Tesla Model X Breaks Electric Towing Record By Pulling Boeing 787 (inverse.com) 235
A Tesla Model X has set the world record for heaviest tow by electric production passenger vehicle when it pulled a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner at the Melbourne Airport in Australia. The video can be viewed on YouTube. Inverse reports: As probably expected, the plane far exceeds the Model X's recommended tow limit of around 5,000 pounds. In fact, the weight of the unloaded 787 with a minimal amount of fuel came closer to around 300,000 pounds. The airline pulled the Dreamliner around 1,000 feet down the tarmac. The stunt was part of a wider campaign around Qantas' new work with Tesla, which involves offering high-powered chargers at its Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide facilities as well as offsetting miles for Tesla drivers that are also frequent flyer members.
Should be useful for most drivers... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Should be useful for most drivers... (Score:5, Funny)
Many gas or diesel vehicles going down the highway can pull this plane.
Yes, but this was just one car pulling it by itself; not many gas and diesel vehicles. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Many humans walking down the street can pull this plane with just their bare hands and a rope, which just goes to show how far behind ICE vehicles are when it comes to range, range, and duration.
I get that you don't care for electric vehicles, but they are not without their qualities. Off the top of my head: They pollute far less. The energy required to make them work can be derived multiple ways (steam, natural gas, coal, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear fission, someday fusion). Some of the ways th
Re: (Score:2)
how far behind ICE vehicles are when it comes to range, range, and duration.
Huh? One ICE vehicles have considerable range advantage, and you said range twice (you must like range).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I wasn't thinking in context... so self-whoosh...
Re: (Score:2)
ICE vehicles have considerable range advantage
I wouldn't call it a considerable advantage. My current car gets somewhere around 350 miles on one tank of gas (roughly 12 gallon tank, 30 MPG on the highway). Tesla's vehicles are quickly approaching that range on a single full charge.
Re: (Score:2)
There's capacity and there's convenience/time to go a bit further. For you if you have a 400 mile trip to make, you bear the burden of a quick stop for gas.
For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.
Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refu
Re: (Score:2)
Range (Score:2)
For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.
That's true but after driving for 5-7 hours you probably are going to want to stop for more than a 10 minute splash and dash anyway. A 400 mile trip at highway speeds will take around 7 hours give or take. That's around the distance between Cleveland and Philadelphia or LA to San Francisco. I think once EVs range reaches around 400-500 miles, it's going to be hard to argue they aren't practical for long trips anymore if they can be recharged in 30-40 minutes.
Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.
This is true but unlikely to remain so for lon
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me to never go on a road trip with you.
Re: (Score:2)
There's capacity and there's convenience/time to go a bit further. For you if you have a 400 mile trip to make, you bear the burden of a quick stop for gas.
For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.
Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.
I can go 500 miles with a single tank.
In practice, the fucking thing is calibrated so the "OH SHIT" light goes on when there are 3 gallons left and the thing reads "empty" when there are 2.5 gallons left.
So I typically fill up after around 300 miles after 2 weeks of city commuting so I don't forget, or at the end of my road trip. Stopping in the middle of a long drive is such a fucking time sink.
I can't fucking imagine doing a long road trip in a current electric car. I'd be fine stopping once for lunch a
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did you read his post?
Re: (Score:3)
If we assume that the plane has zero static rolling resistance so it takes little effort to get it moving and tiny speeds, then i still think not many cars can pull it. My car has to drive at 4mph before I can let go of the clutch completely. Before that there is slip. So you at least need a special clutch which allows you to give full power at say 0.1mph.
His teeth are stronger than your car, then (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, a popular stunt is pulling a airliner with one's teeth.
https://bulawayo24.com/index-i... [bulawayo24.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That interpretation of 'strong' is a bit odd but yes, I doubt any car with manual transmission can pull a boeing, but I don't know enough about clutches. Most sports cars would burn their clutch on doing repeated launch control(which puts a lot of power through in the 0-4mph phase) for instance. So for such an attempt you need the right transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait I'm wrong. I doubt the amount of energy pushed into the clutch will vary much for 0-4mph. Launch control keeps revs at say 4000rpm so you have longer slip, higher speed till the clutch is fully locked.The clutch will slip for instance till 25mph so you have to adapt the clutch design so it can handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the anti-ad. Many gas or diesel vehicles going down the highway can pull this plane.
The fact that there are exactly zero scenarios in which any car would ever need to tow a plane turns this into a gimmick and nothing more.
Publicizing the fact the an electric vehicle can do this just shows how far behind electric vehicles are when it comes to range, power, and duration.
Behind? As far as power goes, we've sent humans to space, and yet 100 years of internal combustion engine development hasn't been able to create instant torque response that an EV can deliver every time. Performance numbers certainly aren't lacking for the maker of "ludicrous" mode either.
Range is dictated by battery tech, and you're getting a hell of a lot more out of
Re: (Score:2)
On 'range', I'd say it's optimistic to proclaim 1,500 mile ranges.. Your cell phone example does show a rather dramatic advancement in battery tech, but moreso radio and other technologies. Cars' energy usage is dominated by more fundamental physics problems than what cell phones had.
Also, while the battery tech did advance a great deal in a short amount of time, it is the sort of thing that plateaus. We have headline-grabbing 'breakthroughs' trying to get investment dollars/grants, but overall it seems
Re: (Score:2)
I'm less concerned with commuting (I do have ways to charge at home, overnight, sure apartment dwellers may have a challenge, but homeowners are in decent shape here) and more the long haul trips.
Re: (Score:2)
Behind? As far as power goes, we've sent humans to space, and yet 100 years of internal combustion engine development hasn't been able to create instant torque response that an EV can deliver every time. Performance numbers certainly aren't lacking for the maker of "ludicrous" mode either.
Range is dictated by battery tech, and you're getting a hell of a lot more out of rechargeable batteries today than you were 20 years ago. My first cell phone had an hour of talk time. Another decade of battery development will likely create EV solutions with a 1,500-mile range, which at that point the metric is pointless, because human passengers would never want to sit in a car that long.
Battery tech has improved in regards to fixing the battery memory problem and faster recharge times but has little to do with how long your cell phone lasts. Most major battery improvements over the last 10 years are due to three factors: Shrinking electronics has allowed for larger capacity batteries, electronics have become much more energy efficient (i.e. lower power displays), and power management improvements.
As far as I can tell, the accepted wisdom is that battery capacity increases at 5% to 8% per
Re: (Score:2)
Behind? As far as power goes, we've sent humans to space, and yet 100 years of internal combustion engine development hasn't been able to create instant torque response that an EV can deliver every time. Performance numbers certainly aren't lacking for the maker of "ludicrous" mode either.
I was watching some steam driven cars on youtube. 30 horses and a thousand foot pounds of torque, silent, no clutch, most no transmission though the one I was watching had a 2 speed with 1st for the first little while until a full head of steam was built up. Land speed record was held for quite a while by a steam car as well.
Drawbacks, had to wait a couple of minutes to build up steam and the earlier ones were hard to fire.
Internal engines still won out, once the starter was invented.
Re: Should be useful for most drivers... (Score:5, Informative)
You would stand a better chance than you think.
There are generally three things about towing capacity weight:
-Ability to *accelerate* at acceptable road speed. Note that in this case, they only accelerated it to slow walk speed.
-Ability to *stop* the mass behind you, which is all about brakes and nothing to do with the engine/motor (here the 787 is responsible for stopping itself.
-Tongue weight. This is generally specified separately, but there is some assumption about a trailer's tongue weight. Again, this is not about the motor/engine. Of course here there's negligble tonge weight.
This isn't an *anti* tesla view. The truck industry has *long* done stunts like this to 'prove' how much better than their ratings they are. This is the same sort of stunt as people pulling a train with their teeth, a very difficult thing to be sure, but more plausible than one would intuitively think.
Of course, I wouldn't call it an 'anti-ad', but it's also not 'only the model-x can pull this sort of weight' in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You would stand a better chance than you think.
I guess everybody is assuming a smoother paved surface (less rolling resistance) than I've ever driven on.
Re: (Score:3)
Large aircraft cannot be moved by hand and must have a tractor or tug. Pushback tractors use a low profile design to fit under the aircraft nose. For sufficient traction the tractor must be heavy, and most models can have extra ballast added. A typical tractor for large aircraft weighs up to 54 tonnes (119,000 pounds) and has a drawbar pull of 334 kN (75,000 lbf).
Re: (Score:2)
In the general case this may be true, but under 'check out this stunt' conditions, you can generally eliminate most of the factors that demand that.
I can promise you the tesla does not have as much traction as a 54 ton tractor, and neither did the porsche that did the same thing, or the vw, or the various strongmen that have made videos of pulling large planes.
Weight of a tank (Score:3)
A typical tractor for large aircraft weighs up to 54 tonnes (119,000 pounds) and has a drawbar pull of 334 kN (75,000 lbf).
For comparison the weight of an M1 Abrams [wikipedia.org] main battle tank is around 62 metric tons.
Re: (Score:2)
For comparison the weight of an M1 Abrams [wikipedia.org] main battle tank is around 62 metric tons.
So, they should use tanks to move planes around? Interesting...
Re: (Score:2)
So, they should use tanks to move planes around? Interesting...
They don't use treads because tread systems cost more than hard rubber tires. Tugs don't need armor.
You especially wouldn't use an Abrams because it uses a turbine engine. The Abrams has four times the horsepower output [quora.com] and twice the torque of a tug [stackexchange.com]. It costs too much to maintain and consumes too much fuel to do that kind of work. (There is a vehicle based on the Abrams MBT which is used for tank recovery, but that's a fairly different job.)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you're pulling a 747 out of a ditch with a plane tug, at least two serious errors in judgement are in evidence.
MUCH easier with electric motor drive. (Score:5, Informative)
The truck industry has *long* done stunts like this to 'prove' how much better than their ratings they are.
Towing enormous loads from a dead stop (on a level surface) is much easier with an electric motor drive vehicle than with one powered by a combustion engine.
An electric motor (absent some pathology in the power supply to it) produces maximum torque at stall. This is ideal for gradually accelerating enormous weights on low-friction level surfaces. (Also great for sprint races, and getting started from a dead stop in general.)
An internal combustion engine has no torque at its output shaft if it's not running. You need some mechanism for driving the stopped wheels from the must-keep-turning engine.
Clutches are a friction brake (with a SMALL length of of spring, so you can recycle most of the energy initially lost to pushing torque through a shaft-speed difference IF you get moving right away.) Try to tow an enormous weight from dead-stop and most of the energy goes to heat the clutch - which quickly fries unless you only engage it in pulses.
Transmissions with torque converters are better. But get moving quickly (in a very low gear, because much of that energy is still turning into heat in the transmission fluid.
Electric motors make heat, too. But only in proportion to the (square of) the torque they produce. So it's the same heat they'd make if they were accelerating the car with the same torque, which they're able to dump quite nicely. Also: They aren't stuck absorbing a LARGE amount of heat because of the minimum speed of the engine shaft. Their controller can apply enough current to get the torque, but this results in much lower voltage (and thus much less total energy) when they're not turning (no back-EMF from the moving motor also acting like a generator to oppose the incoming current). So max torque and only enough HP/watts to produce it.
Re: Should be useful for most drivers... (Score:5, Informative)
USAF, we used to push or pull F-16 or F-15, by hand. 4 guys, 30,000 lbs of aircraft. Not far, and zero grade. But it was done.
You do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
You do the math.
4 * USAF awesomeness = superpower strength
Thank you for your service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So wait, your vehicle can't pull a 747 like a Volkswagen Toureg can?
Don't know, but my vehicle can pull a truck out of a snowbank [youtube.com], that seems more useful than trying to use a SUV (arguably a crossover) as an airline tug
Re: (Score:3)
I drive the largest passenger vehicle currently sold
The Canyonero?
Re: (Score:2)
I drive the largest passenger vehicle currently sold
The Canyonero?
No he's taking the bus...
Re: (Score:3)
The Canyonero is bigger.
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!
Canyonero! Yah! Canyonero!
The Federal Highway commision has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyon
Re: (Score:2)
The F-series?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be mean. He said driving. He's driving the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is:
1) Enough power to get past the static friction of the thing you're towing.
2) Enough sustained power to keep up with rolling friction of the thing you're towing and the thing doing the towing.
3) Enough engagement between the towing vehicle and its travel surface to prevent slipping during 1 and 2. This can be from typical friction, or it can be something with more direct engagement (like a chain drive system).
Re: (Score:3)
African or European? (Score:2)
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
https://www.bing.com/videos/se... [bing.com]
Tesla endeavors to beat Toyota (Score:2, Interesting)
not much friction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:not much friction (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, the weight of the unladen 787 with a minimal amount of fuel came closer to around 300,000 pounds.
So was it and African or European Model X . . . ?
You have to know these things if you're a King, like Musk.
Re: not much friction (Score:2)
He's a great PR guy.
His products are so fucking revolutionary (and disruptive) that it might seem to "the incognizenti" like he is... but he isn't; he doesn't need to be.
unladen Boeing 787 (Score:3)
What is the ground speed velocity of an unladen Boeing 787 pulled by a Tesla model X ?
Re: unladen Boeing 787 (Score:2)
Man pulls plane with balls (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
static vs dynamic, indeed (Score:2)
I immediately though "well, basically static vs. dynamic friction", too.
On the other hand, electric motors are specially good at having decent torque at very low speed.
(You don't need to shift a different gear to start them, unlike ICE. They use a fixed transmission ratio).
So it's about the best type of motors you could be using for "just pulling".
If this is the top speed,
I suspect that's more for braking safety.
If anything goes wrong, you'll need to brake.
- there's only so much kinetic energy that you can shed with the car's brak
Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars (Score:2)
Tried of his publicity stunts?
Not at all... but certainly tired of the unimaginative douchebag shills with IQ's as low as the rest (and likely matching IP addresses) trying in vain spew their thin disinfo...
Re: (Score:3)
I read this as a publicity stunt for Qantas mainly. I don't think Elon himself was involved...
Lighten up (Score:2)
I'm growing really tired of Musk's publicity stunts.
And why should we care? Lighten up. I find them fairly entertaining myself. Certainly far more than the banal advertising we get from most companies. It's nice to see someone actually show some creativity for once.
Focus on getting the Model 3 production line problems fixed dammnit
You do realize that companies have to do both right? You have to make the product AND sell it. It's not an either/or proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
OK he made more enemies ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Instead of speculating, they should rather invest to make competitive products.
Or they will kodakize themselves.
Comptetitive products (Score:2)
Yeah, Caterpillar, where's my P-5000 Work Loader [wikia.com] ?
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking the other day when we were using a D9 to flatten a small forest that we should probably get a Model X instead.
I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The towing limit on most cars is because cars accelerate and brake going up and down hills, and have to cope with lateral acceleration forces on the trailer in turns.
In this case, the Tesla is pulling a lot of weight on a dead-flat surface at low speed. All it has to overcome is the inertia of the airliner's mass when accelerating to the 2 mph it seems to be doing in the video, and then overcome the friction of the plane's tires and wheel bearings once up to speed. Electric cars would be especially good at this, as they have no clutch and the highest torque at low rpm.
If you're not convinced any vehicle can tow heavy masses on flat ground with limited frictional forces, check out this video [youtube.com]. Or this one [youtube.com]...
Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... (Score:5, Informative)
You can go to any airport and see a tiny tug vehicle moving a giant airplane around.
To be honest, I often wonder why those tugs didn't go electric years ago, like giant golf carts or something. Traction motors can deliver torque at extremely low RPM, they don't need any range and can be plugged in easily. I'd wager the tugs they use now have diesel engines that will run off jet fuel which is abundant at an airport.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I often wonder why those tugs didn't go electric years ago, like giant golf carts or something.
Some did [lektro.com]. Ultimately, the move to electric might be inevitable for all aircraft tugs, given the unique requirements of airports (such as the weight of the batteries actually being a positive, since aircraft tugs are commonly ballasted down to enhance traction).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More and more of the tugs are electric nowadays. But you have to have the infrastructure at the airport to charge them, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they not plug airplanes into "shore" power when parked at the gate? I know some might have a small turbine generator for this, but I'd wager it's not practical to run that all the time at the gate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, planes are typically hooked up to power (and HVAC) at the jet bridge when they dock; running on jet engine power is terribly expensive. (When planes are in the air, the electric power is often generated by turbines that run on bleed air from the jet engine compressors) The electrical hook-up requires specialized converters and wiring, as most planes use 400 Hz power.
And as far as the GP goes, what is "the same fuel everything els
Re: (Score:2)
Do any of the nominally diesel vehicles get setup to run on jet fuel? I would think that might be kind of convenient and plausible considering how close jet fuel is to diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
The towing limit on most cars is because cars accelerate and brake going up and down hills, and have to cope with lateral acceleration forces on the trailer in turns.
Honestly if it was a closed track a rally driver could tow way faster or way more than legal street limits. A "friend of mine" pulled a 300 kg overweight trailer, apart from being down to 50 km/h in an 80 km/h zone at the top of a long and steep hill it was no problem at all. If the trailer got good brakes stopping in a straight line is also fine. The problem is if you have to brake in a turn, if that trailer starts going sideways or yanking you sideways you'll have no control at all. The greatest danger th
Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is if you have to brake in a turn, if that trailer starts going sideways or yanking you sideways you'll have no control at all.
Towing limits are affected by literally every part of a vehicle which is involved in its actual function. The frame or unit body, suspension, brakes, powertrain, wheels, and tires all play their part. Tow ratings are limited by all of these components. Further, each of these components has multiple factors; the frame/body not only has to be able to handle the stresses involved, but its size is a factor; increasing the distance between the tow hitch and the rear axle means decreasing the amount of weight you can place on the tongue, for example, because too much will lift the front axle off of the ground and prevent steering. Consequently, shorter vehicles tend to have higher tow ratings, all else being equal. However, a longer wheelbase is also better for towing, because it means more end-to-end stability...
Re: (Score:2)
My '97 K3500 V8 Turbo Diesel with a goose neck hitch is rated to tow 8500 pounds. A new F-150 V6 is rated to tow 9500 pounds from the bumper hitch. Something's not right there.
If I had to guess, which I do because I don't feel like researching all the differences, I'd guess that they boil down to brakes, ABS improvements, frame material, axle material, vehicle weight (less vehicle weight means more towing capacity to a point, although it does mean you need trailer brakes for lighter loads), and transmission capabilities. The new F-150 has a ten speed automagic slush box, which as I recall means it has not just a bunch of overdrives but also a super low first gear. The front suspe
QANTAS not Quantas (Score:2)
It was originally an acronym, not a name. /rant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a Quantas?
QANTAS is a world renowned airline and an acronym: Queensland And Northern Territory Air Services.
Marketing stunts are getting lame (Score:2)
Porsche pulling A-380: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Volkswagen Touareg pulling a 747: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Man pulling Globemaster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I guess even these guys would be able to pull an airplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Too little, too late (Score:2)
If you want to set an electric towing record, you have to do better than this [wikipedia.org].
the real trick will be ... (Score:4, Funny)
The vehicle pulling Tesla into financial viability
I took part in a plane pull competition (Score:2)
The impressive thing to me is the Tesla maintained traction. My car has the power to pull a plane. I don't know if it had the traction though
Re: (Score:2)
Behold! The power of the wheel! (Score:2)
Making heavy loads oh so much less heavy.
How does that compare to a train? [youtube.com]
Aircraft Carriers are nuclear-electric (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might be able to create a powerwall carrying battery-electric train engine for moving cars around the yard. Cutting down the noise and pollution in train yards.
Light rail is a good application for battery electric trains; you can even include a pantograph or wireless charger so that it can charge at stations. But moving trains around either is done only occasionally in which case you want a diesel with a transmission because it's cheap (you can move the train in sections if need be), or frequently in which case you need a diesel with an electric drive because that's what you can refuel rapidly and what will also be able to get the job done. EVs potentially make se
Conveniently missing (Score:2)
from the video is the beginning of this marketing stunt.
Is how long it took to get it moving and or the tug that helped the tesla get it started.
Re: (Score:2)
4 seconds for 0-100km/h
Car = Balls (Score:2)
You mean balls can replace a car ?
Or better, can a car replace balls?
Some people have no other option.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars have been used as prosthesis for shortcomings in other departments for ages.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch the Mini-Cooper ad [youtube.com].
Re: Excuse me? (Score:2)
these puny little golf-cart-like vehicles pull planes all over the tarmac.
You mean those puny little cart-like vehicles that are 'all motor and drivetrain' and very likely weigh at least five tons?
Re: (Score:2)
...built like tanks. (Score:2)
Anything bigger uses big diesel tugs that are built like tanks.
Sometime *literally* like tanks (Aliens) [wikia.com]
(or the soviet reversal thereof).
People Pulling Train Car (Score:5, Insightful)
On a flat section of track, your average NFL lineman could pull a train car.
It' not about the weight,. It's about the Friction Force.
Re:People Pulling Train Car (Score:5, Insightful)
We see this type of stunt all the time. Often with Pickup Truck commercials. But this plays to Tesla's marketing strategy, of Showing their all electric cars to be just as powerful if not more so, then the best gasoline cars in their classification.
Which is opposed to other electric car makers who show off these cars as just Electric, but nothing really exciting about them, and rather lack luster in comparison of other cars in their class.
The stunt of pulling a 747 or a freight train... When using a flat surface and properly conditioned low friction wheels. Just needs enough energy to get past the static friction, then energy to account to the existing friction. Now if the Testla would be able to accelerate the plane from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds that would be impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People Pulling Train Car (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My lawn tractor can tow a 787 on flat, level ground as well. F=ma. Doesn't matter what m is, if you have a net force, you have acceleration. It doesn't take much force to overcome wheel bearing friction in landing gear.
Even with full inflation there is an amount of flexing in the plane's tires that adds up to non trivial resistance. Your lawn tractor's engine may be able to do it but its own weight and tires may not provide enough traction to pull the plane.