Talk:Thrust reversal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

The text states "the illustration shows a Target Reverser, where all of the efflux is reversed." Is there a missing illustration? This made me wonder if the text might be a copyvio (i.e., copied from a source with the illustration in question) but nothing turned up in a Google search. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western Airlines 311 was a airliner that crashed in 1978 in Cranbrook, BC, Canada. It was a 737 that was making a landing early, so they had to abort due to the snowplow still being on the runway. When they took off, Reverser 1 jammed and caused a crash. I don't know if the flight number is 311, but I remember hearing about it. I'll reasearch it and come back later. It might be worth adding to the article.Delta Elite

Contents 1 rename proposal 2 idle reverse thrust 3 Automatic deployment? 4 No reverse for 247or DC-2, and is reverse pitch the same as reverse thrust?

[edit] rename proposal

Shouldn't this really be called Thrust reversal or thrust reversers, rather than reverse thrust. I once read a comment by a pilot who said "Reverse thrusters are what spaceships have, thrust reversers are what airplanes have".--Joe 1987 12:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] idle reverse thrust

The explanation of the reverser itself makes perfect sense, however I have no idea what it means for an engine to 'spool up'. As far as I could tell from the article, normal operation of the reverser simply involves the reverser being activated, I didn't read about any other changes to the engine. --Rb 12:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic deployment?

I'll have to see some sources for aircraft with automatically deployed thrust reversers... Automatic wheel brakes and automatic ground spoilers are fairly common, but I dont' think I've ever seen an aircraft with automatic thrust reversers.

I agree, I have experience of the operation of many modern commercial airliners and have never come across 'automatic' reverse thrust deployment. Essentially this would be very dangerous as the flight crew may decide to execute a go-around after the aircraft has touched down for several reasons, and they are not permitted to do this if reverse thrust has already been deployed. As there is no source for this feature being installed on any aircraft I will remove this reference in a week or two unless anyone wishes to provide a source (don't think they will find one though!). 82.44.26.36 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - I have amended the article accordingly to remove reference to automatic deployment.

[edit] No reverse for 247or DC-2, and is reverse pitch the same as reverse thrust?

The "Multiengine" section lists the Boeing 247 and Douglas DC-2 as being the first planes to ahve reverse thrust. I don't believe this is true. Both planes had variable-pitch propellers, but I do not believe they had a reverse-pitch range. Can anyone confirm this?

Also, it's questionable whether a reverse-pitch propeller is the same thing as reverse thrust. Many people think of the prop as a giant fan, but as far as I know it's actually a rotating wing. Changing the pitch changes the blades' angle of attack and increases "lift" (which pulls the plane forward). Hence the prop works even when there's not a clear path behind it (ie the plane's fueselage). When a prop is reversed, is it not creating lift in the opposite direction, just as an elevator can create lift "up" or "down" to change the whole plane's AoA? And if that's the case, does it really count as reverse thrust? If I'm correct, it's not "blowing" the thrust forward as in a jet engine, its' creating lift that pulls backwards and slows the plane.