3 ms·
>There is a possibility the brakes are still available and not worn through, and this is a preemptive measure to leave enough brake material to handle an emerge
by ramesh31 3y ago
>There is a possibility the brakes are still available and not worn through, and this is a preemptive measure to leave enough brake material to handle an emergency rejected takeoff while avoiding "unnecessary" braking on landing by using the reversers instead.
The brake question is irrelevent. This will put unimaginable stress on the already taxed engines, which are orders of magnitude more expensive and complex to maintain. It's not something that is possibly sustainable at all. Typical magical thinking. "Well we can see the brake pads are running low, and we can't get any more. We can't see the fact that the engines are about to explode, so we'll just go with that."
- eesmith 3y ago> unimaginable stress It's quite imaginable. Already "most of the work of stopping a commercial aircraft is done through the use of thrust reversers", so it's not all that more than they do now. > We can't see the fact that the engines are about to explode, There's nothing magical about thrust reversers which make it impossible to inspect for increased engine wear and tear.
- stef25 3y agoIs it kind of like shifting down gears in a car to slow down?
- eesmith 3y agoNo, it's not like engine breaking (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_braking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_braking for a description of why that works). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_reversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_reversal describes thrust reversal nicely: > On aircraft using jet engines, thrust reversal is accomplished by causing the jet blast to flow forward. The engine does not run or rotate in reverse; instead, thrust reversing devices are used to block the blast and redirect it forward. Take a look at the video of "A target-type thrust reverser being deployed" for an example.