I have to say, I'm astounded!!!Purely by accident, I've come across an aircraft where the reverse thrusters actually reverse the plane! My understanding was that this wasn't possible in FS2002. Apparently it is.There's no mention of this feature in the readme files that come with the plane and I can only assume that it has something to do with the enormous level of power in the engines.Unless I'm missing something obvious here, I'd suggest that someone who knows a lot more about .air files than I do, take a look and find out why this plane manages to do what I've seen no other plane in FS2002 manage - go backwards when reverse thrusters are applied from a standstill.EDIT: *STOP!! - I've got 2 blackbird's and posted the details for the wrong files* - the files that achieve this are blbm5.zip and blbm5up.zip by Alejandro Villa

The project Fokker F100 and F70The POSKY 747, 767, A330, CRJ, 777The Project Airbus A320plus hundreds of other freeware aircrafts have animated thrust reversers !Even the default ms planes have animated thrust reversers.../)_/). _ Cl

I don't think he was referring to animated reversers. Backing the aircraft down the runway with the reversers can be done with a change in the airfile. The firefox also has this feature. Don't remember the exact line in the airfile or the setting; but if you do a search here and at flightsim you should find the thread(s) that discuss how to do it.

You're quite right - it was the fact that backwards mtion was possible that I hadn't come across before. I previously understood it wasn't possible in FS2002 in similar fashion to displaying animated raising and lowering of undercarriages in helicopter models.If anyone has the details for the modification necessary in an airfile to achieve this reverse motion, I'd be very interested.

Haa, the Dash7 does that, actually my Dash 7 which I modified will do a wheely ;-)

I posted this a week or so ago. Recnum 313 in the .air file controls reverse thrust. It is set to -25 on most aircraft. Experiment by raising it just enough so you can gain some reverse momentum. Usually, somewhere between -50 and -75, depending on the thrust to weight ratio of the aircraft.Some aircraft--namely military fighters, have such a high thrust to weight ratio that no modification is necessary.A good technique is required to release "enhanced" reverse thrust. It takes a while for engines to spool down, so you need to gradually apply brakes as you slowly release reverse thrust. If you retract the reversers while the engines are still spooled up, the plane will accelerate forward. The gate team might not like that :)-John

This was a lot of fun in FS98, spent countless hours on the ground doing backflips with an Su-27 :)

Thanks very much. :)I'm off to amend a bout 30 .air files... LOL

Not sure of the author but C130 originally for FS2000 and able to be used in 2002 will go backwards quite easily.Andrew

As far as I have understood, and I might be wrong, thrust revers should never be used for backing up the aircraft. The reason given, was that it could damage the engines.Jozef Kusters http://httpd.chello.nl/~j-kusters/logo.gif [link:Ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Tradewind/"]Visit TCA TradeWind ][/font

Very true. It's just that in the pursuit of "As real as it gets", they could, even though they shouldn't. :)

"As far as I have understood, and I might be wrong, thrust revers should never be used for backing up the aircraft."MD-80's, 90's and some other rear engined aircraft do powered pushbacks quite often. I believe what you say holds true for wing mounted engines--I have never been in a powered pushback in such an aircraft. But whenever I fly between KPHX and KDFW on American, any time I have flown in an MD series A/C, powered pushbacks have been used. Most times, the pilot has announced to the pax what is happening.

Yes, quite a few aircraft are certified for thrust reverser pushbacks. They are called "Powerbacks"http://www.airliners.net/open.file/112046/M/

I seem to recall being on a 727 a long time ago where we pushed back with reverse thrust...

"Powerbacks" are used on many ramps, and you are correct, there is potential damage that can be done to the engines through 'FOD' (Foreign Object Damage) which can be anything blown up from the ramp area, so that is why you see it used mostly on aircraft with the higher mounted engines. It also increases the temp. on the engines a bit. When you ingest the hot exhaust gases into the intake, the internal temps go up. If you will notice, most pilots are off the reversers on landing at about 60 knots groundspeed for that very reason. Another item to consider is that with the change in airflow, and the lack of 'clean' airflow coming into the front of the engine, plus the elevated temps., the engines are more subject to compressor stalls, a phenomenon in which the airflow actually reverses in the engine. This effect can do a tremendous of damage in short order and causes the compressor blades to rub on the stator vanes......not good. You will notice that when powerback is used, they stop as soon as they can. We don't do it at my airline. I am an aircraft inspector by trade, so I have considerable experience with a variety of aircraft and engines, and do 'run and taxi' them on the ground. There have been a few occassions where we 'maintenance' types have actually performed 'powerbacks', but they are not done off active the ramp area gates. Of course, we also leave the number 2 engine in reverse thrust while taxiing downhill in our B727's to save the brakes. the number 2 engine has the exhaust gas directed to the sides, so there is little chance of FOD. An empty '27 will gain speed quickly going down only a slight downhill grade, so we put the number 2 into the reverse detent. We don't add power, but it is enough to keep us off the brakes. Unlike the pilots, when we wear out the brakes, we get to change them!!! Oh yeah, easy on those brakes too while backing, or you might just find the nose in the air and the tail on the ramp!!!! (with an empty aircraft)Rexbo