I must have annoyed the great Point 7, he's gone and cancelled our Valentine's jaunt to Copenhagen....what's the matter P7, was it my words, or how I said them? I'll buy you some flowers, dear......

Oh yes, oysters, strawberries, the lot. very romantic....

Steady folk! I'll have you off to 'Agony Aunt' as quick as a flash.

isn't it true that the A380 will only have thrust reversers on 2 of its 4 engines? not a joke, a question.

Yeah, at least at this stage the allmighty 380 has thrust reversers only on #2 and #3.
That's because it's wingspan is much wider than any other plane landing on any other runway, and the risk of sucking in unwanted objects in the outboard engines is a factor.
Last but not least it doesen't need thrust reversers on all 4 to stop.
EDIT: John, you are rated on 119 more aircraft types than me, dunno why i bother to answer you, or why you are asking.

Yes just the inboards, simplifies things and with all those wheels to brake who needs all 4 reversing?

At the moment it seems that having only two thrusters on the '380 is working out quite well. As far as I know Airbus are planning to stick with this design.

However if one of the engines that has the reverse thrust has to be shut down during flight, then would this be a problem upon bringing the aircraft to a halt when landing?

Not more of a problem than stopping a 2 engine jet with one engine.

Belive Airbus wanted none, but customer pilots wanted some. so, two were fitted in the Nbr2 and 3 positions.

Would expect later 380's to have none.

Phil Hudson,
Am I dumb or is the amount of reverse thrust available from 1 out of 4 less than the amount available from 1 out of 2.
The number of thoughtless posts on these forums increases by the day!

The A380 has 50% of all its engines set with thrust reversers,
the 777 has 100% of all its engines set with thrust reversers.
SO, if a 380 goes short of one engine to kick bacwards it isn't
more critical than if a 777 does the same.
On both types thrust reversers isn't a certification minima.

If thats true re certificated reverse I apologise. It still is only half the effective reverse of a 777 though!

What's a thruster??? Thought this was something you find on a spacecraft??

IIRC the early brochures for the A340-500/600 stated reversers would not be fitted. It was probably customer pressure that reversed (heh...) that plan.

People- get the need for thrust reversers off your mind! All landing performance is calculated without including any thrust reverse. On these really big engines, it is quite common to find the mechanism doesn't travel correctly and reverse won't apply. They are also not very efficient at actually reverse thrusting. Nice to have when conditions are pretty horrible, but any aeroplane can land perfectly satisfactorily without applying reverse thrust at all! It is a perfectly sensible decision for Airboos not to install it in the outboards- FOD ingestion and it is a big engine to have all that reverse so far from the centreline- I recall a 747 taking a swim in the Pacific for this reason.

- not contaminated for 737NG, sir, if you read the Midway thread. - and that has rocked a few conceptions!

The answer is simple.

It was done to save weight.

Rainboe - to update you on this issue:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/060127.htm

"Aeroflot Tupolev 104 this is Gatwick tower. Do not release your parachute after landing!"

There are inumerable post in PPRUNE about the fact that reverse thrust gets only slightly more than zero credit for stopping performance. Modern Jets don't rely on TR for stoppng it's all brakes.

Except 737 NG on contaminated, ARINC!!