737 Experience Landing

[pepper_airborne]

Yes, indeed.

Isnt deploying reversers in the air the worst thing you can do?

And the Bombadier CRJ600 doesnt like the reverser to become active when your backwheels are on the ground, it pulls the nose back and then smashes it back to the runway. Though this also could be a problem with the plane itself. Its the POSKY one.

Technicly i was below 10FT, it deployed them a second or so my co-pilot anounced 10ft.

And spoilers on the ground seems to pull the nose down a lot when still on the backwheels, so i think i should just apply some breaking, lower the nose, and then activate reservers/spoilers.

[expat]

Are you sure?  :-?
Doesn't the throttle need to be idle for the reversers to work anyway?

100%, it is my daily bread to know these things and yes the throttle does need to be at idle, as it is anyway at that stage of flight under normal circumstances.

Matt

[FridayChild]

Woops... I didn't imagine you were an airline pilot.
If it is so, then how could I not trust you, even though it sounded strange to me that thrust reversers could be deployed when still airborne. For sure I never saw that happen. I was also under the impression that pilots tended to not use the reversers at all if not necessary (I don't know if to avoid unnecessary noise, wear to the engines, stress to the passengers) though in my experience they almost always used them (in all cases, we had already touched down with all gears).
But... I'll trust you.  ;)

[ashaman]

IRL on some planes is possible to deploy trust reverser in flight, among those planes I seem to remember the DC9, but it's highly discouraged to do such.

On other planes reverse trust in flight is actually a necessity. I'm speaking of the DC8 in particular, plane born with highly ineffective fuselage mounted airbrakes and that uses the reverse trust of the inboard engines to slow down.

In a vast majority of planes (among which is the 737) there's a sensor on the gear that has to report both that the gear is touching ground AND that the wheels are rolling. If said sensor doesn't report such, the opening of the thrust reverser is inhibited.

In FS (unless the plane itself had been programmed to do so, and the various 737 aren't) reverse thrust in flight is impossible, so it's a exercise in futility to try.

[eno]

As far as I know there was only one aircraft certified for using reverse thrust in flight ...... the BAC1-11 Tristar reverse thrust was used to make descents of 6000+ feet/min.

[microlight]

Hi all.

The 737 Experience FD was designed around a real-world landing configuration for full load, flaps at 30, with a projected fuel load of around 25-30% remaining. For this, I make the approach at around 145 kts which works well. I have a dedicated autoland gauge for the 737 which is set to make the approach at 146 kts, and it works like a dream. I'll include it with the next update, if y'all think it might be worth doing.

[pepper_airborne]

Thanks for clearing that up! I was on 40 flaps, wich can make it quite heavy, especialy in variable winds(even tailwinds).

The autoland might be nice, though i prefer doing it myself.

[N2744X]

I'll have to try landing at that speed with the proper weight. I usually go by what the FMC tells me in terms of landing speed.

Speaking of real life 747, 165 knots (without wind correction) is rather high a landing speed. Though I'm no authority on this matter and we'd need the input of someone with direct experience, it's at least 10 knots higher than what I've ever known the landing speed of a full loaded 744 usually is.

What 744 are you using anyway, the iFly or the PMDG?

I just spoke with my friend who is currently a captain for UAL. He cflies 752's and 762's full time, and used to be a first officer on a 742. He says that the final approach speed in the 747 is about 150 over the fence, and 140 on touchdown. Same with the 757 and 767s

[pepper_airborne]

Yeah, it is indeed the most natural way to control the plane.

[expat]

Woops... I didn't imagine you were an airline pilot.
If it is so, then how could I not trust you, even though it sounded strange to me that thrust reversers could be deployed when still airborne. For sure I never saw that happen. I was also under the impression that pilots tended to not use the reversers at all if not necessary (I don't know if to avoid unnecessary noise, wear to the engines, stress to the passengers) though in my experience they almost always used them (in all cases, we had already touched down with all gears).
But... I'll trust you.  ;)

Alas I am not, just a humble licensed 737 mechanic. As for the use of thrust reverse, it has one primary use and one secondary. The primary use is to lengthen the life of the brakes on the aircraft. If you used brakes to stop all the time, you are going to be changing them at a horrific rate. Not only that, it would not be possible to build then quick enough. For example it takes 6 months to produce a set of aircraft carbon disk brakes. Reason, they have to sit in a pressure vessel in a very specific mixture of gases for all of this time. Maybe a more chemically minded member could elaborate on the process. The second function is if it has all gone wrong and thrust reverse is all you have. Saying that below 60 kts (pilots also report 90kts) they become relatively useless. So they are very important and will 90% or more of the time be used.

As far as I know there was only one aircraft certified for using reverse thrust in flight ...... the BAC1-11 Tristar reverse thrust was used to make descents of 6000+ feet/min.

Though not certified in civilian life (yet?), the C17 Globe Master can deploy in flight for a tactical descent. I have heard up to 20000 fpm, though if you youtube it you can find videos of about 12000 fpm.

Matt

[Zaphod]

Alas I am not, just a humble licensed 737 mechanic.

Matt

Trust me Matt. When I,m at 35,000 ft the people I'm thinking of are you good guys who keep the thing airworthy. If worst comes to worst they can always ask me to land the thing

Respect to you.

Zaphod (Paul)

[expat]

Alas I am not, just a humble licensed 737 mechanic.

Matt

Trust me Matt. When I,m at 35,000 ft the people I'm thinking of are you good guys who keep the thing airworthy. If worst comes to worst they can always ask me to land the thing

Respect to you.

Zaphod (Paul)

Matt

[Conan Edogawa]

Sometimes I had the problem that when I'm landing and the flaps are fully out, I get a stall and have to go around immediatly. That was just because I had to much fuel on board (I hate it when some planes have too much fuel loaded on default).

[pepper_airborne]

Yeah, and someone once told me most planes dont land on 40 flaps anymore, deu to the problems with aborting the landing.

[ashaman]

Sometimes I had the problem that when I'm landing and the flaps are fully out, I get a stall and have to go around immediatly. That was just because I had to much fuel on board (I hate it when some planes have too much fuel loaded on default).

One of the first things a captain has to do before even declaring the plane ready to start the APU is to check the damn fuel. In FS, no matter if by default the Jet-A (or other kinds of fuel) is more or less what you like. You don't take off without a good figure of the amount of fuel needed and do not take more than needed without a more than damnedest good reason.

After all you can always take away from the tanks what you don't need, being attentive to remain with the fuel needed plus the due reserves and eventual captain discretion.