Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mystery Behind Quiet Reversing On AC's 772LR?  
User currently offlineHappy-flier From Canada, joined exactly 15 years ago today! , 299 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

I wonder if anyone else has taken note of just how unbelievably quiet the reverse thrust is on the GE-powered 777-200LR? I flew this aircraft type with Air Canada and thought that the pilot must have just used wheel braking on landing, even though the braking was quite noticeable. But then on the return legs of the flight, which comprised two distinct flights, this same sensation was noticed: powerful braking, but none of the audible engine reverse sound that's so commonplace even on the GE-powered 763.

What gives? Have the engines really become that quiet? Or is AC using wheel braking, even just after touchdown? The latter seems unlikely.


May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5069 times:



Quoting Happy-flier (Thread starter):
Or is AC using wheel braking, even just after touchdown? The latter seems unlikely.

Most probably wheel braking and idle reverse. With carbon brakes, policies have changed somewhat over the years, and idle reverse is commonly used. Carbon brakes are also more effective, the hotter they get.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5066 times:



Quoting Happy-flier (Thread starter):
What gives? Have the engines really become that quiet? Or is AC using wheel braking, even just after touchdown? The latter seems unlikely.

Most likely just idle reverse and auto brakes. On the 744 that tends to be the most common technique for stopping during normal operations.


User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5052 times:



Quoting Happy-flier (Thread starter):
thought that the pilot must have just used wheel braking on landing, even though the braking was quite noticeable.

A common misconception that appears on this forum just about weekly is that reverse thrust the primary means of decelerating after touchdown. This is not the case; wheel brakes are the primary stopping force and RT helps out when standard operating procedure requires it or the pilot elects to use it.

As I understand it, in the vast majority of situations, reverse thrust is not factored in to the calculated landing distance. Only in certain circumstances, on certain aircraft, are landing distances calculated with the assumption that thrust reverse will contribute to stopping performance. Even then, RT only contributes a small percentage to the total braking effort.

It's also my understanding that thrust reverse was used more often in the previous era of cheap fuel and steal brakes, which wear in proportion to the amount of energy dissipated in each stop. Expensive fuel and carbon brakes, fitted to many modern planes, wear in proportion to number of appilcations, so a bit of help from the reverser has little or no advantage

I've experienced plenty of landings without the use of RT on a wide range of types, and when the reversers are deployed, the engines are often left at idle.

O



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5028 times:



Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 3):
A common misconception that appears on this forum just about weekly is that reverse thrust the primary means of decelerating after touchdown. This is not the case; wheel brakes are the primary stopping force and RT helps out when standard operating procedure requires it or the pilot elects to use it.

Not quite true. Reverse thrust is very effective at higher airspeeds, such as you have right after touchdown. As the IAS decreases, wheel brakes become more and more effective. If you watch what happens on a aircraft with autobrakes when reverse thrust is used you will see if you use a moderate amount of reverse thrust with the autobrakes in 1 or 2 or a Low setting you will see the autobrakes don't start to modulate until you are down in the 100 KIAS range.

There is really a tradeoff in stopping. I have flown for carriers that have "power by the hour" and there is no hesitation to use reverse thrust. Conversly, carriers who own their engines rely more on wheel brakes rather than anything more than idle reverse. In addition, as has been pointed out carbon brakes are now more effective than the old steel brakes.

Finally, fuel is a minor factor; you might burn 100kgs on a med twin and perhaps 200kgs on a 400. You aren't going to get much more than 70% N1 with full reverse and most likely a lower reverse thrust would be selected.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5019 times:



Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 3):
A common misconception that appears on this forum just about weekly is that reverse thrust the primary means of decelerating after touchdown. This is not the case

It's definitley the primary means here in SAN, I was on a DL 763 that landed the other night and they almost always use a large amount of thrust reversers, i'm sure it has to do with the short runway and not wanting to take any chance but it sure is loud.


User currently offlineKimberlyrj From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5003 times:

I have also flown on AC's 777's and other airlines LR's and noticed the reverse thrust sound is still there, depending on if its used.

Sometimes pilots will select reverse idle, so while the engines look they are reversing they are producing no reverse thrust...

Which airports were you landing at? Many airports don't like the noise that is produced!

Kimberly.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4990 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
Reverse thrust is very effective at higher airspeeds, such as you have right after touchdown. As the IAS decreases, wheel brakes become more and more effective.

Right, but on a dry runway the overall extra braking effort obtained is only something like 10-15% of total braking force.

Most of the perception that the braking effect of reverse thrust being huge, is no doubt based on the amount of noise produced when anything but reverse idle is used. The braking effect is certainly not proportional to the noise output  Wink


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4982 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 7):
The braking effect is certainly not proportional to the noise output

Perhaps not, but some of us love the roar  Wink



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4970 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 7):
Right, but on a dry runway the overall extra braking effort obtained is only something like 10-15% of total braking force.

??? I don't quite follow you. But, I can assure you, at higher speeds even selecting a idle reverse will generate a fairly good deceleration rate. Anything above idle reverse will give you better braking. At higher speeds reverse thrust can be upwards of 80% of the deceleration force. And the proof of this is using autobrakes while using reverse thrust. At the lower autobrake settings the antiskid won't even cycle if reverse is used.


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10349 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4953 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 5):
It's definitley the primary means here in SAN, I was on a DL 763 that landed the other night and they almost always use a large amount of thrust reversers, i'm sure it has to do with the short runway and not wanting to take any chance but it sure is loud.

Saying it's the "primary means" might be a bit misleading.

First off, SAN doesn't have a short runway. It has 7591 feet of landing length starting at the displaced threshold (and assuming operations are heading west). That's plenty of room to land most airliners, without having to slam on the brakes.

Secondly, given that reversers don't even get used below somewhere around 80 kts, brakes provide most of the stopping force from there to taxi speed.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
??? I don't quite follow you. But, I can assure you, at higher speeds even selecting a idle reverse will generate a fairly good deceleration rate. Anything above idle reverse will give you better braking. At higher speeds reverse thrust can be upwards of 80% of the deceleration force. And the proof of this is using autobrakes while using reverse thrust. At the lower autobrake settings the antiskid won't even cycle if reverse is used.

That may be true....But far as I know, selecting autobrakes gives you a predetermined deceleration rate. So if the thrust reversers are able to provide said deceleration rate, then of course you won't be using any brakes.

However, the brakes are likely capable of providing a deceleration rate far exceeding the autobrakes (at least at low or medium setting). If you touch down, use full reverse, and slam on the brakes, I'd wager that the vast majority of your stopping force will come from the brakes.

Anyway, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4932 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 10):
That may be true....But far as I know, selecting autobrakes gives you a predetermined deceleration rate. So if the thrust reversers are able to provide said deceleration rate, then of course you won't be using any brakes.

Please re-read the post. The poster made the comment that wheel brakes are the "primary stopping force" during landings where reverse and brakes are used. Assuming normal braking, at high speeds, reverse thrust will result in very little braking and as you slow down the brakes will become more and more active due to the reduced effectiveness of reverse thrust.

Yes, selecting autobrakes will give you a predetermined deceleration rate. However, the thread had been talking about normal braking and I never mentioned anything about a max energy stop.

Interestingly enough, a maximum energy stop is accomplished by using manual braking and full reverse.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 10):
I'd wager that the vast majority of your stopping force will come from the brakes.

I think you'd find the energy is not quite as much as you think again, because of the fact reverse thrust is extremely effective at higher airspeeds.


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10349 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4923 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
Please re-read the post. The poster made the comment that wheel brakes are the "primary stopping force" during landings where reverse and brakes are used. Assuming normal braking, at high speeds, reverse thrust will result in very little braking and as you slow down the brakes will become more and more active due to the reduced effectiveness of reverse thrust.

OK, I see what you were responding to.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
Interestingly enough, a maximum energy stop is accomplished by using manual braking and full reverse.

Maximum manual braking can give you more braking power than full autobrakes, correct?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
I think you'd find the energy is not quite as much as you think again, because of the fact reverse thrust is extremely effective at higher airspeeds.

Fair enough. You'd know better than I. I'd just assume that the airplane would have slowed down quite a bit before the reversers even deployed and the engines spooled up.

Thanks for the clarifications.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4845 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Maximum manual braking can give you more braking power than full autobrakes, correct?

Depends on the setting and airplane. On the ones I know of, autobrakes 1-max are preset deceleration rates, and you can go higher using max manual. However, the RTO setting on the autobrakes should be equivalent to max manual.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Fair enough. You'd know better than I. I'd just assume that the airplane would have slowed down quite a bit before the reversers even deployed and the engines spooled up.

Typical deploy time for a reverser is ~4 seconds. So the plane may be slowing, but it hasn't had a whole lot time to do so.

Tom.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4811 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Maximum manual braking can give you more braking power than full autobrakes, correct?



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13):
However, the RTO setting on the autobrakes should be equivalent to max manual.

Yes, manual braking gives you more braking than MAX on the autobrakes.

The FCTM on the 744 says that with manual braking you get the best braking when compared to any mode of the autobrake system.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

What is the AC SOP in such cases...Do they give priority to Brakes with Idle reverse or increase the brake overhaul life by using more reverse thrust & save on the brakes until needed.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKimberlyrj From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

I wonder why the policy over reverse thrust has changed over the years!?

When I was a kid I used to love landing at airports, Greece, Africa, Spain – all over where the pilots would use so much reverse thrust you would and most of the town around the airport knew you had arrived.

Being cabin crew I don’t get to see the engines during take off and landing, but I can tell you that reverse is hardly ever selected at the larger airports – even when the runway is wet.

I was on a Boeing 777 last year coming in from JFK early in the morning at LHR and we touched down normally, started to break normally when there was an odd vibration felt, I knew I was not the only one to feel it as the PAX went to look out their windows (always a good sign something is up)… Way after reverse is normally selected (if used) the pilots revved both engines into what sounded like full reverse – it sounded glorious!

It was must unusual for early morning ops at LHR I can tell you…

So has the GE engines on a Boeing 777-200LR got quieter? I don’t think so, I think the pilots are just in idle reverse  Wink

Kimberly.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4730 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
But, I can assure you, at higher speeds even selecting a idle reverse will generate a fairly good deceleration rate. Anything above idle reverse will give you better braking. At higher speeds reverse thrust can be upwards of 80% of the deceleration force. And the proof of this is using autobrakes while using reverse thrust. At the lower autobrake settings the antiskid won't even cycle if reverse is used.

Yes, I understand, but in terms of the overall braking effect of both reverse thrust and autobrakes or manual braking, the contribution from the reverse thrust on a dry runway is relatively small ... like less than 15% extra braking effort. I don't have the numbers to hand, but performance tables will show reduced landing distances of only a few percent less for dry runways when using reverse thrust ... but up to 20% or more for slush/ice contamination.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineDaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

Just from a passenger's point of view, I've noticed that reverse thrust also depends on the activity at the airport, and the location of the runway exits. For example, in the landings at EWR, all of my flights have used reverse thrust -- my assumption is that they must use specific runway exits so that three planes are ready at the same time to cross the active takeoff runway on their way to the terminal. The 737s would have no trouble landing on a dry 11,000 ft runway, but they are instructed by ground control to be at a certain place at a certain moment. Another example is SWF with a 12,000 ft runway (albeit with a displaced threshold), a CRJ should have no trouble stopping in plenty of time with brakes alone. Yet most pilots use reverse because the runway exits are spaced so far apart. If they pass the exit by the crosswind runway, they have to roll out to the end of runway 27, and then it's a long taxi back to the terminal. I was very surprised recently that on my 777 flight to TLV, no reverse was used, not even idle. We just rolled out to the end, probably because the runway is 11,000 ft, and there is little traffic. When we returned to EWR, again no reverse, but our landing was at 5 a.m., so there was little traffic as well. Am I correct, or is this simply my own theory?!

User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3395 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4715 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 7):
only something like 10-15% of total braking force.



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
At higher speeds reverse thrust can be upwards of 80% of the deceleration force.



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 17):
like less than 15%



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 17):
but up to 20% or more for slush/ice contamination.

In the gas turbine section of the AME course we were taught that thrust reversers would normally contribute approximately 20% of the braking force, but can be kicked up to ~50% in emergencies or if the runway is really slippery or wet.


CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4655 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 17):
Yes, I understand, but in terms of the overall braking effect of both reverse thrust and autobrakes or manual braking, the contribution from the reverse thrust on a dry runway is relatively small ... like less than 15% extra braking effort. I don't have the numbers to hand, but performance tables will show reduced landing distances of only a few percent less for dry runways when using reverse thrust ... but up to 20% or more for slush/ice contamination.

First of all, the performance charts don't show any effect of reverse thrust. It's not taken into consideration when computing landing distances.

You really need to go back and re-read the post. I never talked about the overall braking just about "normal" ops. However, if you want to go there, your 15% is too low. At higher airspeeds, especially hi-bypass fans, the reverse effect is much greater that 15%. If you look at the effectiveness with respect to KIAS, you would see a dramatic drop off of reverse thrust effectiveness as you get into the 100KIAS range. That has been true for all the Hi-bypass aircraft I've flown (747/DC-10/747/744). Granted on the older aircraft, like the 727 the effect of reverst thrust was much less.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4419 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 20):
You really need to go back and re-read the post. I never talked about the overall braking just about "normal" ops.

I just commented on the effect and contribution to overall braking. I wasn't starting an argument, or even disagreeing .... purely stating some facts, that's all.

Just because folks are discussing slightly different aspects of reverse braking doesn't mean we are disagreeing with you, or that we need to re-read your post.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 20):
However, if you want to go there, your 15% is too low. At higher airspeeds, especially hi-bypass fans, the reverse effect is much greater that 15%.

Perhaps you need to reread my post  Wink

You just mentioned that I was talking about overall braking .... and that's exactly what I meant. It's also almost non-effective at speeds less than 60kts. The effective of reverse thrust on deceleration and the decrease in total landing distance is a small percentage.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4364 times:



Quoting Kimberlyrj (Reply 16):
I wonder why the policy over reverse thrust has changed over the years!?

Three major factors:
1) Fuel cost
2) Noise concerns
3) Carbon brakes

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 20):
First of all, the performance charts don't show any effect of reverse thrust. It's not taken into consideration when computing landing distances.

Yes, it is. It's not taken into consideration when computing *dry* landing distances. It can be (depending on when the aircraft was certified) for wet landing distances.

Tom.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4211 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 20):
First of all, the performance charts don't show any effect of reverse thrust

Well, the ones I have in front of me all do. They clearly show landing distance adjustments with/without reverse thrust on each engine, on dry runways, and good/med/poor braking action for contaminated runways. Whether it's taken into account or not is another matter.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4199 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 23):
Well, the ones I have in front of me all do. They clearly show landing distance adjustments with/without reverse thrust on each engine, on dry runways, and good/med/poor braking action for contaminated runways. Whether it's taken into account or not is another matter.

If you're looking at the QRH, that's another issue. Those are airline specific and not part of the certification process. The performance data in Vol 2 should have the with and without reverse thrust. Under the JAA certification and the FAA reverse thrust is not considered.

What aircraft are you looking at and is it the FCOM charts or QRH?


25 Tdscanuck : I feel like I'm banging my head on a wall...FAA takes reverse thrust into account for *wet* runway certification (yes, there's a wet runway certifica
26 PhilSquares : You fail to realise I'm talking about an aircraft, the 777 and the 744 that was certified prior to that change being made. The 737NG that WN operates
27 Tdscanuck : Better. Although it does feel so good when I stop... Tom.
28 FlyDeltaJets : Im no pilot but I have done weight and balance and when the thrust revesere are MEL'ed on 737's espically the payload is almost cut in half. I think
29 Post contains links Bond007 : Well, up to now we've been talking landing distances. If we now switch to accelerate-stop distances, FAR 25 specifies that reverse thrust can be used
30 MPDPilot : I thought I might chime in here. Currently being in a CRJ systems class, the explanation that I have been given is that both the thrust reversers and
31 LongHauler : Another factor is that Air Canada owns the aircraft/engines and fuel (so to speak) but only leases the brakes on a per-landing basis. For that reason,
32 Vikkyvik : Not to get too off-topic here, but how does that work? What's the idea behind leasing the brakes? I would have thought they came with the aircraft.
33 Post contains links Scxmechanic : On the Boeing 737NG Reverse Thrust IS considered when landing distances are computed. See quote from accident report below.... http://www.ntsb.gov/re
34 Bond007 : That quote wasn't from me .... but regardless of whether it's taken in to consideration or not, the charts show adjustments for landing distance with
35 OldAeroGuy : Depends on what version of the 777 you're considering. The 772LR and the 773ER use reverse thrust credit for takeoff stopping distance on wet runways
36 Tdscanuck : The brakes do come with the aircraft, but they're consumable (like tires and, in some sense, engines). If you lease engines they also come on the air
37 LongHauler : It is a novel idea. The brakes are owned by a third party, and Air Canada pays a fee to this third party on a per-landing basis. In return, this thir
38 Viscount724 : A month or so ago there was an interview in Aviation Week magazine with the CEO of Goodrich, one of the major manufacturers of aircraft landing gear,
39 Vikkyvik : That is very interesting - thanks for the info. Had never heard of that before.
40 OldAeroGuy : You can use the reversers on dry as well. However, in dry conditions the brakes are so effective that the reversers contribution to stopping distance
41 Tdscanuck : Oh, absolutely. It's just the assumptions behind the calculations...the certified stopping distance on a dry runway assumes you don't use reversers.
42 TinPusher007 : Not true! Once the reverser is deployed, even if only idle, the fan air is still reversed and thus the engine is indeed producing reverse thrust. It
43 Tdscanuck : That depends on the specific engine. Fan thrust varies a lot more with throttle position than core thrust so, at idle, you could get into a situation
44 TinPusher007 : Point taken! And I honestly didn't consider that. I would think an engine like the GE-90-110 on the 77L having such a large fan, you would have a net
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Mystery Behind Quiet Reversing On AC's 772LR?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Some Observations On A Trip From YYZ<->MCO Via AC posted Sat Sep 27 2008 11:17:10 by Xero9
772LR Climb Performance On One Engine posted Fri Feb 29 2008 21:47:35 by VikingA346
Spacing Behind Heavys - On The Taxiway? posted Tue Aug 7 2007 04:33:17 by N353SK
AC And DC Motors Used On Aircraft posted Sat May 14 2005 15:14:23 by Matt72033
Landings With Retracted Wing On F14 Type AC posted Sun Mar 20 2005 18:33:21 by Arniepie
Question On UK Metars posted Wed Oct 29 2008 15:18:27 by RJdxer
E170: No Anti-Ice On Certain Parts? posted Wed Oct 29 2008 11:57:24 by AndyinPIT
GE, Nasa To Reunite On Open Rotor Wind-tunnel Test posted Mon Oct 27 2008 01:15:24 by Aviationbuff
Notar On An Airplane? posted Wed Oct 22 2008 12:43:37 by Alessandro
On Which Model (If) Did The 737 Stairs Stop? posted Fri Oct 17 2008 21:32:42 by CVG2LGA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format