I love reverse thrust, especially when the runway is wet and it causes loads of spray. It looks fantastic! Enjoying these short videos on interesting subjects in the aviation World.
Love plane landing. I like to look outside to see the wing extend, the engine start to sound louder, vibration getting stronger. It is like a mini thrill.
It sucks air in from the front of the plane and it pushes the same air back to the front, it sounds like these forces should cancel each other, how does this work? And we are just talking about the air which is sucked by the fan, the core of the engine still pushes the hot air to the back...
yes, the core still produces forward thrust, but not as much. The largest portion of thrust comes from the fan. No, the forces don't cancel each other out :)
3 года назад+2
@@AirspaceVideos I know it works, otherwise they won't use it, I just don't understand how.... it sounds like blowing your own sail.
Think about it that way: The hot section provides, for example, 5% forward thrust. The cold, reversed section provided 100% reverse thrust So you have like 95% reverse thrust. The turning of the fan (sucking in air) alone does not provide any thrust! Only when the air is blown in a direction, thrust is generated.
that's what I thought, and why I clicked on this. The rearward thrust of the bypass is created by the forward thrust on the blades, and a backwards thrust is created by the thrust redirecting diverter. They should be the same. It obviously works, but I can't figure out what I'm missing. It's like using a fan on a sailboat.
@@JeffersonLane762100% agree. I have the same doubt. The question is: are we sure that with the reverse thrust we actually producing a total net thrust which is reversed? In other words the plane would really go backwards or it is that with the reverse thrust we are just instantly reducing a lot the net forward thrust and this plus the flaps and the wheel brakes actually brake the plane?
Most thrust comes from the fan on a turbofan engine, right? The force vector on the blades of the fan propel the engine forward. How does directing the exhaust or any air after the fan blades forward generate a force vector? Does the air "push against the air?"
I suppose that all modern jet airliners are designed with reverse thrust for landing, but I have seen them land without using the reverse thrust - and rely on the brakes, (plus sometimes the spoilers). My question is; how long would a runway have to be to assure all landings would have room to stop - if no plane had reverse thrust OR brakes? 15,000? 20,000? ???
This is a tricky question - the case of total brake failure and total reverser failure is so remote that it is not covered in aviation theory, and to my knowledge it has never happened before. As far as I know, the worst case that ever was was the one of Qantas 32 (I have a video describing this flight!). They used almost 4000m of runway to stop their A380 with many failures. For the A320 and A330, the worst case is about 3400m of landing distance required!
I had a pilot once tell me his airline encouraged them to not use reverse thrust in standard landings for cost reasons. Never knew why though. Fuel costs? Wouldn't brake maintenance increase if they get pushed harder every landing?
I would say all aircraft that have them deploy the spoilers on landing, it spoils the aerodynamic effect the wing has and puts the weight of the aircraft on the wheels
Yes, and some modern turboprop can reverse without a ground tug. ATR, Dash 8 for example. But they don’t, because it’s less efficient. Has to be a reason to use it in today’s industry. But I do love radials. Have to go to air shows now to see/hear them.
One important update. In fact commercial jets have and can push back with reverse thrust. ( can see videos on RUclips). I speak to smaller jets such as the DC-9. MD-80 and Fokker -100. These all have bucket reversers and can an and have done a push back from the gate. This was most common with the DC-9 aircraft. ruclips.net/video/zG_u_B5d7cQ/видео.html
You do not understand jet engines, poor explanation and ability to differentiate between the bypass/fan, low pressure/cold, and high pressure/hot sections
small aircraft no, they do not have reverse thrust, it is not necessary. Some medium sized turboprops like the PC-12 have some form of reverse thrust - they use a propeller that can be set to provide reverse thrust, that's called "beta range" then.
Very interesting, love the new casual format :)
Thank you! :)
I love reverse thrust, especially when the runway is wet and it causes loads of spray. It looks fantastic!
Enjoying these short videos on interesting subjects in the aviation World.
you are talking about fucking
Wonderful, concise vid. Thank you
Love plane landing. I like to look outside to see the wing extend, the engine start to sound louder, vibration getting stronger. It is like a mini thrill.
Very well explained. Thanks.
Perfect! Thank you!
It sucks air in from the front of the plane and it pushes the same air back to the front, it sounds like these forces should cancel each other, how does this work? And we are just talking about the air which is sucked by the fan, the core of the engine still pushes the hot air to the back...
yes, the core still produces forward thrust, but not as much. The largest portion of thrust comes from the fan.
No, the forces don't cancel each other out :)
@@AirspaceVideos I know it works, otherwise they won't use it, I just don't understand how.... it sounds like blowing your own sail.
Think about it that way:
The hot section provides, for example, 5% forward thrust.
The cold, reversed section provided 100% reverse thrust
So you have like 95% reverse thrust.
The turning of the fan (sucking in air) alone does not provide any thrust! Only when the air is blown in a direction, thrust is generated.
that's what I thought, and why I clicked on this. The rearward thrust of the bypass is created by the forward thrust on the blades, and a backwards thrust is created by the thrust redirecting diverter. They should be the same. It obviously works, but I can't figure out what I'm missing. It's like using a fan on a sailboat.
@@JeffersonLane762100% agree. I have the same doubt. The question is: are we sure that with the reverse thrust we actually producing a total net thrust which is reversed? In other words the plane would really go backwards or it is that with the reverse thrust we are just instantly reducing a lot the net forward thrust and this plus the flaps and the wheel brakes actually brake the plane?
Your the best❤🎉
Very good!
Most thrust comes from the fan on a turbofan engine, right? The force vector on the blades of the fan propel the engine forward. How does directing the exhaust or any air after the fan blades forward generate a force vector? Does the air "push against the air?"
Have a look at @2:10, the diagram explains how the fan air that would normally be pushed out the back is redirected forward
Lv this content ❤❤
Here in ATL, Value jet us to use reverse thrust to back out the gate
Some planes have hot and cold reverse like the 707 with the turbo fan has it and the C-17 has it
I suppose that all modern jet airliners are designed with reverse thrust for landing, but I have seen them land without using the reverse thrust - and rely on the brakes, (plus sometimes the spoilers). My question is; how long would a runway have to be to assure all landings would have room to stop - if no plane had reverse thrust OR brakes? 15,000? 20,000? ???
This is a tricky question - the case of total brake failure and total reverser failure is so remote that it is not covered in aviation theory, and to my knowledge it has never happened before. As far as I know, the worst case that ever was was the one of Qantas 32 (I have a video describing this flight!). They used almost 4000m of runway to stop their A380 with many failures. For the A320 and A330, the worst case is about 3400m of landing distance required!
I had a pilot once tell me his airline encouraged them to not use reverse thrust in standard landings for cost reasons. Never knew why though. Fuel costs?
Wouldn't brake maintenance increase if they get pushed harder every landing?
I would say all aircraft that have them deploy the spoilers on landing, it spoils the aerodynamic effect the wing has and puts the weight of the aircraft on the wheels
Thanks
Used to be common to see a diesel 9 power out of the gate rather than wait 10 minutes for a tug to show up.
Yes, and some modern turboprop can reverse without a ground tug. ATR, Dash 8 for example. But they don’t, because it’s less efficient. Has to be a reason to use it in today’s industry. But I do love radials. Have to go to air shows now to see/hear them.
so... it's COLD air thrust reverse on some engines?
exactly
@@AirspaceVideos Thank You!
One important update. In fact commercial jets have and can push back with reverse thrust. ( can see videos on RUclips). I speak to smaller jets such as the DC-9. MD-80 and Fokker -100. These all have bucket reversers and can an and have done a push back from the gate. This was most common with the DC-9 aircraft. ruclips.net/video/zG_u_B5d7cQ/видео.html
Simply braking by blowing your own sails in the opposite direction.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I can't take anyone who pronounces aluminum with 2 I's seriously
Oh my sweet, sweet american child
@@AirspaceVideos😂
Poorly explained
Are you an idiot?
Rude
Why?
Youre just slow
Wrong
Why do you have to include tht shitty instrumental music 😏
You do not understand jet engines, poor explanation and ability to differentiate between the bypass/fan, low pressure/cold, and high pressure/hot sections
Pretty sure I do but ok
@@AirspaceVideos don't worry Rayanair sent him
I think he did ok. You need to remember he is talking to the general public that don’t know what the inside of a jet engine looks like
Hello mister I want to talk with you
Please give me a response
Do Cessna also have reverse thrust
small aircraft no, they do not have reverse thrust, it is not necessary. Some medium sized turboprops like the PC-12 have some form of reverse thrust - they use a propeller that can be set to provide reverse thrust, that's called "beta range" then.