Though is't certainly not standard procedure, or a good thing to do, shouldn't it be possible to drive backwards on the ground using the thrust reversers with a 737?Cheers,Ian Udingahttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/800driver.jpg

Hi Ian, Not being a RW pilot, I will only venture a guess: Something tells me that it should be possible, but on the other hand, I belive reverse thrust will only go to 60% and the fact that it is deflected probably means that it is less efficient than the regular exhaust of the engines. So, I don't really know. I recently read that the reason for coming out of reverse thrust around 60 kts is that items on the tarmac can be blown forwards only to be sucked in by the intakes and cause damage. I seem to remember an incident where a plane used reverse thrust to reverse away from the gate. This happened during a snow blizzard which caused some sensors in the engines to be totally covered in ice and snow. The plane crashed into the Potomac river shortly after take off due to wrong N1 indications caused by the covered sensors. Forgive me if all the details are not correct, the gist of it should be ok, though :-)Hope this helps,BoazEKCH (soon to be KSEA)

Another piece of nomenclature too...It voids the engine warranty with the engine manufacturer on the 737NG, to operate reverse thrust while on the ground other than when used for landing or a canceled takeoff. Eric

My dad was a RW DC-8 & DC-10 Capt. who told me that he once (1960-70's?) backed up a DC-8 using reverse thrust, (no pax on board, and tug avail as I recall).I've pesonally seen a C-130 back up. Problem is stopping....can go on it's tail. I serioulsy doubt ANY airline would permit it today under anything but emerg circumstances.

yes you could back the aircraft up. it is not an approved procedure due to the high risk of FOD damage with bypass type reversers. The old clam shells on the -100/-200 series could do it with far less risk and I have seen several airlines do it from gates years ago with full loads of people when equipment was inop.

Continental's MD-80s have done powerbacks for many years though only at approved airports. Modern aircraft with low-mounted engines don't perform powerbacks because of the increased risk of sucking equipment or ramp debris into the engine. Not to mention that the trust is kicked toward the terminal (and ground crew) at ground level! As others have said, only engines with the clamshell style revesers are used for powerbacks.-Travis Menard

The 737NG is not appoved for powerbacks. Not to say that it can't be done, but the risks of FOD damage are very high.Cheers, JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

>The 737NG is not appoved for powerbacks. Not to say that it>can't be done, but the risks of FOD damage are very high.But why is it not possible to do with the PMDG 737?I know it is not a good idea to do it with a 'low mounted engines' plane, but it is possible. But if i apply full reverse in the PMDG 737, it won't move an inch.?Cheers,Ian Udingahttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/800driver.jpg

>in the PMDG 737, it won't move an inch.I'm not really surprised... Where would the PMDG team get the information on how to model this accurately? The NTSB perhaps? :( http://www.ntsb.gov/Anyway, please let the team know if you come across this kind of information ;-)Thanks.Cheers.Ian.

>>The 737NG is not appoved for powerbacks. Not to say that it>>can't be done, but the risks of FOD damage are very high.>>But why is it not possible to do with the PMDG 737?>I know it is not a good idea to do it with a 'low mounted>engines' plane, but it is possible. But if i apply full>reverse in the PMDG 737, it won't move an inch.>>?>>Cheers,>>Ian Udinga>>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/800driver.jpgHi Ian,As I said before the NG series was not certified for powerback. Why would PMDG spend their time to model something that cannot be done legally IRL?Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

I can understand why :)But isn't this 'disability' effecting the effectiveness of the reversers at lower speeds than 60 knots? I know you should stop reversing at lower speeds, but this is a simulation. :)Cheers,Ian Udingahttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/800driver.jpg

AFAIK, the physics model in FS2004 doesn't allow for power backs. I've never been able to get a plane to move backwards with reverse thrust. Has anyone been able to pull it off?

ive done it it in the LD 767adam

>I can understand why :)>>But isn't this 'disability' effecting the effectiveness of the>reversers at lower speeds than 60 knots? I know you should>stop reversing at lower speeds, but this is a simulation. :)>>Cheers,>>Ian Udinga>>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/800driver.jpgWhat you are talking about pertains to how FS9 models reverse thrust. IRL, the NG should have the reversers stowed at 60 knots as most of the TR braking action happens at higher speeds. Also, IRL, braking distances don't take into account the use of reverse thrust as part of the certification process. As it stands, the way PMDG have modelled the reverse thrust is realistic in as much as landing distances and performance are concerned.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

I have reversed from the gate or on the ramp with the following A/C in Fs2004:Citation XAeroworx King Air B200Level D 767 (only 1 time)Captain Sim's 727SGA's MD95Of course I now have no engine warranties and the ground crew runs when they see me start :)EDIT:kelly