Brakes, flaps, reverse thrusters & throttle....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brakes, flaps, reverse thrusters & throttle....
Hello, first post...
Can someone give me some percentages (contribution) to a standard landing of say a 747 that brakes, flaps, reverse thrusters and throttle under ideal conditions? On my commute home, the consensus appeared to be near zero throttle, full flaps, reverse thrusters and then final brake application. Our commute takes us along an international airport - an interesting conservation topic. Any assistance appreciated.
Can someone give me some percentages (contribution) to a standard landing of say a 747 that brakes, flaps, reverse thrusters and throttle under ideal conditions? On my commute home, the consensus appeared to be near zero throttle, full flaps, reverse thrusters and then final brake application. Our commute takes us along an international airport - an interesting conservation topic. Any assistance appreciated.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When calculating landing distance, it's all brakes.
When determining landing distance, it's all brakes. Reverse thrust isn't taken into account. In aircraft with autobrakes, adding reverse thrust doesn't shorten the landing distance...it simply means the brakes don't get as hot.
When applying reverse thrust, especially in aircraft with autobrakes, the rate of deceleration (acceleration, actually...there's no such thing as deceleration, but I digress...) remains the same with or without reverse thrust...it's the amount of brake energy which varies.
Your question then, which system contributes what percentage, is a big variable. In some aircraft, the use of reverse thrust has a cumulative force with the brakes in slowing the aircraft, and in others, the reverse thrust simply means that the brakes are used less...but the aircraft slows down at the same rate and brakes-only.
In maximum autobrakes, max braking is applied, and any reverse thrust applied is cumulative...it's effect on stopping the aircraft is additive to the brakes.
The ability of the brakes to work also depends in turn on other factors, such as the dumping of lift on touchdown...which may involve spoilers, autospoilers, retracting leading edge devices, etc. Spoilers don't serve to provide much of a percentage of slowing the aircraft down, but they do serve to kill lift, put more weight on the wheels, and thus make the brakes more effective.
A better way to look at the question might be to consider the penalties if a particular system isn't functioning. A reverser which is locked out, for example, will have a landing (and sometimes a takeoff) performance penalty. This isn't really the percentage of it's contributition that's missing, but an overall effect on performance when a system is partially or wholly compromised. A failed spoiler, for example, may have a performance penalty applied which reduces the capability of the aircraft to stop or which requires some assymetrical braking, thust reducing brake effectiveness and increasing ground roll. A failed anti-skid transducer may invalidate a single wheel or a pair of wheels, increasing ground roll during a rejected takeoff or during a landing.
For aircraft with autobrakes, typically the aircraft is landed with the system armed, and when ground logic tells the airplane it's actually on the ground (squat switches, sense switches in the antiskid system, weight on wheels, landing gear truck tilt, etc), then the system autobrakes engage at a preset value. In some airplanes, reverse thrust will be applied before the nosewheel touches down, and in others it must be on the ground before reverse thrust is applied. Reverse thrust is most effective at higher speeds, as are aerodynamic braking effects such as speed brakes and ground spoilers, and the amount any particular system is able to contribute to slowing the airplane varies with the configuration, the landing surface, the particular phase of the landing (high speed vs. low, for example), and so forth. The value isn't the same throughout the landing roll so far as what system is contributing what percentage to the slowing of the aircraft. It varies.
When determining landing distance, it's all brakes. Reverse thrust isn't taken into account. In aircraft with autobrakes, adding reverse thrust doesn't shorten the landing distance...it simply means the brakes don't get as hot.
When applying reverse thrust, especially in aircraft with autobrakes, the rate of deceleration (acceleration, actually...there's no such thing as deceleration, but I digress...) remains the same with or without reverse thrust...it's the amount of brake energy which varies.
Your question then, which system contributes what percentage, is a big variable. In some aircraft, the use of reverse thrust has a cumulative force with the brakes in slowing the aircraft, and in others, the reverse thrust simply means that the brakes are used less...but the aircraft slows down at the same rate and brakes-only.
In maximum autobrakes, max braking is applied, and any reverse thrust applied is cumulative...it's effect on stopping the aircraft is additive to the brakes.
The ability of the brakes to work also depends in turn on other factors, such as the dumping of lift on touchdown...which may involve spoilers, autospoilers, retracting leading edge devices, etc. Spoilers don't serve to provide much of a percentage of slowing the aircraft down, but they do serve to kill lift, put more weight on the wheels, and thus make the brakes more effective.
A better way to look at the question might be to consider the penalties if a particular system isn't functioning. A reverser which is locked out, for example, will have a landing (and sometimes a takeoff) performance penalty. This isn't really the percentage of it's contributition that's missing, but an overall effect on performance when a system is partially or wholly compromised. A failed spoiler, for example, may have a performance penalty applied which reduces the capability of the aircraft to stop or which requires some assymetrical braking, thust reducing brake effectiveness and increasing ground roll. A failed anti-skid transducer may invalidate a single wheel or a pair of wheels, increasing ground roll during a rejected takeoff or during a landing.
For aircraft with autobrakes, typically the aircraft is landed with the system armed, and when ground logic tells the airplane it's actually on the ground (squat switches, sense switches in the antiskid system, weight on wheels, landing gear truck tilt, etc), then the system autobrakes engage at a preset value. In some airplanes, reverse thrust will be applied before the nosewheel touches down, and in others it must be on the ground before reverse thrust is applied. Reverse thrust is most effective at higher speeds, as are aerodynamic braking effects such as speed brakes and ground spoilers, and the amount any particular system is able to contribute to slowing the airplane varies with the configuration, the landing surface, the particular phase of the landing (high speed vs. low, for example), and so forth. The value isn't the same throughout the landing roll so far as what system is contributing what percentage to the slowing of the aircraft. It varies.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to what SNS3G said, "It all depends..."
I've landed a 747-200 on a long runway using 2 reversers and moderate throttle (1 locked out, so the opposite one at idle reverse) and no brakes. I've landed a 747-400 with Autobrakes 4, where the reversers barely had time to spool up before we stopped. The "norm" is somewhere in between.
I've landed a 747-200 on a long runway using 2 reversers and moderate throttle (1 locked out, so the opposite one at idle reverse) and no brakes. I've landed a 747-400 with Autobrakes 4, where the reversers barely had time to spool up before we stopped. The "norm" is somewhere in between.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll add something too.
Landing on Manila's RWY 24, we always use Reverse Thrust and hardly touch the brakes until 60 kts. Purely because you want to turn off right at the end of the 13000ft runway so there is no need for a sharp deceleration to stop. Also means if our 744 shuttle flights are running a little late, there is no need to worry about having hot brakes for departure.
Landing at EGLL 9L, always Auto-brake 4 and agree with Intruder - not much time for RT to spool.
Landing on Manila's RWY 24, we always use Reverse Thrust and hardly touch the brakes until 60 kts. Purely because you want to turn off right at the end of the 13000ft runway so there is no need for a sharp deceleration to stop. Also means if our 744 shuttle flights are running a little late, there is no need to worry about having hot brakes for departure.
Landing at EGLL 9L, always Auto-brake 4 and agree with Intruder - not much time for RT to spool.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you fellow posters...
for an informative analysis of a very complicated flight procedure. I'll leave for another day, comments/remarks on the tremendous amount of heat generation and dissipation from the brakes.
