Kansas State University Flight Line Recommendation Report

Feasibility Study of Purchasing a New Aircraft Tow Tractor for the Kansas State University Salina

Flight Line: A Recommendation Report

Prepared For: Dr. Kurt Barnhart, Aviation Department Head

Kansas State University Salina

Prepared By: Matthew Sharpton, Flight Line Supervisor and Research Consultant

Kansas State University Salina

December 11, 2013

i

Table of Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................vExecutive Summary........................................................................................1Introduction...................................................................................................2Methods of Research......................................................................................3

Task 1: Wrote and submitted a Research Proposal on October 13, 2013...................3

Task 2: Conducted Research to Answer the Following Questions..............................3

Task 3: Gather and Analyze Research Findings..........................................................3

Task 4: Develop Criteria for Evaluation.......................................................................9

Task 5: Review and Analyze Research Findings..........................................................9

Task 6: Write final report: draw conclusions, make recommendations........................9

Criteria.........................................................................................................10Criterion 1: Cost.........................................................................................................10

Criterion 2: Usability...................................................................................................10

Criterion 3: Safety......................................................................................................10

Overview of Alternatives...............................................................................11Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow Tractor..............................................................................11

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor.................................................................13

Option 3: Tug Inc., Model MA-50...............................................................................14

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60..............................................................................15

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600A...................................................................................16

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747.....................................................................17

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30..............................................................................19

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35K..........................................................................20

Evaluation and Analysis................................................................................22Criterion 1: Cost.........................................................................................................22

Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow Tractor..........................................................................22

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor..............................................................22

Option 3: Tug Inc. Model MA-50.............................................................................22

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60...........................................................................22

ii

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600A................................................................................23

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO..........................................................23

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30...........................................................................23

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35K.......................................................................23

Criterion 2: Usability...................................................................................................25









Criterion 3: Safety......................................................................................................27









Conclusions.................................................................................................30Recommendations........................................................................................31Appendix A..................................................................................................32

Price Quotes...............................................................................................................32

Works Cited.................................................................................................40Sources Referenced......................................................................................41

iii

Table of Figures

Figure 1: The Eagle TT-4 tug.....................................................................................12Figure 2: The Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor..........................................................14Figure 3: The Tug MA-50...........................................................................................15Figure 4: The NMC-Wollard Model 60........................................................................16Figure 5: Lektro 8600A...............................................................................................17Figure 6: The Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO......................................................18Figure 7: The Tronair Jetporter JP-30........................................................................19Figure 8: The Aircraft Caddy 35K ..............................................................................20Figure 9: Price Quote Bar Graph................................................................................24Figure 10: Cost Rating Bar Graph................................................................................24Figure 11: Usability Rating Bar Graph..........................................................................27Figure 12: Safety Rating Bar Graph.............................................................................29Figure 13: Eagle TT-4 Price Quote .............................................................................32Figure 14: Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor Price Quote..............................................33Figure 15: Tug Inc. MA-50 Tow Tractor Price Quote...................................................34Figure 16: NMC-Wollard Model 60 Tow Tractor Price Quote.......................................35Figure 17: Lektro 8600A Price Quote...........................................................................36Figure 18: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO Price Quote..........................................37Figure 19: Tronair Jetporter JP-30 Price Quote...........................................................38Figure 20: AircraftCaddy 35K Price Quote...................................................................39

iv

Abstract

“The Feasibility of Purchasing a New Aircraft Tow Tractor for the Kansas State University Salina Flight Line: A Recommendation Report”

Prepared By: Matthew Sharpton, Flight Line Supervisor and Research Consultant Kansas State University Salina

On October 13, 2013, the proposal to investigate the purchase of a new aircraft tow tractor for the Kansas State University Salina flight line was approved. K-State Salina has two operating aircraft tugs and one inoperative tug. The growing aviation program and the increased demand for aircraft movement, along with frequent mechanical failure of current tugs led to the decision to investigate the best tow tractor for the flight line operation. Criteria were established to guide the research and evaluate the prospective tow tractors. A wide variety of sources were utilized to gain useful information about aircraft tow tractors. Information from academic databases and aviation ground support (AGSE) vendors were used as the major sources for this report. The following criteria were used to evaluate each tug in the report: cost, usability, and safety. In all, eight tow tractors were evaluated, including both tow bar attaching and towbarless designs. The vast majority of the tugs evaluated proved to be costly, in excess of $20,000.00. The usability of towbarless designs, combined with the safety features of most towbarless tugs, lent them to fair better than the typical tow bar attaching models. The Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO achieved the highest average rating amongst all models reviewed. After careful consideration, the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO was recommended for purchase. In addition to this primary recommendation, a secondary recommendation to further study additional criteria was given.

Keywords: Tow Tractor, Aircraft, Tug, Towbarless, Tow Bar, Priceless Aviation, 747 FBO, Aviation Ground Support Equipment, AGSE, Aviation

v

1

Executive Summary

On October 13, 2013, Kaleen Knopp, English 302 Technical Writing Instructor at K-State Salina, formally approved my proposal to conduct a feasibility study of the purchase of a new tow tractor for the K-State Salina flight line.

As the K-State Salina flight line supervisor, I have to operate several types of equipment. Of all the equipment used, the aircraft tow tractors are the most important to our operation. We currently have three tow tractors at our disposal. The Clark tractor was built in 1941, and is currently out of service because of engine problems. Due to its age, and lack of available parts, there is discussion as to whether or not it will be repaired. The other two tow tractors, the Tiger tractor and Lektro electric tow vehicle, have seen heavy use, but are currently operational. Flight line personnel must also share the tow tractors with the flight maintenance services department. The sharing of the equipment, along with the frequent maintenance events, often causes delays for flight line personnel when aircraft require movement. I have recently discussed this situation with Mr. David Wiles, the Lead Line Supervisor, and Dr. Kurt Barnhart. We agree that the department needs to find a new aircraft tug.

Mrs. Knopp set forth guidelines for this report and established the format with which it is written. She required that a thorough audience analysis be conducted so that all affected parties’ wants and needs were considered. Upon performing the audience analysis, Mrs. Knopp requested that a formal proposal be submitted for approval. Once approval was granted, research was conducted, criteria established, and a thorough evaluation of each option performed so that a recommendation could be obtained.

Research was performed using academic databases, vendor websites, technical data, end user requests, and my first-hand knowledge and use of aircraft tow tractors. The information was compiled and each tug was evaluated based on the criteria of cost, usability, and safety.

A wide variety of tugs were selected for evaluation, but it should be noted that many brands and models of tugs exist. The number of tugs reviewed was limited to eight. The tugs range in cost from $3,800.00 to $39,434.00. The intent was to span as wide a range of tow tractor types as possible which were capable of towing the various types of aircraft operated at K-State Salina. The tugs were rated per criterion on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent. One model in particular, the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO, consistently ranked high in all evaluations.

After careful consideration and a thorough review of the options, I have formed two recommendations. First, I recommend the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO be purchased for the flight line. Secondly, I believe that a further study of options based on additional criteria such as: cost of operation, dependability, and long term value/resale.

2

Introduction

On October 13, 2013, I received approval for my proposal to research viable options for the purchase of a new aircraft tug for the K-State Salina flight line. This report presents the findings of my study. I researched the types of aircraft tugs capable of handling the wide variety of aircraft operated in the K-State Salina Aviation Program. Research was conducted to quantify and qualify all the available options for the tugs. Finally, I researched which aircraft tug combined the best options while still meeting the paramount criterion, cost.

I work on the K-State Salina flight line as the Line Supervisor. In this position, I have to operate several types of equipment. Of all the equipment used, the aircraft tow tractors are the most important to our operation. We currently have three tow tractors at our disposal. The Clark tractor was built in 1941, and is currently out of service because of engine problems. Due to its age, and lack of available parts, there is discussion as to whether or not it will be repaired. The other two tow tractors, the Tiger tractor and Lektro electric tow vehicle, have seen heavy use, but are currently operational. Flight line personnel must also share the tow tractors with the flight maintenance services department. The sharing of the equipment, along with the frequent maintenance events, often causes delays for flight line personnel when aircraft require towing. I have recently discussed this situation with Mr. David Wiles, the Lead Line Supervisor, and Dr. Kurt Barnhart. We agree that the department needs to find a new aircraft tug.

Many groups are affected by the lack of adequate aircraft towing equipment. Flight line workers, responsible for the safe movement of K-State aircraft, utilize the tow tractors on a daily basis. They require reliable and appropriate equipment to perform their job duties. As previously mentioned, the sharing of the tow vehicles with the maintenance department, further stresses the necessity for reliable equipment. Both student pilots and Certified Flight Instructors (CFIs) have busy schedules and rely on the timely movement of scheduled aircraft onto the line. With the frequent maintenance concerns of the two active tow tractors, aircraft movement slows down. Certain faculty and staff of the Aviation Department utilize the tow tractors to move the main university airplane, the Beechcraft King Air 90. The King Air is the university’s main aerial transport for important university officials and staff. All of these groups depend on the tow tractors for timely movement of aircraft.

With so many groups affected by this problem, and the impact that the tugs have on the flight line and aviation department, I conducted thorough research to determine a suitable tow vehicle. I conducted online research, both from tug vendors and manufacturers, and academic databases, to find the most suitable tug. Although, there is inherent bias in many commercial websites, they allowed me to compile specifications for each model, and establish the industry reaction from fellow end users. Additionally, I interviewed end users and those responsible for the purchase of the tug to set the criteria for purchasing the tow vehicle and comparing it to its competition. Several tugs showed potential and provided ample choices for comparison. This ultimately led to the determination of the best tug for the K-State Salina flight line.

3

Methods of Research

Task 1: Wrote and submitted a Research Proposal on October 13, 2013The Kansas State University Salina Aviation Department would like to purchase a new aircraft tug for flight line operations. Currently, the flight line possesses three tugs, one of which is non-operational. The other two tugs have experienced frequent breakdowns and require regular maintenance to keep them running. The need for a new aircraft tug was based on the increasing demand for aircraft movement. This report seeks to provide recommendations for the purchase of a new tug.

Task 2: Conducted Research to Answer the Following Questions How much will a replacement tug cost? What maintenance requirements will the new tug require? What operational costs can be expected of the new tug? What safety features are available on current tug choices? What size and type of tug is required to move the various types of aircraft

operated by K-State Salina? Should the university purchase a new or used tug?

Task 3: Gather and Analyze Research FindingsIn order to provide the most objective recommendation to my readers, I conducted thorough research about the different types of tugs available and the categories of those tugs. Categories include:

New or used Electric powered Fossil fuel powered Walk behind tugs Tow bar equipped tugs Towbarless tugs

Each of these categories provided me with the search terms used in my research, and provided me with a wide array of equipment to compare. I utilized both the K-State Library databases and Search It tool, along with web based searches, to compile my data. Additionally, interviews were conducted with Dr. Barnhart, Mr. Wiles, and flight line staff to better understand their wants and needs in a new tow vehicle. The academic research databases used include ProQuest, Business Insights: Essentials, and Academic OneFile. Web searches returned predominantly vendor sights and blogs, as well as articles from aviation industry magazines that provided specific manufacturer equipment information. All of this information combined supplied me with a broad array of equipment specifications that can be compared and contrasted to provide the readers of this report a thorough overview of available solutions to the current problem.

The vendor websites and blogs provided the most helpful information for comparing different models based on features, towing capacities, cost, and availability in either

4

new or used condition. The downfall to such sites and blogs is the inherent bias that each vendor has for their own products. This is to be expected; therefore, the data provided will be used only for comparison purposes and not to sway my readers towards any one particular brand based on that company’s viewpoints. The database articles were particularly helpful in supplying general information about the different types of aircraft tugs, terminology, and selection criteria that should be considered when purchasing aircraft tow vehicles. The interviews served to focus the research and to prioritize criteria for the tug requirements.

My research findings show that many options exist for the replacement of the Clark tug, especially in the towbarless category. As a whole, the aviation industry appears to favor electric tow vehicles for their low cost of operation, ease of maintenance, and lower environmental impact. Most of these tugs are of the towbarless type, and offer safer movement of aircraft over conventional tugs that utilize tow bars to attach to the aircraft for movement purposes. However, fossil fuel options in the towbarless category do exist, and may prove to be more in line with the budget proposed for this purchase. The used market for aircraft tugs is large, and many types are available. In order to keep the purchase cost as low as possible, used options must be considered. The following sources have been cataloged in this annotated bibliography, and help to provide further insight into their use in this recommendation report.

“About Us.” Aero Specialties Official Site. Aero Specialties. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

This information was published by Aero Specialties for their corporate website. I found this information by performing a Google search of “aircraft ground support equipment”. Aero Specialties describes themselves as, “…one of the premier suppliers of aircraft GSE to aviation markets across the globe.” They manufacture, sell, and distribute new and used aviation ground support equipment. I am specifically interested in their aircraft tow tractors and towbarless tugs and the cost differences between new and used tugs. Dr. Barnhart has expressed an interest in used equipment, as it will reduce the cost of purchasing a new tug. Although the used prices appear to be high on this site, a further study of the prices of new equipment will be necessary to fully make that determination. With cost and used equipment availability being major research questions, this information will provide valuable information, covering both in one resource.

“Aircraft Moving Equipment – Aircraft Tugs.” Priceless Aviation Products Official Site. Priceless Aviation Products. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

This product information was published by Priceless Aviation Products for their website product guide. I located the website by performing a Google search for “towbarless aircraft tugs”. Priceless Aviation Products, who has 40 years of Ground Support Equipment manufacturing experience, offers tugs for a variety of airplanes sizes and applications. The tugs range in towing capacity from 4500 pounds to 35000 pounds. The FBO models are equipped with aircraft starting adapters, heavy duty gear boxes and an increased top speed of 10 MPH. The engines will accept 100LL aviation fuel or standard automotive fuel. The current K-State gasoline powered tugs run poorly on 100LL aviation fuel, so I was interested about the specifics of fossil fueled tugs that

5

have been adapted to accept aviation gasoline. All Priceless tugs are towbarless and can tow nose or tail wheel steering aircraft, and can be adapted to tow aircraft with wheel pants. These particular tugs fall into the fossil fueled class of tugs, and are the first types that incorporate both an operator platform and towbarless operation. My readers will be able to compare these models to the electric models similar to them. Providing as many options as possible will help to narrow down the field for my final recommendation. I will be able to compare and contrast these various options by creating a matrix that lists each model of tug as it lines up to a set number of options.

Castagna, Curt. “Testimonials.” Lektro, Inc. N.P. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

This customer testimonial was published on the Lektro, Inc. corporate website. I found this article through a Google search of “electric aircraft tugs”. Curt Castagna, Vice President and General Manager of Aeroplex Aviation in Long Beach, California, relays his good experiences using Lektro model 8700 electric aircraft tugs. Castagna presents three main reasons why he believes Lektro tugs meet his requirements: increased efficiency, lower maintenance cost, and maneuverability. These are all concerns of this recommendation report, as well. K-State Salina currently operates one Lektro model 8600 tug. I am interested in the possibility of gaining a second electric tug based on the positive experience we have had with the Lektro 8600 model. The trend towards electric tugs for aviation use appears to be on the rise, and Lektro makes viable options for the K-State operation. This article provides evidence from a valid end user for this particular product line. Although it is slanted towards a particular brand, it makes a solid case for electric aircraft tugs. By comparing the cost, operational efficiency, operational cost, and available options of electric tugs to fossil fueled tugs, I will be able to make a well-rounded recommendation to my readers regarding the proper tug for the K-State flight line.

Donner, Ronald. "Selecting and Purchasing Ground Support Equipment." Aircraft Maintenance Technology Mar. 2010: S6. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

This article was published in Aircraft Maintenance Technology, a respected aviation maintenance publication. I located this article using the K-State Library’s Search It tool using the search terms “aviation ground support equipment”, “aircraft ground support equipment” and “purchasing aircraft tugs”. The article was republished in the Business Insights: Essentials database. Ronald Donner, a respected maintenance authority, author for aviation publications, and Editor for Aircraft Maintenance Technology, brings to light the processes by which industry users of aviation ground support equipment make their decisions for purchasing these types of equipment and tooling. Donner interviewed many professionals from different sectors of the aviation industry and provides information on such topics as whether to buy new or used equipment, what aircraft manufacturers recommend, and specific decisions made by small operations and airlines alike. I was interested in the factors that should be considered when buying an aircraft tug. Information that can help me to organize my tug options based on what my readers want and need, along with what other industry professionals have sought after will make my recommendation as well rounded as possible. This article serves as a thoughtful discussion piece for anyone looking into purchasing aviation ground

6

support equipment for their operation. The processes used by Mr. Donner are similar to those being used for this report and help to solidify my research into the purchase of a new aircraft tug for the K-State flight line.

Durden, Rick. "Aircraft tugs: a model for every budget: for moving airplanes under 6000 pounds, there's plenty of choice. Aero-Tow, 40EZ and Tail-Dragger Dragger are our top picks this round." The Aviation Consumer 43.4 (2013): 8+. Academic OneFile. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

This article was written as an informative piece for aircraft owners and operators who are investigating the purchase of an aircraft tug. To locate this article, I utilized the K-State Library’s online database search tool with the search phrase “aircraft tugs”. Academic OneFile provided access to this article and the source citation. The author, Rick Durden, explains the various types of common aircraft tow vehicles, and discusses their capabilities and limitations. As Durden points out, many considerations must be taken into account when selecting an aircraft tow vehicle. These include: weight of the aircraft being towed, aircraft towing limitations and requirements, tow attachment fittings, ramp surface, power source (fuel or electric) of the tow vehicle, and frequency of use. Durden clarifies the majority of these concerns and gives a brief example of various tugs that meet those considerations. The article references specific models and the costs of most. Additionally, Durden describes how ramp inclines and surface conditions should be considered so that the power output of the tug is known. He provides estimates of rolling resistance created by Cessna 172 aircraft and how this changes with slight inclines. This article will help to answer the question of what options are available for towing the majority of the aircraft at K-State. Since K-State has a variety of aircraft, this article will point me in the direction of several suitable options. Dr. Barnhart has also inquired about which tug will be safe to operate in our hangars. The article mentions towing limitations and which tow vehicles provide tighter turn radii, which is helpful given the confined hangar spaces at K-State. I will use this article to further guide my research and provide relevant criteria for the purchase of a tug for the K-State flight line.

“Full line of Supertow Aircraft Tugs for Light and medium aircraft.” Powertow Aircraft Tugs Official Site. Northwest Manufacturing. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

This information was published on the Powertow Aircraft Tugs website under their aircraft moving category. I located this website by performing a Google search for “aircraft tugs”. Powertow, a division of Northwest Manufacturing, offers a wide array of walk behind aircraft tugs for planes weighing up to 15,500 pounds. They offer both gasoline and electric models in their Supertow line. The Supertow product line utilizes a Lazy Susan design to allow for movement of aircraft in confined or crowded hanger spaces. All models attach to the aircraft nose wheel via a hydraulic lift cradle. The hangar space at K-State is limited, which requires the aircraft to be stored in close proximity to one another. The unique Lazy Susan steering might allow for safer aircraft movement. The downside would be the increased movement time because the operator would have to walk the aircraft around the flight line. This article will be useful in providing a wide point of view for comparing all types of aircraft tow vehicles that could be used by K-State’s flight line. This will give my readers a good sense of what is

7

available and may lead to multiple options being considered, beyond the traditional driven models that I have researched and most people are familiar with.

Lektrotugs. “What Is a Towbarless Electric Aircraft Tug?” Lektro Electric Aircraft Tugs News. WordPress.com. 21 May 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

This blog post was created by Lektro, Inc. and published via WordPress.com. The blogger, Lektrotugs, provides a thorough description of the towbarless tug features and benefits. The towbarless type is compared to traditional tugs that utilize tow bars to push and pull aircraft from one location to another. The blog post maintains that towbarless tugs provide greater maneuverability, flexibility of use for many aircraft types, safer operations, and that electric models are better for the environment. Although this source is clearly biased, as it was created for marketing purposes by Lektro, Inc., it provides a good description of the towbarless tug concept, and some of the benefits over traditional designs. No specific Lektro models were mentioned in the blog. That fact helps this to be more of general informational piece, as opposed to supporting the Lektro brand alone. I selected this source because I wanted to provide my readers with more knowledge of the towbarless tug design and how it may be useful to the K-State flight line operation. Background information on this type of tug gives my reader a more thorough understanding of this type of equipment versus the standard tug that utilizes a tow bar for moving aircraft.

Martin, Juan, and Jeff Horst. "Conventional or Towbarless Tractors?" Ground Support Worldwide. 10 2008: 32-4. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

This article was published in Ground Support Worldwide, a reputable source for ground support equipment. I utilized the K-State Library’s database tool to find this article. I found this particular article in the ProQuest database, using the search term “Small Aircraft Tow Tractor”. Operations on the K-State Salina flight line ramp and in the hangars are busy and cramped. These conditions require tow vehicles capable of operating at varying speeds and with tight turn radii. The tugs used by the flight line utilize different means for moving the aircraft. The Tiger tug uses a tow bar to push or pull aircraft, while the Lektro tug utilizes a hydraulically operated bucket to lift the nose gear of aircraft and move the aircraft. The use of both types requires certain safety measures and has their operational limitations. The cited article focuses on the advantages of tugs that do not use tow bars. Although this article bases its information on tow vehicles being used for larger commercial aircraft, the premise is applicable to one of the questions which must be answered in my report: What is the best option for towing K-State Salina aircraft? Many of the features of a towbarless tug are outlined in this article. The article also mentions operational cost savings obtained by using towbarless tugs. Although I cannot directly correlate this information with the K-State flight line operation, my personal experience with the operational costs of both tow bar and towbarless tugs leads me to believe that towbarless tugs produce less damage to aircraft during movement and cost less to operate on a daily basis. This translates to lower maintenance costs due to handling damage and lower overall cost of operation. I will be able to use this article to outline potential advantages in the use of a towbarless tug.

8

“Tronair Jetporter JP-30 Electric Towbarless Tug Brochure.” Tronair. 2013. PDF. 16 Oct. 2013.

This brochure was created by the Tronair company to provide specifications and useful information about is Jetporter JP-30 series of electric towbarless tugs. I found this information through a Google search for “electric aircraft tugs”. Tronair, a global leader in aviation ground support equipment, clearly states the features of the JP-30 tug, to include available options. This tug would be a direct competing model to the Lektro 8600 series electric towbarless tug. Some interesting features include a built in charger, emergency stop mechanism, onboard fire extinguisher, and a ground power unit used to start aircraft. This unit contains some features not seen on the Lektro, and also brings into question the necessity of a separate charging station for other electric models, whereas this one is self-contained. I wanted to find additional electric tug options, and this site provided me with a good example of a competing model. As another electric tug option, this particular company provides my reader with more options to choose from, and it helps me to create a more content laden review matrix when comparing different models.

Weiman, Dave. “Electric Tugs – For The Environment, For Your Health.” Midwest Flyer. 12 Nov. 2012. MidwestFlyer.com. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

This article was published in Midwest Flyer, a magazine dedicated to pilots, aircraft owners, and Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) in the midwest region of the United States, and posted on their website. I found this information by conducting a Google search for “gas versus electric aircraft tugs”. This particular article is from a segment highlighting aviation products. I found it useful for its discussion of electric powered tow vehicles. The Lindberg Aircraft Tug Co. line of electric tugs is featured in this article. Lindberg Aircraft Tug Co. solely makes electric tugs that are designed to tow a variety of small to medium sized aircraft with a high degree of maneuverability and without the emissions of the standard fossil fuel powered tow vehicles. The article highlights the safety aspect of the low noise emitting electric tugs, along with the ease of use. The tugs range in price from nearly $2000 to $6000. Both of these options have various attachment options and are strictly walk-behind units. Answering the question of utilizing a fossil fueled tug versus an electric tug is one of the primary objectives of my recommendation report. This article will provide insight into one of many options in this category, along with some of the advantages of an electric tug compared to a gas powered model.

9

Task 4: Develop Criteria for Evaluation Criterion 1: Cost Criterion 2: Usability Criterion 3: Safety

Task 5: Review and Analyze Research FindingsThe process of evaluating and analyzing the findings consisted of the following:

Overview each tug option based on specifications and quoted cost Develop a rating scheme to rank the tug options per criterion Evaluate each tug option against each criterion Make conclusions based on overall ratings

Task 6: Write final report: draw conclusions, make recommendationsAfter carefully evaluating each tug option, I concluded that the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO most closely met the requirements of the K-State Salina Aviation Department and flight line. I made two recommendations based on my findings:

1. Given the criteria laid forth in this report, the university should purchase the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO.

2. It would be wise to further investigate the purchasing of a new tug after considering other criteria such as cost to operate, dependability, and long term value/resale. However, if Dr. Barnhart deems the current set of criteria sufficient, my first recommendation remains suitable.

10

Criteria

The criteria that I use in this report to evaluate the best solution to the K-State Salina Aviation Department’s purchase of a new aircraft tug for the flight line include the following:

Criterion 1: Cost Criterion 2: Usability Criterion 3: Safety

Criterion 1: CostThe K-State Salina Aviation Department operates within a set budget and must consider the cost to purchase any new equipment for its various sub-departments. The K-State Salina flight line operates a variety of equipment, none more important than aircraft tugs. The size of the ramp, and number of planes, requires the use of aircraft tugs for moving aircraft in an efficient and safe manner. Many tug options exist, as well as price points for these vehicles. This criterion will focus on comparing costs of available models which meet the tow capacity and size requirements of K-State Salina aircraft.

Criterion 2: UsabilityUsability refers to the simplicity of operation and adaptability of equipment. In this case, the purchase of a new aircraft tug for the K-State Salina flight line must meet the criterion of usability. The flight line is run by student employees who have varying backgrounds, and mechanical abilities. With a relatively high turnover rate due to students changing schedules and employment availability, it is essential that the equipment in use on the flight line be relatively easy to learn to use and operate on a daily basis. Additionally, with varying types of aircraft in use by the university, the tug must be adaptable to tow these expensive assets correctly and safely. With so many aircraft tugs available, this criterion will help to narrow the field to those easiest to operate and capable of handling a wide variety of aircraft types and sizes.

Criterion 3: SafetyOne of the most important factors of moving aircraft is safety. This criterion focuses on the safety features included in each of the researched aircraft tugs. Safety features include a variety of items, such as:

Fire Extinguishers Automatic Shut-off Switches Emergency Brakes Hydraulic Bucket Safety Pedals Tow Straps Tow Bar Hitch Security Devices

Different aircraft tugs employ a variety of devices and features to ensure that the aircraft is safely towed, and that the operator has more control over the tug while in operation. K-State Salina flight line takes safety seriously and requires safe equipment to perform its job.

11

Overview of Alternatives

The successful movement of aircraft occurs through manual movement by human force, or more commonly via the use of an aircraft tug. Aircraft tugs, also referred to as tow vehicles, transport aircraft from one point to another by means of attaching to the aircraft landing gear through a tow bar affixed to the tow pins on the landing gear assembly, or by a cradle that the landing gear is seated in and raised off the ground (Lektrotugs). The cradle method, known as towbarless towing, transforms the remaining landing gear into the fulcrum point, about which balancing and turning of the aircraft occur. Manufacturers have created a variety of tugs to accommodate the majority of aircraft types and sizes. This section will provide a technical overview of each aircraft tug being examined for this report and explain its general operational characteristics. The tugs will be presented according to their classification as either tow bar operated or towbarless. Sub-categories of these aircraft tow vehicles include walk-behind, driven, fossil fuel or electric powered, new, and used/refurbished condition.

Tow Bar Operated Tugs

Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow Tractor

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor

Option 3: Tug Inc., Model MA-50

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60

Towbarless Tugs

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600A

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35K

Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow TractorThe Eagle TT-4 Tow Tractor, seen in Figure 1 on page 12, is a driven, gasoline powered tug, which attaches to aircraft by means of a tow bar. According to Aero Specialties, a leader in aviation ground support equipment, the TT-4 specifications include:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 55,000 pounds Tug Weight: 6,200 pounds Turn Radius: Unlisted Top Speed: 15 MPH Engine: Wisconsin Motors 2.7 Liter Four Cylinder Engine Fuel Source: Gasoline Fuel Capacity: 16 Gallons Transmission: Chrysler A413 Automatic Transmission With Neutral Safety

Switch

12

Speeds: Three Forward, One Reverse Steering: Hydraulic Power-Boosted Mechanical With Auto Centering Suspension: Full Front and Rear Leaf Springs Brakes: Front – Disk Brakes, Rear – Drum Brakes Seats: One Instruments: Backlit Digital Instruments and Engine Diagnostics Lighting: Halogen Headlights, Combination Brake/Tail and Reverse Lights

The Eagle TT-4 offers a low step-in height for the operator and increased visibility of the tow bar and aircraft landing gear via the sight tunnel hood design (Eagle). This design feature places a channel down the hood that provides the operator with a clear line of sight to the hitch and the nose gear of the aircraft being towed. All-wheel drive and dual rear wheel options are available at an additional cost. The TT-4 offers additional lighting and packages, as well. The TT-4 engine packages include the aforementioned gasoline engine, which also powers the liquid petroleum gas fuel option, and a 3.3 liter four cylinder diesel engine. All models are equipped with full instrument packages to monitor engine, operating hours, and fuel levels. All Eagle tugs are covered by a three year or 3000 hour warranty which covers any material or workmanship defects, excluding electrical systems.

Figure 1: The Eagle TT-4 tug represents the traditional style of aircraft tugs, but has additional features, such as the sight tunnel, to facilitate safer towing of aircraft. (Source: Aero Specialties)

Rod Gray, U.S. Atlantic Division Director for Aero Specialties, provided a quote of $39,434.00 for the base model TT-4. Available options and their prices were also provided on the quote. This quote can be viewed in Appendix A of this report.

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor

13

The Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor, seen in Figure 2 on page 14, is considered a zero emission vehicle. It operates on an 80 volt alternating current electrical system, and tows aircraft with tow bar from either the front or rear hitches. According to Aero Specialties, the MTT Electric Tow Tractor specifications include:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 69,000 Pounds Tug Weight: Approximately 9,000 Pounds Turn Radius: 130 Inches Top Speed: 15 MPH Engine: Schabmuller 80 Volt Alternating Current Brushless Electric Drive Motor Fuel Source: All Electric Charging System: 110 Volt Speeds: Two Forward, One Reverse Steering: Hydraulic Power-Boosted Suspension: Front – Leaf, Rear – Coil Brakes: Primary – Electric Regenerative, Secondary – Hydraulic Wet Disk Seats: Two Instruments: Electronic Display Showing Speed, Battery Life, Hours and

Diagnostics Lighting: 12 Volt Light Emitting Diode (LED)

A built in charging system allows for easy charging of the battery packs, along with regenerative braking that helps to recharge batteries during the braking process. MTT tugs have a forward located operator compartment which allows for high visibility of the aircraft and tow bar when it is attached to the forward tow hitch. A rear cargo deck, measuring 55 inches by 70 inches, accommodates up to 1000 pounds of cargo or storage. A rear sight tunnel, similar to the one on the Eagle TT-4, allows for increased visibility of the tow bar and aircraft landing gear during rear tow hitch use. MTT electric tugs also include fore and aft mounted inching switches which allow the operator to move the tug slowly forward or backwards while hooking the tow bar and aircraft to the tug hitch. Optional “Smart Charge” battery packages are available to lengthen the service life of the battery pack.

14

Figure 2: The Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor is a unique tug because it provides traditional tow bar towing with the benefits of not relying on fossil fuels for power. (Source: Aero Specialties)

Rod Gray, U.S. Atlantic Division Director for Aero Specialties, provided a price quote of $38,020.00 for the base model MTT tug. Available options and their prices were also included in the quote. This quote can be viewed in Appendix A of this report.

Option 3: Tug Inc., Model MA-50The Tug Inc., Model MA-50, seen in Figure 3 on page 15, resembles the Tiger tug in use by K-State Salina flight line. This particular tug is a refurbished model being offered by Aero Specialties, an aviation ground support equipment dealer. Tug Inc. lists the following specifications:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 60,000 Pounds Tug Weight: Approximately 6,250 Pounds Turn Radius: 115 Inches Top Speed: Unlisted Engine: Ford DSG-425 Electronically Fuel Injected 2.5 Liter Four Cylinder Fuel Source: Gasoline Fuel Capacity: 15.5 Gallons Transmission: Automatic Steering: Unlisted Suspension: Front – Leaf, Rear – Rubber Shock Mounts Brakes: Disc Brakes Rear Wheels Only Seats: One Bench Seat Instruments: Hour Meter and Engine Performance Module Lighting: Standard Front and Rear Lighting

Figure 3: The Tug MA-50 pictured above is a refurbished tow tractor similar to the Tiger tug currently in operation on the K-State Salina flight line. (Source: Aero Specialties)

An optional covered operator cab can be purchased to facilitate operations in inclement weather. Aero Specialties lists the sales price as $17,500 fully refurbished.

15

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60 The NMC-Wollard Model 60 tow tractor, seen in Figure 4 on page 16, has a similar design to the Tiger tug in use by the K-State Salina flight line and the Tug Inc., Model MA-50 previously described. According to the NMC-Wollard website, the specifications for the Model 60 include:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 60,000 Pounds Vehicle Weight: 5,600 Pounds Turn Radius: 135 Inches Top Speed: 20 MPH Forward and 7 MPH Reverse Engine: Unspecified Make and Size Fuel Source: Gasoline Fuel Capacity: 20.7 Gallons Transmission: Automatic Steering: Hydrostatic Power Steering Suspension: Semi-elliptical Leaf Springs Brakes: Front and Rear Disk Brakes Seats: One Instruments: Voltmeter, Coolant Temperature, Engine Oil Pressure, Fuel Level, Transmission Oil Temperature, Engine Hour Meter Lighting: Two Head and Tail Lights, Reverse Light

Figure 4: The NMC-Wollard Model 60 is a traditional style tow tractor. This particular model is in current use by another company and shows signs of wear typical of a used tug that has not been refurbished. (Source: Trade-A-Plane)

This particular model is in used condition and is being sold through the Trade-A-Plane website. The seller, Support Equipment Company, listed the price as $3,800 as is.

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600AK-State Salina currently operates a Lektro electric tug similar to the Lektro 8600A seen in Figure 5 on page 17. All Lektro tow vehicles fall into the towbarless class of tugs.

16

Additionally, all Lektro models are powered by electric drive systems. Lektro lists the following specifications for the 8600A tug:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 30,000 Pounds Tug Weight: 2,750 Pounds Turn Radius: 127.5 Inches Top Speed: Unloaded – 6.6 MPH, Fully Loaded – 4.5 MPH Drive System: 6.8 Horsepower, 36 Volt DC Electric Motor, Mated to a Dana 44 Differential Power Source: Six, 6 Volt DC, 350 Amp-Hour Batteries Speed Control: Hand Throttle Lever Operated, All Electric Control Steering: Automotive Type Steering Wheel and Gearbox with Rear Wheel

Steering Suspension: None Listed Brakes: Hydraulic Disc Brake, Foot Pedal Electric Automatic Parking Brake Seats: Standing Platform Capable of Holding Two Operators Lift Cradle: Universal Nose Gear Cradle, Hydraulic Pump Operated Lifting

Mechanism Instruments: Battery Level Indicator and Hour Meter Lighting: Two Front Mounted, Manually Rotated Spot Lights; One Rear Light;

and Four Flashing Running Lights Winch: Two-Speed Hand Operated Winch with Nose Strut Straps

Figure 5: K-State Salina flight line currently operates a Lektro 8600A, similar to the one pictured above, and relies on its maneuverability to safely move aircraft in and out of the crowded hangars. (Source: Lektro)

The Lektro 8600A comes equipped with many useful features. The adjustable back rest doubles as a step ladder, and the forward platform of the tug has several storage compartments. Additionally, the 8600A has a built in ground power unit (GPU) to assist in the starting of aircraft with either 12 Volt DC or 28 Volt DC electrical systems. Many add-on features may be purchased to further enhance the models capabilities. These additional features include:

17

An 11.8 Horse Power Drive Motor with Limited Slip Differential Steer Axle Suspension Tire Chains Single Point Battery Servicing A Variety of Attachments for Towing Non-Standard Aircraft

Jesse Long, a sales person for Lektro, quoted the standard option package Lektro 8600A at $31,643.00. Lektro offers K-State Salina a 10 percent discount on all purchases. The discount is figured into the above quoted price. The price quote, which includes prices for available options, is included in Appendix A of this report.

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747The Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO, seen in Figure 6 on page 18, is a towbarless tug which operates similarly to the Lektro 8600A. However, it does differ in several areas, most notably its power source and steering method. Priceless Aviation provided the following specifications:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 15,500 Pounds Engine: 620 Cubic Centimeter Honda Overhead Valve Engine – EPA Approved Top Speed: 8 MPH Fuel Source: 87 Octane Automotive Gasoline or 100LL Aviation Fuel Starting: Electric Key Start Transmission: Heavy Duty Hydrostatic Transmission Lift Cradle: Electro-Hydraulic Nose Wheel Pan Seats: Non-Skid Riding Platform Winch: Electric Winch and Quick Lock Nose Strut Strap Brakes: Automatic Parking Brake Steering: Handlebar Style Steering Assembly GPU: Jump Start System

The 747 FBO utilizes a similar hydraulic lift cradle to the Lektro 8600A, but also offers a unique Lazy Susan type turning device (optional equipment) to allow the nose wheel of the aircraft to remain straight and the tug to turn independently of the aircraft. This feature allows for tight turning radii with all aircraft models. Some optional features listed by Priceless Aviation include:

Lazy Susan Nose Wheel Cradle Pintle Hitch Liquid Propane Fuel Model Forward/Reverse Alarms 2nd Headlight Amber Strobe Light Fire Extinguisher Battery Tender

18

Figure 6: The Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO uses handle bar style steering to maneuver the towbarless tug. This tug combines gas power with towbarless aircraft attachment. (Source: Priceless Aviation)

John Price of Priceless Aviation provided a quote of $19,295.00 for the 747 FBO with base options. Prices for optional equipment were also provided on the quote. This quote will be available for viewing in Appendix A of this report.

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30Tronair’s Jetporter JP-30, seen in Figure 7, is another example of a towbarless tug. The JP-30 closely resembles the Lektro 8600A in operation and design features. Tronair listed the following specifications:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 30,000 Pounds Tug Weight: 2,450 Pounds Top Speed: Unloaded – 10 MPH, Fully Loaded – 3 MPH Drive System: 6 Horse Power, 48 Volt DC Continuous Duty Electric Motor Power Source: Eight, 6 Volt DC Batteries with Emergency Shut-off Button Battery Charging System: On Board 120 Volt AC Charging System Transmission: Two-Speed Transaxle Power Transmission GPU: 12/24/28/30 Volt DC GPU Lighting: Two Forward and Rear Facing Headlights and Amber Strobe Light Brakes: Solid State Dynamic Braking System and Automatic Parking Brake Instruments: Battery Level Indicator and Hour Meter Seats: Two Person Standing Operator Platform Steering: Automotive Style Steering Wheel Winch: Two-Speed Manual Winch with Nose Strut Strap Lift Cradle: Double Hydraulic Lift Cylinder Nose Wheel Cradle

The Jetporter JP30 also includes a forward platform with covered storage compartments. Optional features include:

On-Board Air Compressor Tire Chains Aircraft Adapters Slide-In Pintle Hitch

19

Custom Paint Colors and Graphics

Figure 7: The Tronair Jetporter JP-30 shows a strong resemblance to the Lektro 8600A. It does offer some features not found on the Lektro 8600A, such as an emergency stop button and a fire extinguisher, which can be seen in the image above. (Source: PilotJohn Aviation GSE)

Jan Mignano, Sales Representative for Tronair, provided a price quote for the JP-30 of $29,325.00, which includes shipping costs. Available options were not quoted at this time. The aforementioned quote can be viewed in Appendix A of this report.

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35KThe Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Company offers the Lindy AircraftCaddy 35K, seen in Figure 8. This is the only walk behind model in the report, and it is classified as a towbarless tug. Lindbergh Aircraft Tugs lists the following specifications:

Maximum Towing Capacity: 35,000 Pounds Top Speed: 3 MPH Power: 36 Volt DC Electric Motor Batteries: Three, 12 Volt DC, 85 Amp-Hour Batteries Charging: On-Board Charging System Transmission: Transaxle/Differential Drive System: Handlebar Steering with Chain to Wheels Drive Speed Control: Variable Speed Twist Grip on Handlebars Steering: Fifth Wheel Arm Steering Braking: Handlebar Controlled Adjustable Braking Lift Cradle: Easy-On Roller Cradle with Cable Locking Mechanism

20

Figure 8: The Aircraft Caddy 35K is the only walk-behind tug being reviewed. A walk-behind tug may not provide a high level of usability due to increased movement times, but it does offer a high level of maneuverability, especially in confined hangar spaces. (Source: Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Company)

The AircraftCaddy 35K allows the operator to engage and disengage the cradle cable lock without leaving the controls. Optional equipment for the 35K include:

Easy On/Off Wheel Cradle (For Planes Without Wheel Pants) Wheel Guide for Planes With or Without Wheel Pants (Includes Lazy Susan

Turning) Hand Crank With 7 Foot Nylon Strap and Wheel Tether Electric Winch With 7 Foot Nylon Strap and Wheel Tether DC Power Supply and 10 Foot Cord (For Jump Starting Planes and Running

Avionics) Custom Logos Universal Nose Wheel Brackets Ball Hitch and Mounting Bracket for Towing Trailers

Lisa Lintner of The Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Company quoted a price of $6,995.00 for the AircraftCaddy 35K, as well as prices for the available options. This price quote can be accessed in Appendix A of this report.

21

Evaluation and Analysis

In this section each option will be evaluated in relation to the criteria presented previously in the report. Tugs will receive a rating on a scale from 1 to 5 for each criterion and will be compared graphically against one another.

Criterion 1: Cost

Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow TractorThe Eagle TT-4 tug offered by Aero Specialties, a company specializing in aviation ground support equipment, has a quoted price of $39,434.00. This price reflects the base model options package for a new TT-4. The TT-4 ranks as the most expensive tug in this report. A price difference of $35,634.00 exists between the TT-4 and the lowest priced tug option, the used NMC-Wollard Model 60. The TT-4 costs $1,414.00 more than the next closest tug, the Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor. Based on cost alone, the MTT receives a rating of 1.

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow TractorThe Eagle MTT, sold by Aero Specialties, has a quoted price of $38,020.00 for a new base option model. The all electric MTT is unique to the other tow bar attached tugs in

22

this report because of its all electric drive train. The use of green technology and relative newness of the product line may account for the high starting price of the MTT. Compared to other electric tug options, the MTT has the highest quoted price, and is $6,377.00 more expensive than the next most expensive tug, the Lektro 8600A. Given the fact that this tug ranks as the highest cost for all electric tugs being evaluated, and second highest price overall, the MTT scores a cost rating of 1.

Option 3: Tug Inc. Model MA-50Aero Specialties sells both new and used tugs. The MA-50 is a refurbished tug and has a zero time engine (Used). The listed price on Aero Specialties’ website of $17,500 reflects the overhaul process not seen in most used “as is” tugs on the market. The MA-50 is the third lowest price tug in this report. However, compared to the other used tug in the report, the NMC-Wollard Model 60, the MA-50 is $13,700.00 more expensive. As compared to the remaining tug options, the MA-50 is $21,934.00 less expensive than the highest price tug option, the Eagle TT-4. Taking into consideration the zero time engine and moderate price point, the MA-50 receives a cost rating of 3.

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60The Model 60 is being sold on Trade-A-Plane, an online aviation ground support classified ad website, by Support Equipment Company. Support Equipment Company has listed the tug at $3,800.00, making it the least expensive tug in the report. The Model 60 option has not undergone any refurbishing and the engine time was unlisted in the ad on Trade-A-Plane. Support Equipment Company indicates that the tug is fully operational, and is driven daily. The Model 60 retains a $3,195.00 price difference from the second least expensive tug, the Lindy AircraftCaddy 35K, and a $35,634.00 difference in price from the highest priced tug alternative, the Eagle TT-4. The Model 60 tug receives a cost rating of 5.

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600AThe Lektro Model 8600A is a new electric powered towbarless tug for sale by Lektro, a tug manufacturer in Warrenton, Oregon. Lektro quoted a base option price of $31,643.00. The Lektro is the third most expensive tug in the report, and the second most expensive electric tug being evaluated. A difference of $7,791.00 exists between the most expensive tug, the Eagle TT-4, and the 8600A. The 8600A costs $27,843.00 more than the least expensive tug alternative, the NMC-Wollard Model 60. The Lektro 8600A receives a cost rating of 1.

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBOPriceless Aviation, a supplier of aviation ground support equipment, manufactures the 747 FBO and sells it for $19,295.00. This price reflects the base option model. The 747 FBO, a gas powered towbarless tug, costs $20,139.00 less than the Eagle TT-4 and $15,495.00 more than the NMC-Wollard Model 60. Since the 747 FBO tug ranks near the median in cost amongst all options, it scores a cost rating of 3.

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30The Tronair Jetporter JP-30 is a towbarless electric tug similar to the Lektro 8600A. Tronair quoted a new base option model JP-30 for $29,325.00. The JP-30 ranks as the

23

third most expensive electric tug, costing $8,695.00 less than the Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor, which ranks as the most expensive electric tug. The JP-30 costs $25,525.00 more than the least expensive tug, the NMC-Wollard Model 60. Based on the cost, as compared to other electric tugs in this report, and a relatively high price, the JP-30 scores a cost rating of 2.

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35KThe electric powered Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35K is the only walk-behind tug being evaluated. The AircraftCaddy 35K is manufactured by Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Company, who provided a price quote of $6,995.00 for the base option model. The AircraftCaddy 35K ranks as the least expensive new and electric tug in this report. It costs $31,025.00 less than the highest costing electric tug, the Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor, and $3,195.00 more than the least expensive tug, the used NMC-Wollard Model 60. The combination of being the lowest costing new and electric tug scores the AircraftCaddy 35K a rating of 4.

The following graphs, Figures 9 and 10 on page 24, illustrate the quoted prices for each tug option and the rating received for the cost criterion. The inverse relationship between quoted price and cost rating can be easily seen in these graphs.

Eagle

TT-4

Eagle

MTT

Lektro

8600A

Jetporte

r JP-30

Pricele

ss 747 FB

O

Tug In

c. MA-50

Aircraft

Caddy 3

5K

NMC-Wollar

d Model

60 $-

$4,000.00 $8,000.00

$12,000.00 $16,000.00 $20,000.00 $24,000.00 $28,000.00 $32,000.00 $36,000.00 $40,000.00

Quoted Prices

Figure 9: The bar graph above illustrates the quoted prices for each of the tugs evaluated in this report. The graph is arranged from most expensive to least expensive. This graph provides a relational guide when considering the cost criterion.

24

Eagle

TT-4

Eagle

MTT

Lektro

8600A

Jetporte

r JP-30

Pricele

ss 747 FB

O

Tug In

c. MA-50

Aircraft

Caddy 3

5K

NMC-Wollar

d Model

600

1

2

3

4

5

Cost Rating

Figure 10: The bar graph above depicts the cost rating each tug received based on the rating scale of 1 to 5. The Eagle TT-4 and MTT, along with Lektro 8600A all received ratings of 1 based on their considerably high price point (all over $30,000.00). In contrast, the NMC-Wollard Model 60 scored a rating of 5 for its price of $3,800.00.

Criterion 2: Usability

Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow TractorTo the casual observer the TT-4 appears to be like any other tow bar attached tug. However, many of its features make it highly usable from an operator’s standpoint. The low step in height enhances the ergonomics of the tug and makes entry and exit from the vehicle much easier. The front and rear sight tunnels offer increased visibility for the driver. These sight tunnels give the operator a better feel for turning radius of the tug and aircraft attached. The cons of the TT-4 are the use of a tow bar, which increases the likelihood of aircraft damage due to over-turning the nose gear. In my experience, this is a common problem with tow bar attached tugs. Additionally, the operator must lift and carry the tow bar repeatedly, which becomes tiresome and can lead to injury. Given all these points the TT-4 receives a usability rating of 3.

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow TractorThe MTT Electric Tow Tractor utilizes an electric power system, which commonly increases the smoothness of driving. Electric drive tugs provide instant power, and smooth stopping. This creates a better driving experience, particularly while an aircraft is attached. The built in charger for the electric power system gives the user more freedom in selecting a charging location. The forward seating area gives the operator a better view of the aircraft being towed from the front pintle hitch. Conversely, the greater distance to the rear pintle hitch hinders the operator’s ability to see planes towed from the rear. The rear sight tunnel increases rearward visibility, but the greater distance created by the forward driving compartment presents a challenging viewing angle. The MTT, like the TT-4, offers a low step-in height for better entry and exit from

25

the vehicle. Again, the major downfall of the MTT is the use of a tow bar for attaching to towed aircraft. The MTT receives a usability rating of 3.

Option 3: Tug Inc. Model MA-50The Model MA-50 resembles the traditional design of tow bar attached tugs. The size of the tug creates some hazards when moving in tight spaces, such as the hangars at K-State Salina. Tugs like the MA-50 require the operator to step up higher to enter and exit the seats. The two largest drawbacks to the MA-50 are the use of a tow bar and the low visibility of the tow bar and aircraft nose gear during towing. This creates several hazards and difficult towing situations for the operator. The MA-50’s does have the shortest turn radius, 115 inches, of all the tow bar attached tugs (Used). This benefits the operator in tight turning situations. However, the tow bar ultimately restricts the turning to the limits of the aircraft. The MA-50 receives a usability rating of 2.

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60The NMC-Wollard Model 60 falls short in usability for the same reasons as the Tug Inc. Model MA-50. The Model 60 has a larger turn radius of 135 inches, which makes it harder to operate in tight hangar spaces (Model). Due to the similar shortcomings of the Model 60, as compared to the MA-50, it receives a usability rating of 1.

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600AThe Lektro Model 8600 offers a towbarless lift cradle for towing aircraft, which eliminates the need for a tow bar. This gives the operator greater visibility of the aircraft and easier turning in tight spaces. The operator stands in the driving compartment, giving the individual easy entry and exit from the tug and increased visibility of the aircraft and surrounding obstacles. The operator does have to move around the nose gear and under the aircraft more to attach the nose gear security strap. In my experience, this leads to greater exposure to the lubricants used on the nose gear strut. The nose cradle must be adjusted by hand to accept larger nose gear tires. The most difficult aspect of the Lektro is the steering. The rear wheel steers the tug, as compared to the more familiar front wheel steering of most tow bar attached tugs. This creates a steeper learning curve for most operators. The Lektro drives and brakes smoothly. The low ground clearance of the 8600A presents challenges during winter months or over high hangar thresholds. Chains are available for the tires from Lektro to aid in winter months. K-State Salina currently operates a Lektro 8600A. It has been the favorite of many of the line workers once they learn the ins and outs of the steering. The Lektro 8600A receives a usability rating of 4.

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBOThe Model 747 FBO is another towbarless tug that uses a cradle to lift the aircraft nose gear for towing. The operator stands on a riding platform, which provides a clear line of sight to the aircraft being towed. The 747 FBO utilizes a handle bar style steering apparatus. None of the current K-State Salina tugs have such a mechanism for steering. This could present some initial problems, but the commonality to that of a bicycle or motorcycle should make it easy to learn. The optional Lazy Susan nose cradle would provide a tighter turn radius than the standard towbarless tug and would protect the nose gear from being turned beyond its turn limits. This would allow for

26

greater mobility in the crowded hangars at K-State Salina. The 747 FBO receives a usability rating of 5.

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30The Tronair Jetporter JP-30 operates similarly to the Lektro 8600A and has many similar features. The pros and cons for this tug are the same as the Lektro 8600A. The Jetporter JP-30 receives a usability rating of 4.

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35KThe AircraftCaddy 35K tows via a towbarless cradle, similar to other towbarless tugs. That is where the similarities end. The AircraftCaddy 35K is the only walk-behind tug considered in this report. The large ramp and distances from the hangars to the parking pads at K-State Salina would make this type of tug impractical for use outside of the hangar. The AircraftCaddy 35K would be a great tug for moving aircraft just outside the hangar or inside the hangar for repositioning or maintenance requests. The AircraftCaddy 35K is the only tug that allows the operator to secure and release the aircraft at the nose cradle without leaving the steering handlebars. A quick release cable allows for this. Given the distances that the aircraft must be towed, the AircraftCaddy 35K, and other walk-behind tugs, will not be practical for everyday use on the flight line. The AircraftCaddy 35K receives a usability rating of 2.

The following graph, Figures 11, illustrates the usability rating for each tug option.

Eagle

TT-4

Eagle

MTT Ele

ctric

Tug M

A-50

NMC-Wollar

d Model

60

Lektro

8600A

Pricele

ss Avia

tion 747 FBO

Tronair

Jetporte

r JP-30

Lindy A

ircraft

Caddy 3

5K0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

Usability Rating

Figure 11: This graph depicts the usability ratings for each tug evaluated. The Towbarless tugs scored higher than the tow bar attached tugs. The Priceless Aviation 747 FBO scored the highest score of 5 for its innovative steering options.

27

Criterion 3: Safety

Option 1: Eagle TT-4 Tow TractorThe Eagle TT-4 offers two major safety features: front and rear sight tunnels and low step-in height. The front and rear sight tunnels provide greater visibility of the tow bar and aircraft nose gear during towing operations. The low step-in height reduces the likelihood of the operator falling during entry and exit of the tug. Additionally, the use of disc brakes at the front wheels offers greater stopping power. The use of a tow bar to tow the aircraft presents safety hazards while moving aircraft in the confined hangar spaces at K-State Salina. The TT-4 receives a safety rating of 3.

Option 2: Eagle MTT Electric Tow TractorThe Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor has similar safety features to the TT-4 with some additional measure to increase safety. The addition of front and rear inching switches allows the operator to move the tug into place for tow bar attachment without being in the operator’s seat. The inching switches slowly move the tug forward or backwards, which gives the operator the ability to safely attach the tow bar to the tug without the aid of another person. This feature would be beneficial when operating in crowded hangar spaces. The use of a tow bar does lower the overall safety score, as it does for all tow bar attached tugs. The MTT receives a safety score of 4.

Option 3: Tug Inc. Model MA-50The Tug Inc. Model MA-50 does not offer any safety advantages over any other tug in this report. It has poor visibility of the tow bar and aircraft nose gear. The operator must step up higher to enter and exit the tug, increasing the risk of injury to the operator. The MA-50 brakes are located on the rear wheels only. This could present problems when stopping heavy aircraft during towing procedures on wet or icy surfaces. The MA-50 receives a safety rating of 1.

Option 4: NMC-Wollard Model 60The NMC-Wollard Model 60 fails to offer any safety advantages over the other tugs in this evaluation. Similar to the Tug Inc. Model MA-50, the Model 60 has a high operator seating area. The Model 60 does offer better brakes than the MA-50. The Model 60 is equipped with disc brakes on the front and rear wheels. However, due to poor visibility, high entry and exit heights, and the use of a tow bar for towing, the Model 60 receives a safety rating of 1.

Option 5: Lektro Model 8600AThe Lektro 8600A offers a greater visibility than a tow bar attached tug and allows the operator to stand during operation. The greatest drawback to safety is the rear wheel steering which can be difficult to learn. The operator must also bend frequently to attach the tow strap and reach around the nose gear strut to attach the tow strap. This can lead to frequent contact with lubricants and the danger of being injured by cotter pins on the aircraft nose gear strut. The electric system is equipped with a quick disconnect cable to disconnect the power to the tug in emergency situations. A downfall of all electric tugs is the servicing of batteries. Battery acid exposure must be considered when dealing with battery servicing or due to battery overheating. The

28

Lektro is equipped with a safety pedal that must be depressed to allow for operation of the tug drive unit or hydraulic cradle mechanism. The Lektro 8600A receives a safety rating of 3.

Option 6: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBOThe Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO offers a high level of visibility and an easy access operator platform. The steering handle bars could present some initial difficulties for operators not familiar with this type of steering. Additionally, the rear wheel steering presents training challenges. The optional Lazy Susan hydraulic lift cradle will increase the safety of the tug by allowing for tighter turning radii, and less likely damage to the aircraft during operation. The hazards of attaching the tow strap are similar to the Lektro 8600A. The use of a gasoline engine with electric start does limit battery servicing to just the cranking battery. The 747 FBO receives a safety rating of 4.

Option 7: Tronair Jetporter JP-30The Tronair Jetporter JP-30 has similar safety considerations of the Lektro 8600A. The addition of an emergency stop button increases the ease of safely stopping the tug during unsafe conditions. The JP-30 comes equipped with a fire extinguisher, which boosts its overall safety. The JP-30 receives a safety rating of 4.

Option 8: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35KThe Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35K does allow for the greatest amount of operator control. This creates a safer towing speed. The operator does not have to manually attach a safety strap to secure the aircraft in the lift cradle of this towbarless tug. The speed controls on the handle bars offer instant forward and rearward responsiveness. The Lazy Susan cradle allows for tight turning radii and limits the chance of damage to the aircraft nose gear (Aircraft Tow). The AircraftCaddy 35K receives a safety rating of 5.

The following graph, Figure 12, depicts the safety ratings of each of the tugs being compared.

29

Eagle

TT-4

Eagle

MTT Ele

ctric

Tug In

c. MA-50

NMC-Wollar

d Model

60

Lektro

8600A

Pricele

ss Avia

tion 747 FBO

Tronair

Jetporte

r JP-30

Lindy's

Aircraft

Caddy 3

5K0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

Safety Rating

Figure 12: This graph displays the safety rating for each of the tugs being evaluated. The AircraftCaddy 35K received the highest safety rating because it offers the most operator control. It is important to note that safety is difficult to evaluate due to varying operator experience and environmental conditions.

Conclusions

The process of determining the best tug to purchase for K-State Salina flight line operations has been a great learning experience. The information in this report provides information of only a small sample of the available tugs in the aviation ground support equipment market. However, the tugs selected for evaluation represent the most common types in use, and several models are popular choices for many aviation operations. The K-State Salina flight line operates a wide variety of aircraft, which requires a tug capable of adapting to these aircraft for towing purposes. The large movement area and confined hangar spaces also require a tug capable of efficiently moving an aircraft in a timely manner, while simultaneously doing so in as safe a

30

manner as possible. Most of the tugs in this report meet those requirements to some degree.

As the flight line supervisor I have been able to operate both tow bar attached and towbarless tugs. This has given me the chance to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each type. Tow bar attached tugs offer versatility for general towing and generally drive better in inclement weather conditions. Tugs like the Tug Inc. MA-50 and the NMC-Wollard Model 60 represent the type of tow bar attached tug currently operated by K-State Salina. The disadvantages of these types of tugs are the tow bars and the low visibility. Tow bars create an increased turning hazard, especially in confined hangar spaces. The hangars at K-State Salina offer little room for error given the high number of aircraft stored in each hangar and the tight turning spaces. Typical tractor style tugs do not give the operator a clear line of sight to the pintle hitch on the tug or the nose gear of the aircraft. While towing an aircraft, it is necessary to see the nose gear of the aircraft clearly to stay within the tow limits of the aircraft. Two of the tugs in this report, the Eagle TT-4 and Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor, have increased lines of sight via the sight tunnel design. However, due to the high cost of these tugs, they do not appear to be viable options.

Towbarless tugs, like the Lektro 8600A, which K-State Salina currently operates, do not have the limitations of tow bar attached tugs. However, they do not typically drive as well during inclement weather. This can be improved by installing tire chains. Most towbarless tugs use all electric power, thus reducing the overall operating cost. The additional benefits of electric tugs are decreased environmental impact and quieter operation. The downside to most electric tugs is cost. The Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO seems to blend the best of both worlds with towbarless towing and a reduced cost due to its use of fossil fuel power.

The final decision must be weighed using all criteria and deciding which criteria is most important. Other criteria may warrant evaluation, such as cost to operate, dependability, and resale value. The length and breadth of this report needed to be taken into consideration and therefore did not evaluate those criteria. Given the information presented in this report, a recommendation will be made on the evaluated criteria.

Recommendations

After careful consideration of the criteria established in this recommendation report, I have concluded that the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO is the best option of tugs to purchase for the K-State Salina flight line. That being said, I believe that additional criteria should be evaluated to determine the best tug to purchase. The following criteria may prove useful in determine which tug to purchase:

Cost of Operation Dependability

31

Long-Term Value and Resale

If the criteria set forth in this report are suitable for making a purchase, then the Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO will make an excellent choice.

32

Appendix A

Price Quotes

Figure 13: Eagle TT-4 Price Quote (Source: Gray).

33

Figure 14: Eagle MTT Electric Tow Tractor Price Quote. (Source: Gray).

34

Figure 15: Tug Inc. MA-50 Tow Tractor Price Quote. (Source: Aero Specialties)

35

Figure 16: NMC-Wollard Model 60 Tow Tractor Price Quote. (Source: Trade-a-Plane)

36

Figure 17: Lektro 8600A Price Quote. (Source: Long)

37

Figure 18: Priceless Aviation Model 747 FBO Price Quote. (Source: Price)

38

Figure 19: Tronair Jetporter JP-30 Price Quote. (Source: Mignano)

39

Figure 20: AircraftCaddy 35K Price Quote. (Source: Lintner).

40

Works Cited

“Aircraft Moving Equipment – Aircraft Tugs.” Priceless Aviation Products Official Site. Priceless Aviation Products. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

“Aircraft Tow Tractors: Lindy’s AircraftCaddy 35K.” Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Co. Official Site. Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Co. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

“Eagle Tow Tugs/Tractors.” Aero Specialties Official Site. Aero Specialties. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.

Gray, Rod. “Re: Eagle Tug Quotes.” Message to the author. 07 Nov. 2013. E-mail.

Lektrotugs. “What Is a Towbarless Electric Aircraft Tug?” Lektro Electric Aircraft Tugs News. WordPress.com. 21 May 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

Lintner, Lisa. “Re: AircraftCaddy 15K and 35K Information.” Message to the author. 13 Nov. 2013. E-mail.

Long, Jesse. “Re: Quote for Lektro 8600A.” Message to the author. 07 Nov. 2013. E-mail.

Mignano, Jan. “Re: Tronair Quote JP30 Towbarless Tug.” Message to the author. 12 Nov. 2013. E-mail.

“Model 60 Tow Tractor Specification Sheet.” NMC-Wollard Official Site. NMC-Wollard. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.

“Models – AP8600A Specifications.” Lektro Official Site. Lektro. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.

“NMC Tug.” Trade-A-Plane Official Site. Trade-A-Plane. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.

Price, John. “Re: Price Quote for 747 FBO Tug.” Message to the author. 18 Nov. 2013. E-mail.

“Tronair Jetporter JP-30 Electric Towbarless Tug Brochure.” Tronair. 2013. PDF. 16 Oct. 2013.

“Used Small/Light Tugs - 5,000 DBP, TUG Inc. MA-50 Tow Tractor (Refurbished).” Aero Specialties Official Site. Aero Specialties. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.

41

Sources Referenced

“About Us.” Aero Specialties Official Site. Aero Specialties. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

Castagna, Curt. “Testimonials.” Lektro, Inc. N.P. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

Donner, Ronald. "Selecting and Purchasing Ground Support Equipment." Aircraft Maintenance Technology Mar. 2010: S6. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

Durden, Rick. "Aircraft tugs: a model for every budget: for moving airplanes under 6000 pounds, there's plenty of choice. Aero-Tow, 40EZ and Tail-Dragger Dragger are our top picks this round." The Aviation Consumer 43.4 (2013): 8+. Academic OneFile. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

“Full line of Supertow Aircraft Tugs for Light and medium aircraft.” Powertow Aircraft Tugs Official Site. Northwest Manufacturing. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

Martin, Juan, and Jeff Horst. "Conventional or Towbarless Tractors?" Ground Support Worldwide. 10 2008: 32-4. ProQuest. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

Weiman, Dave. “Electric Tugs – For The Environment, For Your Health.” Midwest Flyer. 12 Nov. 2012. MidwestFlyer.com. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

Documents

Kansas State University Flight Line Recommendation Report