Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

RJ reverse thrust... overdose!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Xjt just put guidance about reversers in the CFM... They want us to pop the buckets and use brakes go into reverse only if you need it.
 
Strikefinder said:
Tell that to the folks that manufacture the several million dollars worth of propulsion on your aircraft.

I've been told that full reverse is EXTREMELY hard on most jet engines. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if you need to, but a half empty aircraft landing in daylight on a dry 10,000 foot runway is not "needing to".

How is it hard on the engines? I have been told the opposite. Of course it could depend on the engine. I heard that Jet Blue doesnt use mush reverse either. But using alot does get loud, and may be uncomfortable on the PAX in the back! I learned and have been told that its much better on the brakes, which in the long run will be replaced more, if you use thrust reverse. What I hate, and I have noticed this alot flying on the airlines is the TRs get deployed for like a second or two, then stowed, then the pilot slams on the breaks.

I agree, long runway nice day land long. In some cases. Try doing that a IAD and see how many go around fly by your head!!

fly safe!!
 
Last edited:
Strikefinder said:
Tell that to the folks that manufacture the several million dollars worth of propulsion on your aircraft.

I've been told that full reverse is EXTREMELY hard on most jet engines. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if you need to, but a half empty aircraft landing in daylight on a dry 10,000 foot runway is not "needing to".

please educate me regarding this. we're just redirecting bypass air and spooling the engine up.
 
Stealthh21 said:
How is it hard on the engines? I have been told the opposite. The effect of Using reverse thrust is negligible.

What I've been told by the Embraer representatives is that use of deep reverse is very hard on engine components. What I was told was that it was "about three times as bad as a full power takeoff" (we typically use a reduced, or "ALT" takeoff on the Embraer 145). 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. Also the pressure on the reverser doors (depending on what type you have), etc. I'm certain there are more reasons.

Furthermore, the implementation of "minimum reverse thrust" procedures by the cash-strapped airlines implies to me that there is some consensus that use of reverse thrust is hard on the engines.

Don't get me wrong, aircraft brake pads are expensive and all. I don't downshift when I stop my car, though, since the clutch is more expensive to replace than a $15 brake pad.

I agree, long runway nice day land long. In some cases. Try doing that a IAD and see how many go around fly by your head!!

Of course there are places where more aggresive use of TRs is required (though even in IAD, I scarcely need to use the TRs past idle to get stopped quickly, and several of our aircraft have no TRs installed and I've never had anybody behind me in IAD go-around).

I would never imply that there isn't a reason to use TRs in certain circumstances. Simply because you landed on a 10,000 foot runway but you want to prove that you can get off in 3,000 feet is not a good reason to dig deep into reverse until you're passing ten knots while locking the brakes from touchdown. Even if it's not hard on the aircraft, it's hard on the people in the back who paid your salary that day, and that's enough reason for me.
 
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.
 
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.
 
blzr said:
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?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top