Originally Posted by
Atlas Shrugged
Not really......
A37575, you have to remember that there is very little, if any, reverse thrust. Most reversers only affect the fan air, not the flow from the core. Whilst the fan flow might generate some reverse, the core is still pushing you along. All reverse really does in an airliner is cancel out the core thrust, and not much more. It does destroy the lift generated by the wings and may dissipate any water that might be on the runway - both help sit the aircraft down on the ground a bit more firmly - but that's about it.
A lot of mis-information floating around on this thread, such as the above
Most thrust reversers do create a significant amount of net reverse thrust, particularly at higher airspeed (i.e. over ~100 knots) due to the ram drag of all that fan air going into the inlet. While it's true the core thrust cancels some of the reverse fan thrust, it comes no where near cancelling all the reverse thrust (it is why you'll note that max reverse N1 is typically fairly low - in the 80-85% N1 range - above that the reverse fan thrust doesn't increase as fast as the core forward thrust so a higher N1 doesn't stop you any quicker.)
Even statically, there is enough reverse thrust that you can power back a 767/CF6-80C2 (been there, done that - during flight testing). Obviously not an approved procedure though - very, very hard on the engines due to all the re-ingestion.
During the development phase of the 777, I ask the question - part in jest but also part seriously - why don't we just get rid of the reversers. They're heavy, maintenance intensive, and a T/R malfunction was blamed for the recent Lauda 767 crash. I was told the use of reverse reduces brake wear so much it saved between $50 and $100 on every landing...