that uncommon to land a bit harder than necessary on crosswind or heavy rain to stick to the runway and stop as soon as possible. When raining it's to avoid hydroplaning, on crosswind it's to avoid "floating" and risking a wing tip strike.
@@gcolombelli I did try and read up a bit on this and found that there has been company accepted policies for using single thrust reversers if one is not operational, but I didn’t delve into it too much further. It just seems a bit dangerous on the surface, but what do I know.
@@HytorcPA I guess it varies by model, on this video it looks like a larger model (perhaps an A330) than the one on the one in the TAM 3054 crash (A320 IIRC). Check out Mentour Pilot's video on the crash for a more detailed explanation. TL;DR version: when using only one thrust reverser, some pilots forgot to lower the thrust to idle on the engine with the disabled reverser, resulting in quite a bit of asymmetric thrust, this also happened on TAM 3054 and was a major contributing factor.
Chemical cleaning fluid is bound to have runoff that gets into the local ground water. God help anyone who gets their water from a well near that airport.
While attending foreign language school in the military decades ago, rumor was if we flunked out of the course we'd be sent to another base and become runway buffers. Now I have a better idea how that's done. Not sure if anyone actually became a runway buffer; I graduated and went on to the next part of the training.
So the answer would be to spin up the wheels to match the landing speed but then the tyres wouldn't heat up on contact to help with control and braking.
this process also is a big factor in slowing the planes down. The drag reduces the speed quickly, if you increase the speed of the tires at landing then you have to use more brakes which might mean longer runways
@@rangerrick2246 maybe....don't forget planes have thrust reversing typically. The drag of the initial contact ~also~ is jarring to the landing gear and all connected structures and removal of material can lead to weight imbalance in the rotating mass as well as flat spots. I suspect it's a matter of cost. An electric motor could spin the wheel up to speed very rapidly as well as exert braking forces to help the brakes, then even be used to help taxi. We could make electric motors durable enough to withstand that environment but they'd probably be a bit bulky and unsprung weight, hell any weight, is king in an aircraft.
Three reasons why it is not done. 1) It adds weight to landing gear 2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off. 3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
@@RoyalMela 1. agreed 2. planes have brakes, pretty sure every plane exerts braking pressure once the gear come up just for this reason. 3. In terms of mechanical devices electric motors are pretty simple. There would be wear and tear sure, but not nearly so much as the rest of the parts that are vastly more complicated. I suspect weight is the big limiting factor here and that it's simply cheaper to replace tires and scrape the runway than it is to invest in this. Although, I don't see why a simple deflection bracket in front of the wheel wouldn't suffice.
Large jet airplane tires weigh about 225 pounds each. Losing over 1 pound per tire per landing would mean the tires are totally worn out within 100 landings (since the sidewall weight isn't expended as rubber on tarmac.) Are airplane tires really replaced every week or two?
Yes. I dont want to advertise another channel, but there is a ramp maintenance technician from a US airline that has a YT page, that went into how often they replace tyres(tires) on planes. search for "Stig Aviation"
A commercial main gear tire can last from 200 to 350 landings per tire, depending on aircraft, aircraft loading, where they are flying, and flight crew technique. A bunch of ex Navy carrier pilots will be on the shorter side. Once the rubber gets thin they are sent back to be retreaded. That way the very expensive casing can be reused a number of times thus reducing cost over the lifespan of the tire. Most airlines lease their tires. This is for a couple of reasons. First it reduces capital expenditure. Next, since tires are leased, the company and crew are less likely to try and get “one more landing” out of tires and thus effect safety. Crew and maintenance people are thus trained to change tires out as soon as they reach wear limits, have an issue with a tread, or just look wrong.. If they were buying directly, they might be inclined to keep them longer than is good for optimal performance.
BTW, rubber from tires is also an issue on public highways, contributing to the slip/slide during the first few mins after it starts raining. SLOW DOWN and be careful braking during the first 1/2hr of any rain event.
Liberated oils are what make this even worse. Leaky cars and the minute oil from exhaust builds up over time. Once liberated in the rain there's a short window of time while it all runs off when there's an actual film of oil on the roads. THEN add in the granular tire bits and it can get dicey :)
I was under the impression that runway rubber is a huge blessing, that helps to reduce further wear. As a byproduct, rubber has a huge fuel value and it can be mixed into asphalt, for a better road.
When I was 12, in 1966, I asked my father why the airlines didn't spin up the tires with a small motor just before touchdown to preserve the tires and the runway. He said that someone would have already thought of that if was really a good idea. WELL? Why isn't it a good idea?
I don’t know but 58 years later they’re still not doing it I guess. I always wondered how the tires could handle the stress like how heavy is a plane it’s crazy heavy when I was in the marines I moved a few pieces of truck armor and small sheets of quarter inch thick was heavy and it looked to be about as thick as a planes skin. We got thicker armor later but I don’t know I’m rambling.
Three reasons. 1) It adds weight to landing gear 2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off. 3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
Prior Air Force crew chief.. please also remember the maintainers on the other end of that rubber loss replacing those tires. Large jet tires are big and pressurized about 6x your cars tire. Filling the tires with high PSI nitrogen can be dangerous. Ether way it's a tough job. Airlines tires are easy vs. the landing gear on military planes like the C-17 and my old C-141.
I was an enlisted aircrew member in Vietnam for 3+ tours. The flying tempo 24 hours a day was so intense other than emergency runway repairs from an enemy attack, or barrier repair or light repairs, etc.I never saw them clean rubber from the runways and I went into many different bases. In fact there were times when we completed a mission and had to divert for a few hours to a nearby base while they were repairing our home base. I guess it would be to expensive and maybe technically impossible to put small electric motors on each wheel for the motors to spin the tires before landing to match acft speed.
That rubbet actually increases grip, but only when it's dry -- any racing fan can tell you that as tracks get faster as they get rubbered in. It's the rubber getting wet that's the issue, becoming quite slippery as the water tends to pool over the rubbered in surface.
The construction of soft compound bias ply slicks make them better on a surface that's been filled in with rubber. If you ever watch street racing or no prep, you'll see the lanes get better after the first round.
It does, the problem is with even a tiny amount of water, it quickly turns into a nightmare with crazy aquaplaning. So it's more about consistent reliable grip than the shortest possible stop time for the plane with maximum grip
I'd imagine that under high load and heat the rubber can actually act squishy and that's not desirable. Race cars are typically making enough downforce to stick the car to the road and counter any such squish. Whereas the planes are actually making lift until a certain air speed, even once on the ground the wings can exert forces and bear load until slower speeds. And I'm going to guess here that even in say, F1 or Lemans the rubber laid down over a weekend is still super thin by comparison to runways :)
You’d be shocked how much rubber is laid down on the track. Thing is a lot of it ends up getting picked up from the track surface by hot tires and thrown off to the edges. These are called “marbles” and you definitely want to avoid getting on them! Even on cars with minimal downforce the rubbered in surface of the track provides extra grip vs asphalt. As the tire heats up it becomes more pliable and actually provides more grip by being able to “squish” into imperfections in the pavement or stick to rubber that has been laid down. If it overheats though the rubber will shear off the surface and you lose grip.
You might have worded it incorrectly but i understand what you mean. The rubber actually increases the friction needed for the tores to grip. It decreases the overall friction, make it slippier. Which means more friction is needed.
I always think a motor on the wheels that spins them at high speed just before landing would save tires and runway. Or add fins to make the wheels spin and build up speed.
Three reasons. 1) It adds weight to landing gear 2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off. 3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
Anyone familiar with Atlanta Hartsfield - Jackson (wherever that part came from), knows that it’s is the busiest airport. For as they say, “Even if your going to hell, you have to go through Atlanta”.
The next question is about how they handled this problem many decades ago before dry ice blasting and certain chemicals were available. I mean, it's obvious that excess rubber on the runway has been there since they put tires on planes over 100 years ago.
I'd like an answer to this question, since we're talking about airports: Why do runways look so wavy when zoomed in on? There's no way airplanes are landing on what looks like they would be fun dirt bike tracks. Is that caused by the camera? I've seen hundreds of shots of runways that look like they change elevation by 4 feet or more over their length, from peaks to valleys. What gives, FUSION?
I have thought about that question also, even while editing this video, I would assume it's not that difficult to bulldozer the ground level, so there must be a reason. I may even do a video about it, if there is more to it than simply, they could not feel bothered leveling the ground.
I just did some quick research and here is only 20% of the answer. *Airport runways are not perfectly flat and level due to several practical reasons related to safety, drainage, and construction constraints:* Slight undulations can sometimes provide better visibility for pilots, helping them see the entire length of the runway from the cockpit. However, this is generally a minor consideration compared to drainage and structural needs.
Keep in mind when you're looking down the runway at a low angle, you're seeing possibly kilometers of runway in your vision at once. Just due to the perspective any small changes from frost heaves etc will be more noticeable.
One of the first things I noticed while getting my private pilot's license is that runways aren't all straight and flat, although the ones at bigger commercial airports do tend to be straighter and flatter.
Well I don't think they are exactly even. Ground level water changes and freezing in winter causes runways and ground under to live during the years a bit. Also on parts of that many km part might be closer to bedrock and other parts might have thick layer of softer ground under. And also heavy plains landing might lead ground to press down a bit even though they try to minimise all that by making sure that it is pressed hard during the building and that there is drainage to lead the water away and so on. And it doesn't have to be exactly on a same level in all 3-4 km, close enough is good enough. I think it is more the angle you look it from. If you would look that 4 km from the side in one view (assuming it would be possible) it would look fairly even all the way through. But when you look it from the end of the runway towards the other end of the runway you still look that 4 km of runway which have minor height differences in length of 4 km. Let's sat there is like 40 cm level difference in each km of runway, that you would not notice when walking on it for example. Well camera view "shrinks" that difference and highlights it because there is small bump which might block big part of run way not being visible for example from ground level on the end of the runway and it hides the distance that difference takes place. If that 40 cm difference would be in distance of like 50 meters that could maybe be some kind of issue. But when it is divided to many kilometres it probably doesn't matter. Change of elevation needs to be divided in distance that it takes place. And camera (and eye) shrinks that especially when looking an angle from other end of the runway as you see 80 wide runway and +4 km long for example in one view. And also scale of plane distracts as they are fairly big. If you look runway from the side for example from terminal window and see just small part of same runway. It looks flat as it is relatively flat in that distance you can observe at ones from side.
Follow-on idea: Winter snow removal. I went into Chicago O'Hare during the winter a number of years ago. It was incredible watching the snow removal teams working at 1:30 AM.
I was an AIRFORCE fire fighter, and every time we took the crash truck out on the tarmac before we drove onto the runway, we would have to pick debri from the tread tired of the equipment
As a Formula 1 fan, this is fascinating. In F1, a track with no rubber on it is considered 'green' and has low grip. As the cars circulate around the track, they deposit rubber and the engineers say the circuit is 'rubbered in'. Grip is hugely increased at this point. This is in stark contrast to the information provided in this video. I would guess that the difference comes down to F1 rubber being much stickier than aircraft tires.
I wonder if it would be feasible to use some kind of rotary wings on the sides of the wheels that use the wind to start them spinning to reduce the effect.
Some youths did invent a low-cost/low-tech solution some twenty years ago that rotated the tires just by airflow. This was not introduced, probably because tires have much wear taxing than by landing.
Very informative thank you. I wonder why airliner tires aren’t fitted with small vanes to catch wind and start rotating as soon as landing gear is lowered.
LOL! at 4:13 the narrator says something about the aircraft touching down "smoothly" and safely....while the plane smashes the tarmac like a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier.
One thing I've always wondered about is the actual runway lights. I noticed in this video it looks like some of them pop up and I assume that's for service? I think motors could be added to the wheels or even built into the wheel itself with ease. Motors could also be used to help with braking and even when on taxi. But it would add some weight. Still, if a system proved reliable enough I'd think they'd use it and save the weight some place else. You can make electric motors very durable as they're very simple machines. Also as to the gyroscopic forces.....sir....wheels have brakes.
I could swear as a kid - the 747 had wheels that rotated before landing. I think this was accomplished with a motor. In the end, it was added weight. So it was cheaper to lose rubber.
Back when I was in the US Air Force I was assigned to a detail once in the late 80s. A bunch of us had to go out on an active runway between F-4 take offs and landings and scrub the rubber off with hand tools. This was at George AFB in Cali. That sucked.
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam ." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window ? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plains?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"
I’ve wondered for years why aircraft don’t have motors fitted to accelerate the wheels before touching down. They could be pre- spun to match the landing speed without any difficulty. I’m sure I’m not the first to think of this idea.
I think the craziest part is that they use so many little tires because it's more economical to use a smaller tire despite the plane being so obviously over-size for them... but hey, this is cheaper!
How about they put a small engine and mechanically link all the tyres and accelerate them to match the speed of the aircraft while it's still airborne so they can minimise the rubber lost and extend the tyres life?
I wonder if it would ever be worthwhile to have a motor on the wheels to spin them up to their ground speed so they don’t lose so much rubber when touching down.
The motors and drive systems would be complex and heavy. The additional weight would require more fuel per flight. In short, it's not economically viable.
Three reasons. 1) It adds weight to landing gear 2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off. 3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
I was one of the first people to design the hp water cleaner. Originally it was used on roads to clean the excess tar. Way back in the late eighties. Everyone got on the wagon and because of limited funds we just had to sit and watch our fortune disappear.. 🙁
There once was a young inventor who developed "turbine" wheels that were spun up to speed by the airstream before the plane touched down, reducing rubber deposits. For some reason those were never widely adopted though.
Three reasons. 1) It adds weight to landing gear 2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off. 3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
★★★ *FACT UPDATES / ANSWERS TO FAQ's* ★★★
*1) Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, is the Busiest Airport in America, but also the Busiest Airport in the world.* Which handles over 2,100 flights per day. So with an average of 8 wheels per plane, that equates to about 11 pounds of rubber per plane x 2,100 planes per day = 23,100 pounds or about 10,477 kilograms of rubber left on the runways per day. So if JFK Airport are cleaning the runways 5 times per week, I can imagine Atlanta Hartsfield, must be doing cleaning the runways every day.
*All the information in the video is accurate based on JFK Airport with 1200 flights per day.*
*2) People have asked, why not just add motors in the wheels to get the spinning up to speed before landing.* I have not researched this and I am sure there is a good engineering answer why not. But years ago a company invented tyre tread mounts that would fit on a truck in front of the tyres, incase of an emergency stop they would unroll under the wheels and help stop the truck quicker. it was a good invention that would save lives and stop accidents, but no truck driver uses them because it added extra weight to the truck, which lowered how much cargo they could carry, and in turn how much money they could make per run. Maybe they don't want to fit extra motors because it adds extra weight, to an already heavy aircraft.
There is one other reason I thought of for not having wheels spinning pre landing, as a spinning wheel acts like gyroscopic stability. This phenomenon occurs due to the conservation of angular momentum. When a wheel is spinning, it tends to resist changes to its axis of rotation, making it difficult to tilt. Maybe this would hamper the pilots ability to fly the plane if he decides to abort landing and go around for another try. again, no idea myself, just a guess.
*NOTE: I have created a video covering the question of "why not just add motors in the wheels to get the spinning up to speed before landing"* - ua-cam.com/video/v5WSB8dAAUQ/v-deo.html
Youre still wrong. KOSH Wittman Regional Oshkosh, WI is the busiest airport in the USA. They're doing 3000-6000 plane movements a day.
@@andrewkirch5920 google "what is the busiest airport in the world" it's at No.1 on everyone's Top 10 busiest airport list. Your airport you mentioned does not even get mentioned on top 10 lists, not that I am using top 10 lists for info. But google it.
"at Wittman and other airports in east-central Wisconsin. According to EAA, there were 21,883 aircraft operations from July 20 through 30 at KOSH 2023" that puts it at 729 planes per day." Where did you get your info from?
@@FusionAviation That knob end andrewkirch5920 is just trying to get his name up in lights; rather like the sad sacks that want to be 'first' in the comments section of youtube videos!
Anyway, very informative video. Thanks 🙂🙂
Where are you getting an average of 8 per plane? E175s, CRJs, 737s, A320s (19@ and 21s), a220s all have 6 wheels. And are by far the majority of operations at ATL
You should be looking at the 1.2 lbs per tire/per landing number. A 737 tire, brand new, weights about 210 pounds. If it lost 1.2 lbs per landing, it would be completely gone, not just the tread, the whole tire, after 166 landings. 737 tires typically last 200 to 400 landings, and when they are retired they are obviously not completely gone. So at 1.2lbs per landing, a standard 210 lb tire, that does 200 landings would weigh negative 30 lbs but that's not possible. Question the validity of that 1.2 lbs per tire per landing number as it is much more likely that the average airliner loses 1.2 lbs of rubber per landing total, not per tire.
Very interesting & enlightening video. I was a flight attendant for 38 yrs & never heard of tire rubber being cleaned off the runway!
yeah we most of us are cogs in the machine, we don't get to know all the in's and out's of what goes on.
Ignorant
Absolutely underrated video! As a plane spotter, I’ve often wondered about this. Also, JFK has multiple runways, so the 1200 planes are distributed over them. Single runway airports like LGW or BOM may require cleanings at shorter intervals.
Dubai international with 2 runways and over 120 airbus A380 of airbus to handle, Emirates HUB
A onetime flight instructor told me that at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida (where he had gone), an assignment given to the students every year is to assess why/how to spin up the tires immediately before landing. For reasons not told to me, the conclusion is always that it's not worthwhile. I was left with the impression that the combination of weight, complexity, cost, and limited benefit always combine to produce that negative result, but I wasn't told of any one factor that was the main reason.
Thanks...was wondering about that possibility.
My father worked at Lockheed Aircraft from the early 1940's through his retirement in 1972. He said that spinning up the tires had been tried on several of their aircraft, but that the costs outweighed the advantages. For one thing, you need a heavy motors to spin-up the tires, adding that much more weight to the plane. Then the motors themselves seemed to run into mechanical issues. It was just too costly for too little benefit.
@@gedstrom Thanks.
As a 23 year USAF crew chief aircraft tires have either a hydraulic or mechanical stop to prevent spinning in wheel wells as the gyroscope effect would cause issues in control! Also no aircraft looses that much rubber per landing that’s insane!
A fin or deflector weighing less than 100 grams will be enough to start the wheels spinning. And then only when they are outside the wheels bay. But Goodyear won't like it.
"Master Blaster" was the name of the big rig that my brother and friends used to clean the runways in the mid 80's. It had two water tanks on both ends of the trailer with two truck engines, two pumps, and the high pressure nozzle deck in the middle. They were driving all up and down the East Coast. It output so much pressure that it would start cutting into the concrete if it was running and sitting in the same spot too long. Very loud and dirty job. Had to scream and use hand signals. The guy walking next to it would inspect and tell the operator up or down and make sure it removed the rubber as intended. Eventually, as described in the video chemicals, smaller cheaper to run machines were used.
Yes i saw some footage of high pressure wash rings cut into the runway surface, but i did not show it, only 2 seconds of footage, and did not show which vehicle made it.
"When a plane touches down smoothly and safely" Shows video of a KABLAMMO landing!
And on an A330 no less, you have to try to plant that thing. Those pilots done f***ed up, lol.
😂 I was gonna type the same thing haha
You can see the plane was in a crab, meaning it was a crosswind landing. You can't expect a smooth crosswind landing
@@Davyjones777yt Sure, also potentially some gusty winds as well. There was a clear attempt to flare, but I think he just mis-judged his height and ended up driving the wheels into the ground. Simple mistake, it happens, he just needed to flare a little earlier. My first landing was very similar and I imagine he probably expressed his dis-satisfaction the same way I did, lol.
ex navy pilots
My brother was a surveyor and worked on a number of airport construction projects. He was regularly working evening shifts and would see this going on. One job was at our local regional airport and it was just about every other evening that they cleaned the single runway used by the commercial jets. Also a smaller runway used by light private planes but he only remembered seeing that cleaning done once. The airport was closed from 11PM to 6:30AM and it was always a beehive of activity out on the runways and surrounding fields doing repair or maintenance work on all the equipment.
Rubber accumulation actually increase grip, but on dry runway only. it flats the grill so water can't escape, cause a lot problem when it's wet.
Ask F1 drivers about "rubbering in" at the track....see what they have to say in regards
I disagree. It’s not just H2O that’s worrisome, it’s the oils as well; Which makes oil on rubber, which is not a desirable thing.
@@limatngho9428 not sure what they say but I think a huge difference f1 isn't just a straight line, I would ask drag racers if rubber on a concrete surface helps or not.
This is misleading and also false. Aircraft wheels are carefully designed and maintained to be used in tandem with special asphalt made specifically for airports. Having a bunch of rubber gunk up the surface of the asphalt overtime completely ruins this design as it alters the texture, causing wildly different friction characteristics which can make landing planes make sudden 90 degree turns straight into the ground. Airport asphalt is also not porous like 99% of the time, maybe for some freak super-heavy rain areas.
One important factor is weight of the airplane. JFK has way more heavy jets than ATL. And ATL has more smaller aircraft. Heavy’s have 8 or more main tires. Large and smaller only have 4 tires. I don’t have the statistics but I’m pretty sure it matters somewhat.
Also JFK usually only lands on a single runway, sometimes 2. And ATL always has 2 or 3 for simultaneous landings.
So based on that, there may be more rubber buildup at JFK, just a thought.
Top notch video! The narration was clean and crisp, the topic was interesting and engaging but no too long and detailed. I think you found a winning formula for this style of short and concise video.
I really appreciate that thanks. doing another airplane video now, up in a couple of days.
Good video, just one thing though, runways are not made from tarmac as that material isn't strong enough to land planes on, they are made of asphalt and concrete.
The last video of a commercial plane landing shows a bird being ingested into the right engine within seconds of touchdown and during the initial reverse thrust phase. 😮
I just looked for it and now see it, you have good eyes, I never noticed that during editing and I have watched the video multiple times now and never saw it.
@Sharpspur1965 Do you mean at 4:27 ? I don’t see any bird being ingested, it just flew away.
@@neerajbhale looks like it happens at 4:23 the bird disappears in front of the engine
@@FusionAviation In the video it's not very clear whether the bird flies away or gets ingested inside the engine. If it were to be ingested, we could have seen blood stains everywhere around the engine.
The bird appears to be a bit higher than the engine when it passes, but then gets sucked back behind the wing and to the left of the engine. There’s a bit of a dark spot tucked behind the wing, and it looks as if it could be the bird. It’s really difficult to see.
CORRECTION...Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport is the BUSIEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLD which handles over 2100 flights per day and over 104 million passengers last year alone.
well firstly I never said the world I said America, but yes you are correct. not sure why I got a different answer, when I was researching busiest airport in America and it came back JFK with 1200 flights per day. and now that I do a similar search again, it comes back with Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, with 2100, I can't recall the exact wording of my questions, but I am pretty sure I just asked "what is the busiest airport in America"
Atlanta has been the busiest airport in the US for years!
Busiest airport in the WORLD since1997
Wrong!
it’s actually Neverthorpe airstrip
@@FusionAviation JFK is the busiest in the US by international passenger traffic whereas Hartsfield is the busiest by overall volume(the vast majority of which is domestic). That is probably where any confusion arose.
As an aside, Memphis is the busiest by cargo volume.
1:55 I love that they (still) use a Saab! Love those :D
Ingenious engineering and nonstop hard work from crews to make sure safety of aviation
It does seem like a design oversight that the landing wheels aren't spun up before landing to prevent this massive contact shearing. Guessing it's a cost/benefit thing and would probably cause reliability issues.
As a car guy, we learn the rubber’d in line at the race track is slick in the wet and you have to run “the rain line” to keep out of it.
Seeing that last jet land makes me feel better about my landings in my Archer.
I would guess you routinely perform xwinds greater than 30 knots and 90 off the nose?
@@douglaswhite9223 yes. yes i do.
Ryanair leaves a few pounds of rubber and a another few pounds of fuselage upon landing 👍
I paid for the whole landing gear, I'm gonna use the whole landing gear.
kinda worried about that last plane , only one engine reverser, asymmetric thrust after that hard landing…
I saw that too! That looked dangerous as heck! I can’t see that being intentional on the pilots part at all…
"when the plane touches down smoothly and safely"
Maybe the footage is a bit old, if I'm not mistaken, when one of the thrust reversers is not operational, it's common not to use them at all, to avoid situations like the one that led to the TAM 3054 crash.
I'm guessing the hard landing was due to the crosswind. It's not that uncommon to land a bit harder than necessary on crosswind or heavy rain to stick to the runway and stop as soon as possible. When raining it's to avoid hydroplaning, on crosswind it's to avoid "floating" and risking a wing tip strike.
@@gcolombelli I did try and read up a bit on this and found that there has been company accepted policies for using single thrust reversers if one is not operational, but I didn’t delve into it too much further. It just seems a bit dangerous on the surface, but what do I know.
@@HytorcPA I guess it varies by model, on this video it looks like a larger model (perhaps an A330) than the one on the one in the TAM 3054 crash (A320 IIRC). Check out Mentour Pilot's video on the crash for a more detailed explanation.
TL;DR version: when using only one thrust reverser, some pilots forgot to lower the thrust to idle on the engine with the disabled reverser, resulting in quite a bit of asymmetric thrust, this also happened on TAM 3054 and was a major contributing factor.
Imagine the rubber on the road ways from vehicles. First micro plastics then micro rubber from tires plus what’s on brake pads
Saw study in 2024 just how much pollution on freeways pollutes neighborhoods alongside...brake dust, micro rubber particles from tires, WOW 😲🚧🚧
EV driver here. Hooray for regenerative braking!
Why don't they pre-accelerate the tires to match the planes speed before landing?
A motor on each wheel plus much more complexity. Cheaper to just wear them out quicker.
@@ekspatriatwhy couldn’t it just be aerodynamic?
Disposing of fluid residue from chemical cleaning must be a big expense.
And a hidden ecological disaster.
@@phaedrussmith1949Without further info on what cleaning agents are used and how it is handled, that’s just a speculation
If its being done properly (which I doubt), The runoff can be repurposed
Chemical cleaning fluid is bound to have runoff that gets into the local ground water. God help anyone who gets their water from a well near that airport.
What are the ingedients of such chemical rubber removing chemicals?
Apparently... tire rubber also induces marimba music in the background?
While attending foreign language school in the military decades ago, rumor was if we flunked out of the course we'd be sent to another base and become runway buffers. Now I have a better idea how that's done. Not sure if anyone actually became a runway buffer; I graduated and went on to the next part of the training.
Congrats and thankyou for your service, even though I am Australian :)
In my tech school (avionics) in the US Navy we were told that if we failed our schools we would be re-assigned as 'deck apes'.
They were serious.
Folks should definitely stop leaving their rubbers on runways.
Very entertaining and fun to watch. Thanks for posting this.
Now this was very interesting. I had no idea! Wow! Neat, informative vid!
This is great information. Love it.
As an atc, your video was very interesting and informative, thank you.
Thanks
So the answer would be to spin up the wheels to match the landing speed but then the tyres wouldn't heat up on contact to help with control and braking.
this process also is a big factor in slowing the planes down. The drag reduces the speed quickly, if you increase the speed of the tires at landing then you have to use more brakes which might mean longer runways
@@rangerrick2246 maybe....don't forget planes have thrust reversing typically. The drag of the initial contact ~also~ is jarring to the landing gear and all connected structures and removal of material can lead to weight imbalance in the rotating mass as well as flat spots. I suspect it's a matter of cost. An electric motor could spin the wheel up to speed very rapidly as well as exert braking forces to help the brakes, then even be used to help taxi. We could make electric motors durable enough to withstand that environment but they'd probably be a bit bulky and unsprung weight, hell any weight, is king in an aircraft.
Three reasons why it is not done.
1) It adds weight to landing gear
2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off.
3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
@@RoyalMela
1. agreed
2. planes have brakes, pretty sure every plane exerts braking pressure once the gear come up just for this reason.
3. In terms of mechanical devices electric motors are pretty simple. There would be wear and tear sure, but not nearly so much as the rest of the parts that are vastly more complicated.
I suspect weight is the big limiting factor here and that it's simply cheaper to replace tires and scrape the runway than it is to invest in this. Although, I don't see why a simple deflection bracket in front of the wheel wouldn't suffice.
This channel is worth my subscribe, let me give it right away!
Large jet airplane tires weigh about 225 pounds each. Losing over 1 pound per tire per landing would mean the tires are totally worn out within 100 landings (since the sidewall weight isn't expended as rubber on tarmac.) Are airplane tires really replaced every week or two?
Yes. I dont want to advertise another channel, but there is a ramp maintenance technician from a US airline that has a YT page, that went into how often they replace tyres(tires) on planes. search for "Stig Aviation"
I agree. 24 ounces per tire per landing is ridiculous.
I'll go with 2.4 (two point four) ounces per tire per landing
A commercial main gear tire can last from 200 to 350 landings per tire, depending on aircraft, aircraft loading, where they are flying, and flight crew technique. A bunch of ex Navy carrier pilots will be on the shorter side. Once the rubber gets thin they are sent back to be retreaded. That way the very expensive casing can be reused a number of times thus reducing cost over the lifespan of the tire.
Most airlines lease their tires. This is for a couple of reasons. First it reduces capital expenditure. Next, since tires are leased, the company and crew are less likely to try and get “one more landing” out of tires and thus effect safety. Crew and maintenance people are thus trained to change tires out as soon as they reach wear limits, have an issue with a tread, or just look wrong.. If they were buying directly, they might be inclined to keep them longer than is good for optimal performance.
Your math is correct to an order of magnitude. Typical tire life for large jets is on the order of 200-400 landings.
BTW, rubber from tires is also an issue on public highways, contributing to the slip/slide during the first few mins after it starts raining. SLOW DOWN and be careful braking during the first 1/2hr of any rain event.
Liberated oils are what make this even worse. Leaky cars and the minute oil from exhaust builds up over time. Once liberated in the rain there's a short window of time while it all runs off when there's an actual film of oil on the roads. THEN add in the granular tire bits and it can get dicey :)
I was under the impression that runway rubber is a huge blessing, that helps to reduce further wear. As a byproduct, rubber has a huge fuel value and it can be mixed into asphalt, for a better road.
Very informative and well presented.... Blessings from India
Excellent video! Thank you for posting!
This is fascinating! I’m sure much research has been done to try and reduce this rubber loss. That would be great to learn more about.
That's one more interesting thing about airports I never thought of. I notice the skid marks but never realized they had to be removed.
A very informative video. I enjoyed it.
Cool video, I didn't realize each tire lost that much rubber per landing. I wonder how long the tires can last before needed changed.
What's the deal with the crashed aircraft in the background at 3:06? Looks like a Hercules?
It’s not. it’s for firefighters to train to put out planes if there’s a crash or fire.
most car tires im aware of are closer to 30lb each
When I was 12, in 1966, I asked my father why the airlines didn't spin up the tires with a small motor just before touchdown to preserve the tires and the runway. He said that someone would have already thought of that if was really a good idea.
WELL? Why isn't it a good idea?
I don’t know but 58 years later they’re still not doing it I guess. I always wondered how the tires could handle the stress like how heavy is a plane it’s crazy heavy when I was in the marines I moved a few pieces of truck armor and small sheets of quarter inch thick was heavy and it looked to be about as thick as a planes skin. We got thicker armor later but I don’t know I’m rambling.
Three reasons.
1) It adds weight to landing gear
2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off.
3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
No, it's not a good idea.
What if it would be aerodynamicist induced? Would the gyroscopic forces really be such a factor? Anyone aware of it’s been tested before?
When you play that song called Slow down on GTA5 and all you get to hear is that part where Mayne Mannish goes like "Burn rubber burn burn rubber"
I'm not sure your numbers are correct as far as the amount of rubber.
that's cool, one of those things you never thought occurred yet it's actually quite significant
Prior Air Force crew chief.. please also remember the maintainers on the other end of that rubber loss replacing those tires. Large jet tires are big and pressurized about 6x your cars tire. Filling the tires with high PSI nitrogen can be dangerous. Ether way it's a tough job. Airlines tires are easy vs. the landing gear on military planes like the C-17 and my old C-141.
Fascinating, great video
Saying rubber on the runway reduces traction is absurd. Drag strips go to great lengths to lay down rubber on the track to increase traction
I was an enlisted aircrew member in Vietnam for 3+ tours. The flying tempo 24 hours a day was so intense other than emergency runway repairs from an enemy attack, or barrier repair or light repairs, etc.I never saw them clean rubber from the runways and I went into many different bases. In fact there were times when we completed a mission and had to divert for a few hours to a nearby base while they were repairing our home base. I guess it would be to expensive and maybe technically impossible to put small electric motors on each wheel for the motors to spin the tires before landing to match acft speed.
Naw, we could do it easily. But it would add weight and weight is king in a plane.
Really good video
That rubbet actually increases grip, but only when it's dry -- any racing fan can tell you that as tracks get faster as they get rubbered in. It's the rubber getting wet that's the issue, becoming quite slippery as the water tends to pool over the rubbered in surface.
why is having tyre rubber on the track helping in grip in motersports but tyre rubber on the runway decreasing in grip for aircrafts?
The construction of soft compound bias ply slicks make them better on a surface that's been filled in with rubber. If you ever watch street racing or no prep, you'll see the lanes get better after the first round.
@@buiItnotbought so why doesn’t this apply to aircraft
It does, the problem is with even a tiny amount of water, it quickly turns into a nightmare with crazy aquaplaning. So it's more about consistent reliable grip than the shortest possible stop time for the plane with maximum grip
I'd imagine that under high load and heat the rubber can actually act squishy and that's not desirable. Race cars are typically making enough downforce to stick the car to the road and counter any such squish. Whereas the planes are actually making lift until a certain air speed, even once on the ground the wings can exert forces and bear load until slower speeds. And I'm going to guess here that even in say, F1 or Lemans the rubber laid down over a weekend is still super thin by comparison to runways :)
You’d be shocked how much rubber is laid down on the track. Thing is a lot of it ends up getting picked up from the track surface by hot tires and thrown off to the edges. These are called “marbles” and you definitely want to avoid getting on them!
Even on cars with minimal downforce the rubbered in surface of the track provides extra grip vs asphalt. As the tire heats up it becomes more pliable and actually provides more grip by being able to “squish” into imperfections in the pavement or stick to rubber that has been laid down. If it overheats though the rubber will shear off the surface and you lose grip.
You might have worded it incorrectly but i understand what you mean. The rubber actually increases the friction needed for the tores to grip. It decreases the overall friction, make it slippier. Which means more friction is needed.
I always think a motor on the wheels that spins them at high speed just before landing would save tires and runway. Or add fins to make the wheels spin and build up speed.
and add considerable weight to the whole assembly??? Certainly the engineers thought of this 80 or 90 years ago??
Three reasons.
1) It adds weight to landing gear
2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off.
3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
Anyone familiar with Atlanta Hartsfield - Jackson (wherever that part came from), knows that it’s is the busiest airport. For as they say, “Even if your going to hell, you have to go through Atlanta”.
Thank you for teaching me something new today ✈️✨
The next question is about how they handled this problem many decades ago before dry ice blasting and certain chemicals were available. I mean, it's obvious that excess rubber on the runway has been there since they put tires on planes over 100 years ago.
I have never thought such a rubber thing about airports..
Surprising 🎉🎉
I'd like an answer to this question, since we're talking about airports: Why do runways look so wavy when zoomed in on? There's no way airplanes are landing on what looks like they would be fun dirt bike tracks. Is that caused by the camera? I've seen hundreds of shots of runways that look like they change elevation by 4 feet or more over their length, from peaks to valleys. What gives, FUSION?
I have thought about that question also, even while editing this video, I would assume it's not that difficult to bulldozer the ground level, so there must be a reason.
I may even do a video about it, if there is more to it than simply, they could not feel bothered leveling the ground.
I just did some quick research and here is only 20% of the answer.
*Airport runways are not perfectly flat and level due to several practical reasons related to safety, drainage, and construction constraints:*
Slight undulations can sometimes provide better visibility for pilots, helping them see the entire length of the runway from the cockpit. However, this is generally a minor consideration compared to drainage and structural needs.
Keep in mind when you're looking down the runway at a low angle, you're seeing possibly kilometers of runway in your vision at once. Just due to the perspective any small changes from frost heaves etc will be more noticeable.
One of the first things I noticed while getting my private pilot's license is that runways aren't all straight and flat, although the ones at bigger commercial airports do tend to be straighter and flatter.
Well I don't think they are exactly even. Ground level water changes and freezing in winter causes runways and ground under to live during the years a bit. Also on parts of that many km part might be closer to bedrock and other parts might have thick layer of softer ground under. And also heavy plains landing might lead ground to press down a bit even though they try to minimise all that by making sure that it is pressed hard during the building and that there is drainage to lead the water away and so on. And it doesn't have to be exactly on a same level in all 3-4 km, close enough is good enough. I think it is more the angle you look it from. If you would look that 4 km from the side in one view (assuming it would be possible) it would look fairly even all the way through. But when you look it from the end of the runway towards the other end of the runway you still look that 4 km of runway which have minor height differences in length of 4 km. Let's sat there is like 40 cm level difference in each km of runway, that you would not notice when walking on it for example. Well camera view "shrinks" that difference and highlights it because there is small bump which might block big part of run way not being visible for example from ground level on the end of the runway and it hides the distance that difference takes place. If that 40 cm difference would be in distance of like 50 meters that could maybe be some kind of issue. But when it is divided to many kilometres it probably doesn't matter. Change of elevation needs to be divided in distance that it takes place. And camera (and eye) shrinks that especially when looking an angle from other end of the runway as you see 80 wide runway and +4 km long for example in one view. And also scale of plane distracts as they are fairly big. If you look runway from the side for example from terminal window and see just small part of same runway. It looks flat as it is relatively flat in that distance you can observe at ones from side.
Follow-on idea: Winter snow removal. I went into Chicago O'Hare during the winter a number of years ago. It was incredible watching the snow removal teams working at 1:30 AM.
I was an AIRFORCE fire fighter, and every time we took the crash truck out on the tarmac before we drove onto the runway, we would have to pick debri from the tread tired of the equipment
As a Formula 1 fan, this is fascinating. In F1, a track with no rubber on it is considered 'green' and has low grip. As the cars circulate around the track, they deposit rubber and the engineers say the circuit is 'rubbered in'. Grip is hugely increased at this point. This is in stark contrast to the information provided in this video. I would guess that the difference comes down to F1 rubber being much stickier than aircraft tires.
There's a possibility that they were talking nonsense for decades
I wonder if it would be feasible to use some kind of rotary wings on the sides of the wheels that use the wind to start them spinning to reduce the effect.
Thank You. I have often wondered this very subject.
Some youths did invent a low-cost/low-tech solution some twenty years ago that rotated the tires just by airflow. This was not introduced, probably because tires have much wear taxing than by landing.
Very informative thank you. I wonder why airliner tires aren’t fitted with small vanes to catch wind and start rotating as soon as landing gear is lowered.
hang a around for my next video to find out
LOL! at 4:13 the narrator says something about the aircraft touching down "smoothly" and safely....while the plane smashes the tarmac like a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier.
One thing I've always wondered about is the actual runway lights. I noticed in this video it looks like some of them pop up and I assume that's for service?
I think motors could be added to the wheels or even built into the wheel itself with ease. Motors could also be used to help with braking and even when on taxi. But it would add some weight. Still, if a system proved reliable enough I'd think they'd use it and save the weight some place else. You can make electric motors very durable as they're very simple machines.
Also as to the gyroscopic forces.....sir....wheels have brakes.
Atlanta is the busiest airport, not JFK.
Correct, and it's not even close. ATL has about 900 more flights daily than JFK. This video is riddled with factual errors.
No, you’re comparing apples to peaches.
@@Slithey7433 Please explain?
@@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763
Much different types of air traffic.
@@Slithey7433 Maybe, but landings, takeoffs and passenger traffic are the metrics for how busy an airport is. Full stop.
I could swear as a kid - the 747 had wheels that rotated before landing. I think this was accomplished with a motor. In the end, it was added weight. So it was cheaper to lose rubber.
yes I replied to another comment something similar to that.
Back when I was in the US Air Force I was assigned to a detail once in the late 80s. A bunch of us had to go out on an active runway between F-4 take offs and landings and scrub the rubber off with hand tools. This was at George AFB in Cali. That sucked.
Lies
That opening touch down was horrendous!
Would electric motors spinning up tires before touch down make an appreciable difference?
That A380 landing in the intro was epic
Where the rubber meets the road- quite literally!😂
Ive been a pilot since 1977 private.. never heard of cleaning the runway of rubber
Well, nobody told me about this. That rubber waste must be very toxic as the binders in tires can be deadly.
I've always wondered about what happens to all the rubber on the runway.
Wow, a microcar that allows you to lane split between cars in heavy traffic, or park between cars while blocking them in?
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !"
Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam ."
Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!"
Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window ? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plains?..."
Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!"
Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky."
Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction."
Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"
Why not add some small "fins" to each wheel to get the tires to spin before touchdown. Wouldn't there be less friction then? And less rubber loss?
I’ve wondered for years why aircraft don’t have motors fitted to accelerate the wheels before touching down. They could be pre- spun to match the landing speed without any difficulty. I’m sure I’m not the first to think of this idea.
I think this topic is my next video, as a lot of people asking that question.
why planes don't have some kind of passive mechanical system to speed wheels before landing? maybe airflow could be used
By friction on landing the tires heat up and grip better.
Cool information broh
I wonder why nobody has invented self spinning tires on landing gear yet to match the speed and reduce wear. Would be a tough engineering task.
Um...ATL is the busiest airport in the US. JFK is like 6th.
Why did they put so many clips of questionable plane landings?
I always wondered if it would be worth it to have a motor spin up the wheels before touchdown. It would make tires last much longer. Apparently not.
What a very random recommended video. Very cool to know though!
I think the craziest part is that they use so many little tires because it's more economical to use a smaller tire despite the plane being so obviously over-size for them...
but hey, this is cheaper!
Very interesting!
Interesting video. Obviously not a cheap process
How about they put a small engine and mechanically link all the tyres and accelerate them to match the speed of the aircraft while it's still airborne so they can minimise the rubber lost and extend the tyres life?
I wonder if it would ever be worthwhile to have a motor on the wheels to spin them up to their ground speed so they don’t lose so much rubber when touching down.
The motors and drive systems would be complex and heavy. The additional weight would require more fuel per flight. In short, it's not economically viable.
Three reasons.
1) It adds weight to landing gear
2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off.
3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
I was one of the first people to design the hp water cleaner. Originally it was used on roads to clean the excess tar. Way back in the late eighties. Everyone got on the wagon and because of limited funds we just had to sit and watch our fortune disappear.. 🙁
Lies
Why arent the wheels pre sped up before landing?
They always go on an on about greenwashing and emissions but then they dont do this?
There once was a young inventor who developed "turbine" wheels that were spun up to speed by the airstream before the plane touched down, reducing rubber deposits. For some reason those were never widely adopted though.
Three reasons.
1) It adds weight to landing gear
2) Spinning wheels create gyroscopic forces, making the plane handling off.
3) It would add more things to plane that could break down, meaning more maintenance, more technical delays or flight cancellations and keeping the planes longer off the air.
Clicked to learn about rubber cleaning from runways. What I got was a number of HARD Airliner landings. That A380.... ooofff