Video: 737 reverse thrust in the air?

Skåning

Skåning

Well-Known Member
I didn't even know this was possible, thought jetz needed weight on wheels! Cooler than beta in the flare?

 
Yup. Less than 10 feet RA with thrust levers at idle. But that's a good way to bounce on touchdown.
 
The way the plane immediately came down makes me think maybe it affects the airflow over the wing as well. That thing dropped.
 
killbilly said:
I did this.

With a CFI on board.

It was awesome.

@bucksmith



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Moving the flap or gear handle inside of whatever stabilized approach criteria you have set is somewhere between incredibly stupid and extremely dangerous.

I know a guy who did that in a light twin and grabbed the gear handle by mistake. He bought himself a 709 ride with that one. Cash transaction.

I know it's a joke around these parts, but the practice is an incredibly easy way to get yourself in trouble.
 
Riddle me this:

During landing, at 9 ft RA the PF engages the reversers, and drops like the proverbial rock. And for some reason, when the plane bounces with the reversers out, the RA indication exceeds 10 ft. What happen to the reversers? This got to thinking about the LR60 accident at CAE.
 
deadstick said:
Riddle me this:

During landing, at 9 ft RA the PF engages the reversers, and drops like the proverbial rock. And for some reason, when the plane bounces with the reversers out, the RA indication exceeds 10 ft. What happen to the reversers? This got to thinking about the LR60 accident at CAE.
Click to expand...
CAE? Nah, in the sim, they do what they want. ;)

Seriously, I was wondering that too. I'd never heard of flight deployable TRs before. Thinking about it, I kinda figured that perhaps the 10ft was there precisely to cover a non-intentionally induced bounced landing. You know, you come in, T/Rs deploy, but you boff it a bit and bounce back off the wheels a little. But that led me to wonder what would happen if the T/Rs were out and you elected a go around on the bounce??
I can kind see how that brings one to consider the CAE deal. The big difference there was the squat switch got blown so the TRs ended up inop. The T/R horns were electronic, not mechanical. So when she deployed the T/Rs, she didn't really deploy them, but she didn't know that. By adding "full reverse" she was actually adding full thrust. Of course, if she hadn't elected to abort after V1 all else would likely be moot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crop Duster said:
CAE? Nah, in the sim, they do what they want. ;)

Seriously, I was wondering that too. I'd never heard of flight deployable TRs before. Thinking about it, I kinda figured that perhaps the 10ft was there precisely to cover a non-intentionally induced bounced landing. You know, you come in, T/Rs deploy, but you boff it a bit and bounce back off the wheels a little. But that led me to wonder what would happen if the T/Rs were out and you elected a go around on the bounce??
Click to expand...
You'd do a Emirates 521 more or less?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top