RJ reverse thrust... overdose!

[CF34-3B1]

Helps keep the BTMS numbers in the green on short turns.

 

[DoinTime]

The best reason I can think of is FOD ingestion, since if you've watched an aircraft going slowly with reverse thrust, you'll see all kinds of you know what flying into those fan blades that gets blown up by the thrust going in the "wrong" direction.

Having max reverse going at taxi speeds probably isn't a great idea but maintaining a good forward airspeed keeps the inlets clear of any redirected air. Judging by the number of powerbacks that NW utilizes it cant be to hard on the engines anyway.

 

[wahoo250]

they wouldnt make it if it wasnt supposed to be used.

 

[blzr]

You guys ever use the TR's during taxi? (just the bucket, no reverse). We used them for the last brake cycle and got 300 more landings out of our brakes than before. 'Course we only weigh 24k as opposed to 50-60k.

 

[wahoo250]

You guys ever use the TR's during taxi? (just the bucket, no reverse). We used them for the last brake cycle and got 300 more landings out of our brakes than before. 'Course we only weigh 24k as opposed to 50-60k.

used to fly for a corp company where the brakes were hardly ever used. same thing was observed heavier airplane also. they say you cant taxi on the 145's with tr's but how many times do you see g4's and so on do it with essentially the same engine mounted the same distance from the ground. i think its all bs. you can say dont pressurize an airplane because its stresses the airframe. where do you want to stop overanalyzing. The worst thing to do to a car engine is to start it in the morning, WTF?

 

[CitationLover]

our company limits max reverse to 75kias from it is idle.

i know some bizjets have to taxi with one or two buckets out when taxiing downhill to avoid overspeeding.

yes on the crj the brake temps are about 3-4 units cooler with reverse and little brakes versus brakes only. besides i do not want to feel any heat from them while i do my walkaround. nice and cool checking out the mlg assembly with reversers!

 

[Strikefinder]

You guys ever use the TR's during taxi? (just the bucket, no reverse). We used them for the last brake cycle and got 300 more landings out of our brakes than before. 'Course we only weigh 24k as opposed to 50-60k.

The question is this: how long did the engine last by doing it?

Of course you'll increase brake life by using TRs. That goes without saying. The question is that over the life of the plane, are you going to still come out ahead if the engine is replaced a year earlier?

It may vary by engine type, aircraft type, and the type of operation. There may be some operators who benefit more by using TRs than brakes or vice versa. I don't have hard numbers for you, other than what the manufacturer has told me, and I admit that doesn't make my evidence any more than anecdotal. Again, the way I look at it is the same way I drive my car: that I downshift multiple times to help my car stop, and it will, undoubtedly, increase my brake pad life. However, I'll have to replace the clutch sooner, which is much more expensive and labor intensive. So rather than downshifting, I just put the shifter to neutral and use the brake pads.

As an aside, our procedures preclude me from using TRs during taxi. When I flew for another company, both their manufacturer and the company policy was to never use TRs during taxi unless an emergency dictated its use.

they wouldnt make it if it wasnt supposed to be used.

Just because it's on the aircraft doesn't mean you should use it on every landing, or to its fullest potential. My engines have 110% power available, but we typically use 90% for takeoff. Why? It saves engine life, for a negligible loss in safety buffer. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use absolute firewall power when it's necessary, but I limit use of full power until circumstances where it is necessary to take advantage of it.

TRs are put on aircraft as another method of stopping the aircraft, particularly effective on slick or icy runway surfaces or in the case of brake failure or asymmetry. Yet the landing numbers for my aircraft are calculated without even putting them to idle reverse thrust, much less full reverse. Just because they are installed does not mean that the manufacturer intended their full use at every possible opportunity.

Again, I use reverse thrust in a number of circumstances. When landing in EYW, for instance, or on 26 in PHL. Or when traffic is crawling in behind us in LGA. Or on icy or slippery runways. I don't, however, run the thing at full power in reverse on a dry, 10,000 foot runway with nobody behind me. Again, cost aside, I don't like having my head buried in the seat back pocket in front of me as I occasionally do when riding in the back. I would hope that anybody with enough training to be sitting in a jet airplane could come up with a better reason to do something than "it's there."

 

[wahoo250]

agree 100 percent. didnt mean it that way but i have flown with captains at my present company that will comment on the fact that i even pop them. then they jam on the brakes to show that you dont need them to stop the plane. this was on a 10000 ft strip with no one behind us and my intention was to slow the airplane without using that much brake or reversers. a combination of the two, reversers at higher speeds and brakes at lower speeds will definately improve anyones technique when both are used in moderation. brakes are a lot more effective as more weight is transfered from the wings to the wheels. again i agree with your last post.

 

[blzr]

Strike, we use the buckets, not the actual reverse. By alternating buckets on taxi, we don't risk overheating them, and by not using reverse, no rise in ITT or rpm, we shouldn't be hurting the engine so long as we are moving foreward.

I do agree that they shouldn't be used on every landing, but the other guy complains that we are costing the boss money by using the brakes. I just can't win. Anyway, my POH doesn't say anything one way or the other about TR use during taxi.

 

[dav8or]

If you want to see how bad it is for the engine watch the ITT the next time you bury them. Pop the buckets at TD and use the brakes.

 

[Kaman]

I would think it would be more prudent to preserve your brake/tire life by using a combination of reverse and brakes. This is an important consideration if you are doing alot of quick turns, and you are doing high brake energy roll-outs on a hot day. Also, every landing is has a different set of variables that constantly change even for the same runway/same day.

 

[trip]

The company says use revervse not the brakes- and they pay the bills!

 

[Cardinal]

I think airline passengers, after 50 years of antiskid, spoilers, and reverse, are used to being deccellerated.

Use an approriate level of decceleration for the circumstances, as dictated by common sense. Passenger comfort will follow. Yet on the dark and stormy night MY comfort is much more important.

 

[BlackPilot628]

We use full reverse on the E170 on every landing; unless you're landing on a 8000 runway and the terminal is upwind of the landing runway.
The brakes on the E170 have a bad problem of heating up and 1 out of the 4 Overtemping to the point it locks up and/or begins to smoke.

 

[inthewind]

When I was at Indy it was near full reverse until 80 kts idle by 60 and the Capt would close the buckets when down to taxi speed. I found that by cracking the reversers just above idle while the nose was still in the air this kept the nose from slamming down since the engines are above the wing.
In the LR-35 that I now fly we often land on runways that are less than 5000' and since we tanker as much fuel as we can from home we are sometimes near max landing weight. In those situations I always use max reverse because I don't want to taxi up to the pumps like SWA did in BUR.