A380 Reversers

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Just read on A.net! Interesting to note, the A380 only has 2 Thrust Reversers...

Have a look at this picture:

Cheers,
Ashar

[Craig.]

yeah, the outboard engines are so close to the grass they had to do that to avoid them sucking anything in.

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

I'm guessing you hate the A380

Chill, I don't mind anyone hating the A380.

Cheers,
Ashar

[C]

yeah, the outboard engines are so close to the grass they had to do that to avoid them sucking anything in.

You mean blowing anything out - the airflow out of the outboard engines thrust "reversers" would probably take half a second to dig a small hole in any unreiforced non metalled/solid surface if they overhang the runway/taxiway...

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

I think the A380 is some kind of big a$$ show off kind of thingy. Airports around the world are in need of new terminals and newer things to accomodate the giant.

Cheers,
Ashar

[C]

I think the A380 is some kind of big a$$ show off kind of thingy. Airports around the world are in need of new terminals and newer things to accomodate the giant.

It's a sensible aeroplane, and with Boeing not wanting to directly build a successor as large as the 747, Airbus saw a potential opportunity...

[Craig.]

I'm guessing you hate the A380

I would love to know how you got that from my post. You asked a question i gave you the answer.

You mean blowing anything out - the airflow out of the outboard engines thrust "reversers" would probably take half a second to dig a small hole in any unreiforced non metalled/solid surface if they overhang the runway/taxiway...

Both. Anything it couldn't suck up it would blow out. If that isnt confusing i dont know what is

[C]

Would have been a darn sight easier if they'd stayed with the priciples establised on the Comet, and tucked them up in the wing roots...

[Woodlouse2002]

They'd look a darn sight better too.

[Hagar]

Poor old Craig. It seems you've been misunderstood again. Not sure what that was all about but never mind.

The Comet idea might look better but it has problems of its own. The engines are closer to the fuselage for a start which is both noisier & could affect the fuselage structure. I've seen photos of cabin windows shot-blasted by the reverse thrust before now. I think having the engines on pylons below the wings is easier to manufacture & also for engine maintenance/replacement. This is obviously the most economical way of doing it.

PS. It also leaves more room for fuel.

[Woodlouse2002]

This is obviously the most economical way of doing it.

It was the American way of doing it. If the first Comet's didn't have their nasty habit of disintegrating at cruise altitude then the chances are the British design of having the engines in the wings would have caught on.

[Hagar]

Not sure about that Woody. Having the engines mounted in the wings weakens the wing structure just where you don't need it so the centre section has to be stronger. This also makes it heavier & the engines take up space that can be used for fuel.

[C]

It was the American way of doing it. If the first Comet's didn't have their nasty habit of disintegrating at cruise altitude then the chances are the British design of having the engines in the wings would have caught on.

It did with the Nimrod and the MRA4 (apparently they may now call it something other than "Nimrod")...

[Woodlouse2002]

That's cause the Nimrod was not so loosely based on the Comet.

[C]

That's cause the Nimrod was not so loosely based on the Comet.

Was it? I could never have guessed!